TEMPERS FLARE IN HOUSE

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

TEMPERS FLARE IN HOUSE

M.P.s Ignore Bills To Discuss Agent (New Zealand Press Association) WELLINGTON, June 14. Parliament tonight received and accepted the opportunity many members appear to have been waiting for—a resumption of the debate on the Auckland University “spy” incident —when the House began the second-reading debate on six university amendment bills and the Lincoln College Amendment Bill. Tempers flared and the Minister of Labour (Mr Shand) caused an uproar when, replying to remarks by Mr R. J. lizard (Opp., Pakuranga), he said: “I was concerned with democratic freedom when he was a snotty-nosed little boy—as every little boy is at his age.”

The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Kirk) amid the clamour asked the Speaker (Sir Ronald Algie) if “this sort of distasteful thing” could go unchecked. Mr Speaker: I would say that it was highly provocative. Mr Shand: I did not intend it should be provocative to the honourable member. I did not mean it rudely. He then apologised for the remark.

When the debate opened Nr Tizard said the University of Auckland Amendment Bill seemed to take away from the university the right to remove staff who “have gone beyond their duty.” He then sought a ruling from the Speaker on whether he could refer to remarks made by Mr Shand in the House on Thursday night. Then Mr Shand said he had been deeply shocked by the action of the Auckland University Deans Committee in barring a security agent, Mr D. Godfrey, as a student. “Is the Minister going to vote against the bill? If he does he might lose his job next week. We have had information that certain officers have also served as members of the university staff,” said Mr Tizard. “Shameful” Position Mr W. B. Tennent (Govt., Manawatu) said the clause was to give greater freedom to academic staff, and to make it clear a staff member must have a “fair trial” before he was removed. Mr G. F. Sim (Govt., Piako) said there had been much emphasis on academic freedom. Sir Leslie Munro (Govt., Waipa) said the security agent had been put in an insufferable position. “This man interrogated men who came from Moscow who were only out here to subvert us, and now this honourable gentleman has been denied the right to study in a class. “He has been told he can See his professor in a separate room.” He described the agent’s position as a “shame” and a “Boy” Removed Mr Shand said it had been claimed the security agent had been offered a satisfactory alternative. “I have even heard it said he was offered a great advantage.” The “great advantage” was that he should be given private tuition by his professor. “This particular professor has been reported in a newspaper as describing the student in question as a spy,” said Mr Shand. Asked by the Speaker if his speech was relevant to the contents of the bills, Mr Shand said: “I am only concerned by the application of the clause. I am concerned that the Senate of this university has. in my judgment, exceeded its rights. .. . “According to the newspapers it was this Senate that was responsible for removing this ‘boy’ from the university. . . Mr C. J. Moyle (Opp, Manukau): The clause refers to the appointment and removal of academic staff. I fail to see how this can affect the appointment or removal of a student. Mr Shand said he was referring to an applicable clause of the bill. The Speaker: As long as we are talking about a clause it is all right. I am trying to avoid any references to anything that was said in a previous debate. “I feel I should point out that. In my personal judgment, the alternative for this student was such that no man of spunk would accept," said Mr Shand. The University Council had failed to carry out its responsibilities. “I am absolutely astounded, patricularly by what has been said by the Minister,” said Dr. Finlay (Opp., Waitakere). “This 45-year-old studen' has been piteously described by the minister as a ‘boy’,” IJB said.

Dr. Finlay said the student was not dismissed. “Whatever happened to him happened not because he was a security agent, a spy, or because he disclosed the nature of his occupation.

“What did happen in his class was that he was much more concerned to take down what was said by his fellow students than by his professor.”

Mr. D. J. Riddiford (Govt., Wellington Central) said that when allegations were made against the character of a person, it was necessary that sources be quoted, and the Speaker asked that the debate be confined to the bills. “I am well aware your patience has been tried, sir, but so has mine,” replied Dr. Finlay. He said he was concerned because the majority of students were not getting the instruction they could expect due to the security officer’s presence in the lecture room. The action taken by the university authorities to see that the majority got the teaching they could expect was a legitimate exercise in their power. 39, Not 45 Mr J. B. Gordon (Govt., Clutha) said he found it “calamitous” that the House should be “led up the gum tree” by Dr. Finlay. Dr. Finlay was incorrect even in his first statement — the security officer’s age was 39, not 45. At the time of the disturbance, which the Opposition now claimed was not a riot, the lecturer in question was conducting an orderly class behind locked doors, said Mr Gordon. Another lecturer, “a female” he believed, was one who would be removed under the clause, unlocked the doors and let in the disruptive group. It was of vital importance that the facts be known, said Mr Gordon. Mr Gordon quoted from a newspaper report which said that three of the four lecturers of the Auckland University political science faculty were “beatniks.” No Infringement Mr Kirk: I deplore the desecration of democracy by people on the Government benches in the name of democracy. The Attorney-General (Mr Hanan): That is a personal attack on members on this side of the House. Mr Kirk: It is true. 1 hope the Government is proud of itself that it shelters behind the privileges of this House. It is a sorry day for New Zealand. The Minister of Transport (Mr McAlpine) said Mr Kirk was not keeping to the discussion of the bill.

The Speaker: I do not find that any rule has been infringed. I have conceded that

I have perhaps been too lenient. “There are many actions that have taken place in this House since I have been here, but nothing has disturbed me as much as this issue,” said Mr N. V. Douglas (Opp., Auckland Central). “Only under Fascism or Communism would we expect attacks on freedom and the rights of the individual as we have seen tonight. “It has been suggested that Dr. Butterworth should be brought under clause six of this act because she is a member of the Princes Street Labour Party.” “Not Girls’ School” The Speaker: That statement has never been made. Mr Hanan: The member did not make a fair quotation . . . Mr Kirk: I wonder how much longer the AttorneyGeneral is going to be allowed to make a supplementary speech under the guise of a point of order? Mr Speaker: I cannot permit the Attorney-General to do that. Mr Douglas continued: “It is too soon at this stage for us to judge what damage has been done to the campaign to recruit lecturers from overseas.” Mr Riddiford said the Opposition claimed that Mr Shand who had criticised Dr. Butterworth and Professor Chapman should be prepared to repeat his remarks outside the House. “That kind of challenge should find no support in the House,” said Mr Riddiford. One of the most jealously guarded privileges was that which allowed a member to speak freely. “We are not a school for girls,” said Mr Riddiford. “We are men freely debating and it is a justly-prized privilege that what we say here is not liable to action outside.” Mr Riddiford said he could think of nothing so calculated to effect overseas recruitment of lecturers as the treatment “meted out to Mr Godfrey” who was following the horn ourable occupation of a security officer, and against whom an “unfortunate witch hunt” was directed.

The Speaker interrupted Mr Riddiford to ask that he speak on the bills. Mrs E. I. Tombleson (Govt., Gisborne) said she had been “alarmed and appalled” by the mud-slinging and the red herrings drawn across the bills. “I feel that it was a pretty poor show,” she said. Mr W. A. Sheat (Govt., Egmont) referred to the “Auckland University spy case,” and after several requests by the Speaker to confine his address to the bills, he was ordered to resume his seat. “This newspaper alleges this woman unlocked a door—previously locked by a senior member of the staff—for the purpose of letting in rioters with the result that it became impossible for the class to be carried on. The police had to be called in,” said Mr Sheat before he was ruled out of order. “Surely this is a matter which we are entitled to discuss in this House without being ruled out of order. “If it is possible for a member of the academic staff of one of our universities to assist a riot, then I say this is a very serious matter.” The debate was then adjourned.