Minister Challenged To Repeat Attack

Press, Volume CVI, Issue 31083, 11 June 1966, Page 3

Minister Challenged To Repeat Attack

(New Zealand Press Association) AUCKLAND, June 10. Professor R. M. Chapman, of Auckland University, has challenged the Minister of Labour (Mr Shand) to repeat outside Parliament the remarks he made last night about the security incident at the university.

The text of a telegram Professor Chapman sent last night read: “Would you repeat your remarks outside the House, so that I can take the requisite legal proceedings against you”.

Professor Chapman alleged Mr Shand had defamed the university, the Vice-Chancellor, members of the staff and himself. He said he was consulting the university administration on a detailed rebuttal of the Minister’s allegations.

Dr. Ruth Butterworth, a lecturer in political studies, whose name was also mentioned by Mr Shand, said today that, as a political scientist, she regarded Mr Shand’s outburst as a misuse of Parliamentary privilege. He had used the last opportunity of the Government side in the Address-in-Reply debate, knowing that this debate could not be referred to again in the current session. As a British citizen she found such outbursts by a Minister of the Crown in a Commonwealth country somewhat distressing. Dr. Butterworth said she understood that New Zealand traditions, both Parliamentary and academic, were the same as those of the Mother Country.

“Clearly, I have been misled, and I, together with all

other British academics working in New Zealand universities, must seriously consider whether we can remain in this country,” she said. The allegation that the security agent, Mr D. Godfrey, had been persecuted because he had been offensive to membrs of staff was ridiculous.

Mr Godfrey had not been personally offensive. Dr. Butterworth said she had on no occasion spoken to him outside of class on any but such inoffensive topics as motor-cars and British public schools.

Profesor Chapman said he had never been a member of any political party. He had lectured to the Junior National Party and the Labour Party on several occasions and had been congratulated for the fairness of his published work on the 1960 election by the organs of all three parties.

He believed Mr Godfrey to be a bona fide student. He told no-one of Mr Godfrey’s occupation—not even his staff. His occupation was discovered because of his activities among students. He did not refer to Mr Godfrey as a spy in front of a class.

He said he had no prior knowledge of the demonstration on the night of May 31.

What he announced to the class of six on the night of May 31 was that, in accordance with the ViceChancellor’s decision, both his

staff and he would continue to give formal lectures to the whole class, including Mr Godfrey. After the student protest, and in accordance with the decisions of the Dean’s committee, he telephoned Security Intelligence and offered to make arrangements to teach Mr Godfrey, said Professor Chapman. The man would not have suffered educationally, but, on the contrary, would have been privileged well beyond bis class-mates in that arrangements by the staff and the professor to teach him individually would have constituted a generous version of the Oxford tutorial system. Professor Chapman said Mr Shand had used the last opportunity on his side of the House in a debate which he knew could not be referred back to under the Rules of the House for the remainder of the session to launch this attack upon the university, the student body, staff and himself.

The Vice-Chancellor, Mr K.

J. Maidment, said today that it was a matter of deep regret that Mr Shand should have stated that Mr Godfrey had been excluded from the university without first verifying the facts with the university authorities. The university had not and had never any intention of excluding Mr Godfrey. He quoted at length the Senate’s decision conveyed to Mr Godfrey.

Mr Maidment said that, so far, Mr Godfrey had not chosen to avail himself of the offer of tuition which would, in fact, have meant that he received more than adequate individual tuition from the staff of the Political Studies Department in preparation for his degree examination next November. What the Minister had chosen to call “supineness” on the university’s part might better be described as consistency and a clear consciousness of its obligation to act in the best interests of each and all of the students for whose education it was responsible, said Mr Maidment. The university intended to take no further action. There had been no public pressure on the university for it to reconsider the decision it made about Mr Godfrey.