Security Agents ‘Should Be Graduates’

Press, Volume CVI, Issue 31086, 15 June 1966, Page 1

Security Agents ‘Should Be Graduates’

(New Zealand Press Association)

WELLINGTON, June 14. The New Zealand Security Service should employ university graduates rather than student agents, in the view of the New Zealand Council for Civil Liberties.

In a statement tonight, the council’s act-ing-chairman (Professor R. H. Brookes) said the liberties of the citizen would be safer if the Security Services officers were well educated, and capable of sophisticated analysis of political ideologies.

“From this point of view, it is a good thing that the Security Service should draw at least some of its recruits from the ranks of university graduates, and if they have studied political science, so much the better,” he said.

“However, it must be recognised that problems may arise if a security officer is concurrently a university student, and they are likely to become acute if he engages in intelligence work within a university?’ EFFECT ON DISCUSSIONS Professor Brookes, professor of political science at Victoria University, said that if a university had good reason to suspect that a student agent might be reporting on other students, it was entitled to protect their interests by excluding him from normal classroom discussions. The student agent’s presence would in any case render the discussions impossible once such suspicions spread through the class,” he said. “It is part of a university’s task critically to examine orthodox opinions, and it is neither surprising nor deplorable if, in consequence of this

activity, some students come to hold, at least for a time, unorthodox opinions. “Moreover, university education proceeds largely through discussion. If it is to be effective, students must feel free to express and defend their opinions, however unorthodox, in seminars and tutorial classes, without fear that their remarks may be recorded by security officers and used against them when they subsequently seek employment.” “NO THREAT” Such discussions in university classrooms and cafeterias constituted no threat to the security of the country. This seemed, indeed, to be recognised by spokesmen for the Security Service and the Government, who claimed that there were no security agents at any university to Investigate university activities. “However, it is admitted that Mr Godfrey, while a student at the University of Auckland, wat instructed to inquire into the visit of two Russian students to that university, and it is alleged that he also attempted to investigate New Zealand students proposing to visit China in the next long vacation. “Actions such as these have caused the students and the university authorities at Auckland to suspect that Mr Godfrey’s loyalty to his fellowstudent may be outweighed by his loyalty to the Security Service.

“Notwithstanding Mr Shand’s protestations in Parliament last Thursday, this seems to us a not unreasonable suspicion,” Professor Brookes said.

"These consequences have

been unfortunate for Mr Godfrey, and we regret that he should have been placed in such an ambiguous position. “The repercussions may yet prove more extensive, since the suspicion which Mr Godfrey incurred may also become attached to any other student who is discovered to be concurrently an agent of the Security Service. “In view of this suspicion, we hope that the Security Service will appreciate the propriety of arranging in future to recruit graduates to its staff, rather than of employing student agents.” Professor Brookes said that justifiable concern among students about possible threats to their civil liberties and career prospects did not, however, warrant indiscriminate action affecting the civil liberties and career prospects of others. WELLINGTON CASE

“We are concerned by the case of Mr Peter Quennell, currently a student at Victoria University of Wellington, whose brief employment in the Security Service a year ago has recently been the subject of sensational and illinformed publicity,” he said. “Past employment in the Security Service, in the absence of any proof of continued association, is not an adequate justification ■ for depriving a student of normal academic facilities.

“It would be deplorable if hostility generated by such publicity, and unsupported by serious evidence, were to result in action against Mr Quennell similar to that which was appropriate in the case of Mr Godfrey.”