Back in 1969 the then Director of the SIS, Brigadier Gilbert, informed New Zealanders that this sevice used "whatever means available to us", that they "vary a great deal" and in answer to a question replied "Oh yes. We are expert in the use of bugging devices".

The SIS Amendments will give the SIS unlimited legal protection to use "whatever means" it feels it needs to use to gain 'Intelligence'.

Obviously the presence of such legislation must focus attention on its object—the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service. What does the service do and what effect will strengthening the SIS have on our democratic freedoms? We must answer these questions clearly if we are to come to an understanding of the Government's motives in pushing this legislation.

Maintaining the status quo—internally

Internally the SIS protects us from the pernicious influence of "subversives".

To be a "subversive" one has to undermine "by unlawful means the authority of the State in New Zealand". To be "potentially subversive" one needs only to seen as likely to become "subversive"—the judgement, which cannot be challenged, will be made by the SIS. Having made such a judgement the SIS will collect information on, and in some cases harrass, the "subversive or potentially subversive" subject.

Every unionised worker in New Zealand is a "potential" or actual "subversive".

In this country struggles by unions for decent wages and conditions have always had a political aspect—they always will. The State through various Regulations and Laws intervenes every where it can in the relationship between worker and employer. Often unions carrying out their basic function in defending their members interests have been forced into confrontations with the Government of the day.

In 1968 Unions struck and massed a huge demonstration on Parliament grounds against the Government's nil wage order. Troops were present in the basement of Parliament 'in case of trouble'.

In 1976 Unions again struck and massed a huge demonstration against the Government's wage freeze Regulations. Barriers were erected to prevent workers from getting too near Parliament buildings.

In 1977 several confrontations loom. Again these confrontations will have been inspired by consciously anti-worker policies promulgated by the Government of the day. Confrontation is likely when the Government attempts to run its secret ballots on voluntary unionism. Confrontation is inevitable when the Government finally gets tough on wage rises and enforces the "social contract".

Are strikes subversive

This awful logic of the SIS which makes the struggle for a basic human right an object of scrutiny is vindicated by the actual working of the definition of "subversion" in the Act which created the SIS as a separate Department in 1969. Actions need to meet to two criteria to qualify as subversive. They must first be illegal and they must secondly undermine "the authority of the state". Today a political strike against the Government is immediately "subversive" as it is firstly illegal and secondly it is intended to change Government policy—which is undermining "the authority of the state".

The current Amendments also add "terrorism" to the list of evils the SIS is to defend us from. Already the Prime Minister has checked up and found out that strike action can be included under the definition of "terrorism" proposed in the Amendment. The legal justification of (the SIS) spying on and practising dirty tricks within the trade union movement will be further consolidated by the Amendments currently before the House.

In the past the SIS has used this legal basis for spying within the union movement to openly intervene in internal union debates. The SIS supplied files to F.P. Walsh so that he could smear and defeat his opponents within the union movement. The SIS has consistently tapped the phones of trade unionists and in some cases searched their homes. It would be highly unlikely that they would not have some members of the movement currently on their payroll to supply information and disrupt unity.

The trade unions have been one of the SIS's main areas of concern but the broad definition of "subversion" and the unaccountability of their actions have allowed them to delve into two other major areas internally—the left of the political spectrum and the universities.

Groups from the Labour Party on leftwards have received the scrutiny and often the dirty tricks of the SIS. A recent Values Party meeting had an SIS agent present. There is widespread belief that the SIS leaked information to Truth over the 'think tank' affair. The Communist Party was defined as the Service's "main target" by its then Director, Brigadier Gilbert, in 1966.

SIS infiltration of universities

A number of incidents have highlighted the activities of the SIS on the universities. Despite all statements to the contrary SIS agents and paid informers are present on campus. This was confirmed in the Dominion of March 5, 1974 by Michael Parker after an investigation into SIS activities.

One example of the SIS and Victoria University will demonstrate how they aid "democracy" and fight "subversion":

(From a statement by Roger Boshier in 1969)

"In October 1966 I joined the Victoria University National Party Club, was elected Vice-Chairman (in the absence of the usual Chairman) and allowed motions and debate on the Vietnam issue. A motion to withdraw troops from Vietnam caused considerable distress to some members of the Branch and the next day they went to National Party headquarters to seek advice. Mr R.J. Laurenson, the Wellington Regional Chairman of the National Party, telephoned Mr Barnes, the Prime Minister's private secretary, who telephoned Security to see what they had in their files that could be used to embarrass me. Mr Marshall, the Deputy Prime Minister, confirmed what happened next. Mr Barnes relayed back to Mr Laurenson what Security had told him, namely that I was not a Communist or a fellow traveller, and that what was on the files was already public knowledge (Committee on Vietnam activities). Mr Laurenson had sought security information "with all the assurance and anticipation apparently gained from past experience" (N. Kirk, Oct, 1966)".

