Security Hearing Concluded

Press, Volume CVI, Issue 31119, 23 July 1966, Page 3

Security Hearing Concluded

(N.Z. Press Association) AUCKLAND, July 22. After four days and a half of evidence and submissions the Commission of Inquiry into the security incidents at Auckland University ended its hearing shortly before lunch today. The Commission (Sir Douglas Hutchison) thanked counsel and those they represented for their assistance and said he would report his findings to the authorities in due course. The Commission heard three final addresses before the hearing closed. “Misnomer” “This has been called ’the spy case,’ ” said Mr Brown. He hoped the findings would “put paid” to this misnomer and that the inquiry itself would have clarified misapprehensions. “These are not agents but officers of the service and public servants and a lot of the misunderstanding may have stemmed from a wrong idea of their role,” he said. Mr Brown submitted that the evidence would justify a finding that the Security Service had acted in all its activities at the university in complete propriety. There had been no evidence to prove that the service had undertaken spying at the unversity on student or staff activities in any approbious sense. No evidence had been produced that Mr Godfrey had been directed to attend unversity for any such spying purpose or directed to attend as part of his duties. No person had challenged the probity or Integrity or conduct of Mr Godfrey as a student or officer of the service. “Wrong Decision” Mr Brown said Mr Godfrey’s exclusion from normal attendance was wrong because: There had been no evidence sufficient to warrant apprehension that the class would be upset by Mr Godfrey’s presence. The administration’s decision was without adequate inquiry and imposed on it by pressure of student

demonstration and a threat of disorder. Mr Brown said the Security Service had not insisted that Mr Godfrey must remain at university but wanted a full inquiry before any decision was reached that could affect the future studies of its officers. He wondered how many of the 6000 students had been cowering in fear and quoted

an editorial in the student newspaper, “Craccum,” to suggest they were a minority. Mr Brown said there was no reason why, with the assurances now given, a security officer should not be able to attend as a student without creating upset. Concerned With Man Mr Hutchinson said the Security Service was concerned with Mr Godfrey, the principle, not Mr Godfrey, the man. The University could not and did not subscribe to Mr Godfrey, the principle. Mr Godfrey, the man, was at all times as a bona fide student entitled to take a university degree. Mr Maidment (the ViceChancellor) thought that Mr Godfrey’s withdrawal would serve security’s best interest, but Brigadier Gilbert had said it was important he remained as a student.

Ever present in the ViceChancellor’s mind was the thought that the service was to transfer Mr Godfrey. There, had been no suggestion Mr Godfrey was to be excluded from the university or any part of it. The private tutorials he was

offered were a privileged course of study. After the demonstration the university was largely upset and the course of normal studies was interrupted to a very large degree. Swift action had to be taken. It had been accepted by security that if there had been an upset the university was the only competent body to deal with it. The university

had acted with propriety and reason and its actions called for no criticism. Basis Of Objection Mr Savage said it appeared to be generally accepted that it was proper for the Security Service to make needful inquiries at a university. Mr Godfrey, in fact, had not made inquiries about class members or the staff in his own class. The basis for objection seemed to be the special relationship a student had, which gave access to places and would affect what was said or done by people who knew him as a student and not a security officer. There it might, however, be necessary to make a difference in case of open inquiries, even if by a part-time student, which would be unlikely to arise from this special relationship After the deans’ committee’s meeting the university had acted to preserve discipline and order, said Mr Savage. The question remained whether the decision was right. The alternatives seemed to be to do what the university authorities did, or take a stand that they were satisfied it was proper for Mr Godfrey to at-

tend. They could have said they had received assurances about his activities and had made provision for Mr Godfrey to not attend certain classes. The students could have been told to accept this or disciplinary action would be taken. One could conclude in the quiet of a study that the decision must be made on what was right but practical steps must also come into such a decision. Trouble Ceased Turning to whether there was a conspiracy, Mr Savage said it was clear there had been agreement between some people to achieve the end of getting Mr Godfrey out of the university because he represented the principle they thought he did. This was also clear because the trouble ceased once Mr Maidment had announced that their end had been achieved. Whether such conspiracy was reprehensible was for the Commission to decide. The Commission might also need to decide on future action. Provided the university was told a security official was coming and had assurances that while attending he would do nothing in the way of inquiries or reports, two courses seemed to be open.

One was the “Maidment suggestion” that the officer should attend as an ordinary student, but if in a course his presence had an inhibiting effect on teaching, he should be excluded from those classes and given individual tutorials. The second, the “deans’ suggestion,” was that if his presence was disruptive of proper teaching, he should be given private tuition—an expensive matter and a generous offer by the university, made as part of the price to be paid for academic freedom.