page 3

Security definition vague - lawyer

"The definition of 'Security' in the Security Intelligence Bill is very vague", said Dr. Palmer, a lecturer in the Political Science Department, at the Security Teach-in last Sunday.

"It is defined in the Bill as the protection of New Zealand from espionage, sabotage, and subversion, whether or not it is directed from or intended to be committed within New Zealand.

" 'Sabotage' is satisfactory because it is a crime under the present law", said Dr. Palmer. "Espionage is not so clear, although it probably includes some of the ideas embodied in the Crimes Act under 'Communication of Secrets'. Treason' and Inciting to Mutiny.'

"'Subversion' is very unsatisfactory for two reasons, firstly, we don't know what it means, and secondly, even if we did know what it meant we have no frame of reference in which to fit the word."

It has been suggested that "subversion" should be replaced by "sedition" as defined Palmer pointed out that the New Zealand Law of Sedition was one of the strictest in the Commonwealth.

"Involved in Sedition in New Zealand is the concept of defuming the Government, and a free society could be defined as one which can do just that "Overseas legislation requires on intention to incite violence before any statement can be seditious.

"My answer would be to bring 'sedition into line with the less restrictive tests in other countries, and define 'security' in terms of the particular crimes in the Crimes Act which relate to the protection of Public Order.

"I would resist any attempts to make "security" include investigation of conduct which is not illegal under the present law of the land."

Having discussed the definition of "security". Dr. Palmer went on to point out that the Bill left too much to the discretion of the Director.

"It is essential that we tell the Service what to do rather than allow the Director to decide", he said.

Furthermore the Service should not do anything to prejudice a man without giving a hearing—this is a rule of natural justice.

A provision should therefore be written into the Bill so that any findings of the Strike should be given to the individual concerned so that he has the opportunity to refute it.

"The idea of disclosure of information is one of the ultimate safeguards in a democracy", Dr. Palmer concluded.