SECURITY INQUIRY OPENS IN AUCKLAND

Press, Volume CVI, Issue 31115, 19 July 1966, Page 3

SECURITY INQUIRY OPENS IN AUCKLAND

Godfrey Describes Events Leading To Expulsion (New Zealand Press Association! AUCKLAND, July 18. David Godfrey, the former Jamaican police superintendent now employed as a Security Service officer in Auckland, told the Commission of Inquiry today that he believed a student demonstration against his attendance at political science lectures was the work of “a small group of professional demonstrators and their friends.”

“I don’t think they all knew what it was all about,” he said when Mr L. P. Lean , Q.C., for the Students’ Association, i asked him whether a demonstration on May 31 outside a classroom showed that he was not acceptable to students.

“‘lt started as a kind of rag. It was near the end of term.” Godfrey said.

“‘I don’t think very many students were seriously perturbed by my attendance.”

The inquiry, which is charg-. cd with finding out the facts j behind Godfrey’s expulsion i as a student from Auckland j University after a student! newspaper identified him as I a security agent, attracted ai capacity crowd of more than! 80 in the small Maori Land! Court in the Jean Batten building. Instead of involved land disputes and toheroa claims, the packed court heard details of the operations of New Zealand’s “MIS” as its director, Brigadier H. E. Gilbert, the Auckland district chief, Mr “X,” whose name was suppressed. and Godfrey told of events leading u.- to the stu-j dent demonstration and the expulsion. Court Packed University staff, parents of! students and students stood j on tiptoe in the jammed room j following every detail of thej case. 12 counsel took turns to examine, cross-examine and i re-examine witnesses. “Quite a number of stu-l dents had asked their friends! along to the demonstration,”| said Godfrey. “Even taking] into account the numbers out-! side the class, they were only a small portion of the total students. “1 think they were a small proportion of professional demonstrators. They were that type.” To the Commission (Sir Douglas Hutchison) he said he thought the main reason for the demonstration was publication of an article in a student newspaper. “Outspoke.” saving he was a security agent. I “After that a few vocifer-] ous students took it up and built it up. They asked friends ■who were students to come along. I still think they were; the majority of people there. “Then some student politicians thought it would be helpful to them if they joined in with the noisy group. But that is only my opinion.” Mr Leary: Do you really believe in your heart of hearts' that the bulk of students would like you back? Godfrey: I can only answer] by things I know. Those things are that the members, of my class have said “Yes.; they w. ‘ me back,” and they] have told me so. But that is only a small coterie in one room. Do you consider truly that the rest of the students want you back as a security officer? —I don’t think they would worry. Spying Denied Outlining the evidence to be given, Mr L. W. Brown, for the Security Service, said evidence would show that there had been no “planting” for spy purposes at Auckland or any other university. Nor had any security officer been instructed to spy on classmates.

Godfrey had attended uni-

versity, first part-time and then extra-murally, and was a part-time student in the political studies 111 class. “No Apologies'” Godfrey’s activities fell into three categories at the university. He “vetted" applicants for “sensitive” jobs, he kept his eye open for possible recruits to the service and he was concerned with the actions of students from Rus- ( sia or China. They were pro-1 per activities and the service! had no apologies to make to! anyone. After the “Outspoke”! article, events gained momen-; turn and the Auckland head of the service saw the ViceChancellor of the university (Mr K. J. Maidment), who said that Godfrey’s professor, Professor R. M. Chapman, had said Godfrey was a disruptive influence and would have ito leave the university. Later, after discussions with BrigaI dier Gilbert, Mr Maidment released a letter saying that no action would be taken against ] Godfrey. But there was a continued ] attempt to hot up the cam-; !paign and shortly before thej ; second term started a student newspaper tried to find out whether Godfrey was returning for the second term. At Godfrey’s first lecture on May 31 there was a demonstration outside the lecture room, although only five students were in the class. The lecturer, Mr W. Mandle, tried to disperse the crowd, then called the police. Late on June 1 the Deans’ Committee recommended excluding Godfrey from classes 'although personal tuition was ■ offered. Five In Class ; In evidence Godfrey said he joined the Security Service in September. 1959. He went to the Auckland office in 1962. When he made inquiries to enrol for political studies toward the end of 1965, he told ! Professor Chapman he was a I member of the service. | There were only five people in his class—Ryan, Bailey, ] Pauling, Horwege and himself. Some history students ’and an anthropology student joined for some lectures. Mr Brown: Have you been at university this year or previously under the direci tion of the service?—No.

