Customs to send S.I.S. ‘security risk’ material

Press, 22 November 1983, Page 8

Customs to send S.I.S. ‘security risk’ material

Parliamentary reporter

New instructions have been given to all Customs Department officers concerning their links with the Security Intelligence Service.

The instructions follow complaints about the referral by Customs to the S.I.S. of mail addressed to the peace campaigner, Mr Owen Wilkes.

Mr Wilkes strongly objected, and he has tried unsuccessfully to get information about the practice from the S.I.S.

His case was taken up by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, Mr Palmer, who asserts that Customs has no legal authority to forward material or information from mail to the S.I.S.

This has been denied by the Minister of Customs, Mr Allen. The Minister said that although the procedure followed in Mr Wilkes’s case was not proper, good reasons and legal grounds existed for the practice. He asked his department to “formalise” its links with the S.I.S. The new instructions for customs officers

were then drafted by the Controller of Customs, Mr P. J. McKone.

It was necessary to lodge a written request under the Official Information Act to obtain a copy of the instructions.

They instruct officers to tell the S.I.S. if they come across “material which they believe could have security implications.” Officers are told to do this through their regional department heads. “Security” is defined as the protection of New Zealand from acts of espionage, sabotage and subversion, whether or not it is directed from or intended to be committed within New Zealand. The new instructions are attached to existing instructions on functions not expressly delegated to the Customs Department.

These say that “officers should adopt a positive attitude and assist in maintaining all legal requirements and in helping officers of other departments in the execution of their duties.” The new instructions tell

officers to apply this principle to links with the 5.1.5.:

“Because particular sensitivities exist in regard to exchanges between enforcement agencies and Intelligence agencies, formal channels of communications are to be observed.

“Accordingly, all requests from the S.I.S. will be channelled through (regional departmental heads). When any action is taken on behalf of the 5.1.5., the (regional departmental head) must be told.” Officers are told that the S.I.S. will make requests for help concerning international terrorism, and that help should be given provided there is no breach of legislation or departmental instructions.

The instructions say that records of links between Customs and the S.I.S. will be kept in the department’s internal Intelligence system.

Mr McKone refused requests from “The Press” for internal reports and reports to Mr Allen concerning the referral of Mr Wilkes’s mail to the S.I.S.

As grounds he gave provisions of the Official information Act relating to aspects of national security, to maintaining the law and to protecting the privacy of individuals.

However, Mr Palmer said yesterday that instructions given by a Government department to its officers had “no particular legal status” and that if they breached the law they should be disregarded. He repeated his statement that Customs had no legal authority to forward information from mail to the S.I.S. and said that when he had a copy of the regulations, he would refer the matter to the Ombudsman.

“I would have thought that it was wrong for a Government department to instruct its officers to act in a situation where there is no legal authority to act,” he said.

“It is one thing to open mail under the Customs Act but it is quite another to pass it on to the S.I.S. unless there is legal authority for the receipt of it.”