Vice-Chancellor: ‘Godfrey Innocent Party Throughout’

Press, Volume CVI, Issue 31116, 20 July 1966, Page 3

Vice-Chancellor: ‘Godfrey Innocent Party Throughout’

(Ncid Zealand Press Association) AUCKLAND, July 19. The Vice-Chancellor of Auckland University, Kenneth John Maidment, today told the commission inquiring into the facts of the security agent controversy on Auckland University campus that the officer, David Godfrey, had been “an innocent party throughout the affair.” It was the second day the Commission of Inquiry’, Sir Douglas Hutchison, had sat in Auckland. The court room of the Maori Land Court was packed throughout the day.

“It was not discipline against Godfrey.” said Mr Maidment. “He was the innocent party throughout. The deans’ committee proceeded on the basis that it was within the power of the senate to do this as a disciplinary’ measure.” Mr Savage: Was it a general disciplinary measure to maintain order and not to punish an individual?—That is right.

Cross-examined by Mr Savage. Mr Maidment said Godfrey was properly enrolled as a student for a B.A. degree and th“ university was obliged to give him the course of studies he enrolled for. The determination after the student demonstration against Godfrey that he not attend any more lectures of classes was not a disciplinary measure. It was for the deans’ committee to preserve good order in the university, said Mr MaidmenL

Sir Douglas Hutchison: In your view are you quite definite everybody concerned acted with bona fide and with propriety in the matter?— Yes.

That doesn’t apply to the students who went up the stairs to the lecture room to demonstrate?—That’s right Mr Maidment said he first became aware of Mr Godfrey on May 2. Professor R. M. Chapman, head of the political studies department had come to him to say this student’s presence was causing unrest in the class. Mr Maidment said he had been busy with plans for the Queen Mother’s visit and put off doing anything about this. Shortly after, he was shown the “Outspoke” (student magazine) article and was told by the registrar that the students’ association president, Mr Wood, wanted to see him about Mr Godfrey. After this, said Mr Maidment, he had telephoned the security service director, Brigadier Gilbert, and told him it was improper and impossible to have a genuine student who was a security agent He told Brigadier Gilbert that Mr Godfrey would have to withdraw from uni-| versify-or cease his security activities. I ‘Wet Blanket’ Discussions had followed with Professor Chapman, who had said Mr Godfrey had become known as a security man and was acting as a wet blanket stifling ordinary discussion in class. Next said Mr Maidment he I had interviewed the Auckland head of the security service, who considered that Mr Godfrey would have to be withdrawn from the university because of the publicity given.

It was considered undesirable to do this at once as it would create the impression that the criticism was well founded. Mr Maidment said both he and the security head hoped, for Mr Godfrey's sake, that all would be forgotten by the start of the new term. Mr Maidment said he next saw a student named Ryan in Mr Godfrey's class, as he wished to assess if Mr Ryan was uneasy. He concluded he was nervous and uncomfortable when placed in company with Mr Godfrey and not likely to be at ease in class. A talk with the lecturer.

iMr Mandle, confirmed that ■Mr Godfrey was a pleasant, j likeable, well-behaved student (but, through no fault of his I own, was having a deadening •effect on the class. Questions Upset Mr Maidment said he did not see any other class students because, no matter what they had said he felt he could not | act against what the professor and senior lecturer had I said. He next felt be must establish if “Outspoke” was J guilty of “sheer nonsense” or lif a student had been inquirjing about other students. He, therefore, saw Mr Armitage and Mr Wood, of the J students' association, and learnt that questions asked had upset them and they did not want to be worried fur- : ther. Newspapers had been asking for a public statement and Mr Maidment said he drafted one, in consultation with the security service. Subsequently a student representative asked for a stronger stand but this was refused. Following a telephone call from the local head of security who had heard that a student demonstration was imminent, Mr Maidment said he made inquiries but those questioned knew nothing of it By the start of the second term he was convinced there was “subterranean feeling,’’ so he gave Professor Chapman : permission to offer separate •tutorials to Mr Godfrey instead of class tuition. First Time After the demonstration he convened a meeting of the deans’ committee the disciplinary body of the university Senate. Earlier that morning he spoke to Brigadier Gilbert by telephone. At that time he thought Mr Mandie's calling in the police was wrong it was the first time to his knowledge that the police had been called since the foundation of •the university. : He saw Mr Godfrey before ■the meeting when he outlined ■ the facts in the same way as i Professor Chapman. But what •Mr Godfrey said led him to think that Mr Mandle was jus- : tified. Mr Maidment said it was plain Mr Godfrey did not see anything wrong in acting as a security agent at the same time as being a student.

