Questions On Role Of Security Service

Press, Volume CVI, Issue 31113, 16 July 1966, Page 1

Questions On Role Of Security Service

Does not the Security Service represent a greater threat to freedom in New Zealand than the alleged danger it is supposed to guard against? asks the Canterbury Council for Civil Liberties, in a letter to the Prime Minister, and Canterbury members of Parliament. The letter asks for an inquiry into the political activities of the Security Service —“which appears of particular importance to us, in that the Security Service has been stated to receive 1500 requests for information a month.” The council is also concerned about the threat to civil liberties by the growing exercise of police powers, and considers more safeguards are necessary, in relevant statutes, against certain powers of arrest without warrant. It intends to establish a committee to examine the mat-

ter and make recommendations for submission to the appropriate Law Reform Committee. Political “Security” New Zealanders, because of their geographical isolation, are afraid of being shocked out of their own complacency, says the Council for Civil Liberties. They are inclined to abhor all risk. If they build on top of their social security a system of political “security,” then the future of New Zealand is dark. The Security Service, according to Brigadier H. E. Gilbert, its director, was established by the Government in 1956 to protect New Zealand against subversion and espionage, says the council. i “We do not discuss the need for an organisation to combat espionage,” its letter says. “But it is difficult to see how a public organisation can be formed to fight ‘subversion’ and yet not endanger essential civil liberties. “There is no such crime as ‘subversion’ in the public statutes of this country. There are such things as sedition, treason, libel, etc., all reaisonably well defined. But

there is no such thing as subversion.” The Security Service, says the council, seems in its political activities to offend an essential aspect of the law—that a person must be breaking a law to come into conflict with it If, on top of this, the public authority supervising “subversive” elements has no duty to inform the persons so supervised of any action that may be taken against them—and the person has no way of confronting his accusers—then one might justly ask whether the Security Service does not represent a greater threat to New • Zealand’s freedom than the i alleged danger it is supposed I to guard against. “In our view, civil liberties are indivisible,” says the : council. “If there is persecu- > tion and intimidation of one ' particular party, and of pers sons belonging to one particui lar party, this persecution and ■ intimidation must spread to ’ other parts of the community. “Except where radical i opinions are demonstrably • associated with criminal ac- : tions, there is no place for , police supervision of political ■ parties, opinions, or activities. ; This is the very essence of

democracy, and it is only in an atmosphere of tolerance and complete freedom of expression and association that thought and spiritual progress can flourish.” Loss Of Liberties K politicians permit a Security Service to come into existence and spread, because of a supposed, although not real, need for it, if they allow various extensions of police powers, restriction of radio time, and discriminatibn against political parties and minority views, the public will slowly become used to, and accept, the loss of liberty, the council says.

The greatest danger to civil liberties lies not in their sudden, dramatic abolition, but in their gradual loss, the council’s letter says. “Civil liberties can and will be lost almost imperceptibly, unless Parliament and the people are always on the lookout against even the smallest infringements. “One day the public will wake up, to find that the freedom which they thought was the essence of their Western world has disappeared without their realising it. But then it will be too late.”