Again the SIS was being used to intervene directly in the political activities of New Zealand citizens—this time not in the trade union movement but the internal affairs of a student club.

SIS serves a rotten system

While some of the failures of the SIS have been comical in the extreme they are not guided by a basic motivation to be comedians. Instead their dishonesty and subterfuge has a clear and serious purpose. That purpose relates directly to the preservation of capitalist society—the preservation of a system where profit making and not the fulfilment of social needs is primary.

This role of the SIS becomes clearer when the country is in the economic shit. The Government of the day inevitable attempts to bail out big business by putting the burden of escaping from the crisis on the backs of these least able to pay (workers, students, beneficiaries, women etc.). As a result more and more groups are forced to oppose the Government's policies. The Government deals with this opposition through political repression. Laws are passed outlawing strikes, racial oppression increases, smears and other dirty tricks are used on opponents. In this situation attempts to fight the attacks upon the living standards become illegal and subversive and the SIS can be called in to help deal with the Government's opponents.

Today our economic downturn is deepening and threatening to eclipse in severity the Depression of the Thirties. The Government is passing more repressive legislation every day. This legislation is making even the most basic defence of people's living standards and rights illegal and, in as much as it would be directed at the Government, "subversive".

In such a climate the budget of the SIS is being jacked up and its powers and secrecy strengthened to a degree normally only found in fascist or near-fascist states.

In fighting the activities of the SIS we are fighting the greatest threat to our democratic rights. It is clear that today it is the New Zealand people who need protection from a Government that is subverting their living standards and liberties and not the opposite. The SIS is on the opposite side of the fence from those who wish to preserve and enhance democracy—its strengthening will only make the acession to power of fascism that much easier.

Preserving the status quo—externally

The SIS is not just the tool of internal repression—it is also the pawn of external forces that would 'subvert' our society. Through permanent telex links, regular staff interchanges and training programmes the SIS is joined into the worldwide activities of the CIA. All these contacts are increasing.

New Zealand is firmly entrenched in the US Alliance and as a result the SIS undertakes activities on behalf of a 'friendly' foreign power which are in fundamental conflict with the interests of the New Zealand people. Pressure from the CIA and the British Secret Service was used to try and prevent W.B. Sutch from becoming the head of the Department of Industries on Commerce in the late 1950s. Sutch's crime was to advocate economic independence for New Zealand and a curtailing of the economic stranglehold held over NZ by the major western powers. The pressure was unsuccessful.

The US Alliance also conditioned the definition of "subversive". New Zealanders who oppose US foreign policy are seen as threatening the ANZUS alliance, which is supposedly essential to our security.

We are not just forbidden to dissent from our own Government's policies—we must also keep a careful eye on those of the United States if we do not wish to labelled subversive.

Keeping an eye on the KGB

Recently the US has been under severe threat from the Soviet Union. While the US has lost much power since its defeat in Vietnam the Soviet Union has grown in power around the world. As part of our committment to the US Alliance our SIS does its part of surveillance of Soviet security agents and the local followers of Soviet policies.

The extent to which this has taken place is shown by the emphasis laid on combatting the external threat at the time of the Powles report. Much publicity was given to the number of Soviet agents in New Zealand and the threat they posed.

There no doubt that the number of Soviet agents is large and their concern is hardly benevolent but currently our SIS sees our external threat in terms of the power bloc our politicians have committed us to—the US bloc. Thus in its vision the external threat to security the SIS is influenced by the view of the Government of the day. Its view of the external threat does not stem from a considered analysis of New Zealand's real needs and the actual motivations of certain foreign powers.

Conclusion

In its analysis of the internal threat and external threat to our security the SIS equates "our security" with the security of the capitalist system and the "security" of the US in its contention with the USSR.

With the advent of the SIS Amendment Bill the activities of the SIS are no longer a laughing matter, no longer an exercise in the absurd—they are a matter of intense concern to all of us. The need to disband the service is more pressing. The need to harrass, expose, and nullify the activities of its officers is stronger.

We may never have another chance.