Have you been required as part of your duty to note and report on statements, expressions of opinion or comments by fellow students or lecturers?—No. Certainly not. Have you in fact reported any statements or expressions?—No. Godfrey said he had approached staff when they were named as referees by applicants for Government jobs that had to be vetted by the service. He always identified himself to them.

In February he learned

that two Russian students were visiting the university that day. He identified himself to: Armitage, an employee of the Students’ Association, and asked his help in finding out about the Russians. Armitage gave him information the next day. On May 31, at 6 p.m., Godfrey said, he attended the first lecture of the second term for his class. Before the lecture began Professor Chapman said to the class that although he was not concerned about who knew his views this was a hazard to which no student should be exposed. Godfrey replied that he had no interest whatever, as a ;security agent, in what went; on in the classes. Noise Began The lecturer, Mr Mandle, then started to speak, Godfrey said. Before two or three minutes ha. passed a noise began outside. People were shouting and tapping on the windows. The door to the lecture room was locked and the blinds were pulled down, but the noise was by then so loud that the lecture could not continue. The class then moved into Mr Mandie's study. j The demonstrators then I came inside the building and moved up the stairs to the i landing outside the study. They shouted things such as, “We want Godfrey,” pushed placards under the door and were so noisy that the lecture could not be held. Mr Mandle asked them to be quiet, but they refused, so he called the police. The police arrived and at Mr Mandie’s request started to move the students. Godfrey said he could not see the demonstrators being moved, but he could hear them. Meanwhile Mr Mandle tele- . phoned Professor Chapman, who returned, spoke to the students, and dispersed them. At 11.30 a.m. the next day, Godfrey said, he had an interview with Mr K. J. Maidment, the Vice-Chancellor of the University. That afternoon he was advised by the director of the Security Service that he would not be able to attend any further lectures at the university. The next day he was handed a letter confirming that this was the decision of the Deans’ Committee.

To Mr Leary, he said about 25 to 30 reports on events and people at the university had been made by him during his period there. Godfrey said he had told about 25 or 30 people at the university that he was a security agent. Director’s Evidence Brigadier Herbert Ellery Gilbert director of the Security Service, said the service was set as a counterintelligence agency to protect New Zealand against subversion or espionage from within or without Much of its work was vetting persons who were being promoted or applying for jobs where they had access to classified Government information. About 99.5 per cent of names submitted by department for checking against security records were found to have no records. Perhaps .5 per cent had ; connexions with Communist ! or Neo-Fascist organisations i which had to be checked. As the service’s field staff was small, all were expected to do “vetting” at times. Gilbert said security officers were encouraged to take university courses in the same way as other Government i employees. Courses had to be approved as the service paid a large proportion of fees and gave time off for lectures. Officers’ Duties : It was definitely not part of an officer's duties to report on statements or opinions made by students. An officer attending uni- ; versify might have to do some I positive vetting and it was j the rule that senior officers kept an eye out for potential recruits. From time to time an officer attending university might be called on to make inquiries against legitimate security targets. Asked the future policy of the service over officers at universities. Gilbert said that in view of the sensitivity which had lead to the Godfrey affair, the service had decided not to call on any officer attending university to carry out inquiries.

This rule might have to be varied if a matter of clear security interest became known. In the same way a policeman attending lectures would be required to take action if he saw an offence 'committed.

After the first "Outspoke" article appeared he had a telephone conversation with Mr Maidment. He asked that the matter be fully investigated. “1 felt that a McCarthyism of the Left might be developing against Godfrey,” said witness. Gilbert said he did not see why the existence of a known agent in a class' should muzzle discussion on communism. Agents would not report on support for communism expressed by students in class. The service made a distinction between active membership and opinion. A matter of security importance would be reported. Witness agreed with Mr

Wallace that the service might have made an error of judgment in asking Godfrey to make inquiries at the university. Specialised The district officer of the Auckland branch of the Security Service, whose name was suppressed, said that Godfrey had never been ordered to go to university. Godfrey took his normal share of “vetting” commitments as part of his normal work. Witness had asked Godfrey to specialise in Russian and Chinese activities in Auckland. To Mr Chilwell Mr “X" said he could not recall specifically telling Godfrey what to say if students asked him about his job. Generally security staff were told not to reveal the nature of their employment. Are they told to say they are members of the Justice Department?—That is so.