Defence leaks may be subject of Govt inquiry

Press, 29 January 1986, Page 1

Defence leaks may be subject of Govt inquiry

By

MARTIN FREETH

in Wellington

Information leaks allegedly made by “disloyal” military officers and Ministry of Defence staff may be the subject of a formal Government inquiry.

The Prime Minister, Mr Lange, said yesterday he would meet the chairman of the State Services Commission, Dr Mervyn Probine, to consider whether such an inquiry was necessary. Mr Lange said the Ministry’s own internal inquiry had been unsuccessful in Identifying the source of leaks which the Minister of Defence, Mr O’Flynn, alleged on Monday were made with the aim of discrediting the Government and its defence policy. Participation by the commission could lead to a more extensive inquiry into the affair, which has also exposed a rift between Mr O’Flynn and defence chiefs. Mr O’Flynn told "The Press” yesterday that action would be taken if those responsible for the improper release of information to journalists and the Opposition could be identified, “but I am

sure they cannot be.” Answering questions submitted in writing, Mr O’Flynn indicated that he was not in favour of bringing in the police “or any other outside agency” to investigate his allegations. “I am fatalistic about leaks. I do not think they can be entirely prevented in any organisation of any size,” Mr O’Flynn said in his written reply. The commission has authority to subpoena witnesses to answer questions on matters relating to the loyalty of State servants to Ministers. A commission spokesman said “one or two” cases of information leaking were brought to it by departments each year but they normally were investigated by commission officials without a formal inquiry. The spokesman could recall only one case in recent years where the police had been brought

in. The Leader of the Opposition, Mr McLay, yesterday repeated a call for Mr Lange to seek police investigation if he believed leaks had occurred which could constitute an offence under the Crimes Act. “Any citizen who believes that a crime has been committed has an obligation to report the matter to the police for investigation. That legal obligation extends right up to Mr Lange; he is not exempt by virtue of his exalted office,” Mr McLay said. Mr Lange had a constitutional responsibility to deal with the rift between Mr O’Flynn and the defence chiefs, he said. The public criticisms made by Mr O’Flynn were unprecedented. “One of the foundations of our system of government is that of a politically independent public service. The two officers

Mr O’Flynn has criticised have served successive Governments — Labour and National — for many years,” Mr McLay said.

Ministers had to accept that officials could disagree with them on matters of policy while giving advice. A Minister was then free to accept or reject advice. “If Mr Lange is not able to resolve the rift between the Minister and his department he has no alternative other than to seek the Minister’s resignation,” Mr McLay said.

Asked by “The Press” about the constitutional obligations of the Prime Minister over the affair, Professor John Roberts, a Victoria University political scientist, said Mr Lange had now to advise the Cabinet, which he chairs, on whether the Minister of Defence should remain in -the job or be moved.