“Everything he d.J was in good faith.” said Mr Maidment. “That is part of the tragedy of this mess.”

Mr Maidment said he pointed out that a security agent was in a different situation than a policeman. If one wanted someone arrested one would not tell the off-duty man in class but have it done properly. Mr Maidment said he next asked the student president. 'Mr Wood, why he had not I warned him of the demonstration. I Feeling Mounted Mr Wood had said he had had wind of not a demonstration against Mr Godfrey personally but what he thought - was to be a placid, mute pro-' (test against the presence of 'security in the university. . Mr Wood also said student] (feeling was mounting. ' The deans’committee heard-

at length from Professor Chapman, Mr Mandle and himself and debated the matter at Igreat length. Mr Maidment said it became clear that in no way was Mr Godfrey to be penalised academically. His offence was not academic but purely negative. Four resolutions were passed, one of which said Mr Godfrey was to be given private tuition. Mr Maidment said he had a letter typed for release to j the students and later the ■ press on the basis of these resolutions. I When approached by Mr (Wood with a list of questions from the students’ association, four of the five of them were already answered by this letter. The fifth concerned the beihaviour of police at the demonstration. The university had asked the police to investigate allegations of police brutality at the demonstration and the demonstration as a whole, and who was responsible for it. Press Release To Mr Brown, Mr Maidment said he had not spoken to any other members of Godfrey’s class to see whether they were upset by his presence. It was second-hand from Professor Chapman and Mr Mandle and from the student Ryan. Asked whether a plain reading of the press statement indicated that Godfrey would be returning to the university on a normal attendance basis, Mr Maidment said it could or it could not. Mr Brown: Was that the position you wanted? It seems ambiguous—Exactly. I did not know at the time if he was coming or in what capacity, but what was certain was that the tuition he got would not be any less effective than he had before.

Mr Maidment denied a suggestion that the ultimate decision by the deans’ committee on Godfrey’s studies was made on the basis of fear. “Unfortunately, the students were in the right,’’ he said. “If we had taken the steps suggested, the students would have said: ‘Oh, the university authorities are aiding and abetting the security agent.” “We had to decide how best to give Godfrey his education and to let the students carry on with their work knowing that this situation existed. They had right on their side.” Student Move Mr Brown: But some staged a demonstration you deplored. —E.xactly. Then was the demonstration representative of the student body as a whole?—lt could have become so. It was representative of a small portion of students.

Cross-examined by Mr Leary Mr Maidment said that to his knowledge there was I no dislike of Godfrey as a i man but there was on a ques- ! tion of principles. I Mr Leary: Would you regard the active presence of a i security agent as a threat to freedom of thought?—l was i afraid of the effect on the 'students Their feelings about him, rather than what it was 'actually doing. They are volatile people. They are young {and liable to exaggerate and; i imagine something which may i be trivial. But you have toj assess this. Police Call To Mr Ryan, Mr Maidment admitted he had formed the opinion that Mr .Mandle was wrong in calling the police to the demonstration by faulty ; reasoning. His first reaction was that calling the police ! was not necessary but after i talking to Godfrey he found ' it had been necessary. The Prime Minister was in-, correct when he said Mr Godfrey had only had one assign-1 ment at Auckland University, Mr Godfrey told the commission today. Answering a counsel, Mr Wallace, he said that his inquiries were widely made and over a period of time. Mr Godfrey further told; Mr Wallace lie had not supplied information to the Prime Minister. He did not know i who did. He agreed that if he noticed i a point of security interest at • the university he would be ; obliged to report on it He , had not reported on anyone ’ in his class. Mr Wallace: But you did not report because none were of security interest?—You could put it that way. You said you were not in- , terested in staff and students ‘ of the political studies department. but you were interested |in staff and students generally, were you not?—Very generally. Mr Godfrey said he had attempted to obtain the names

of students going on an exchange scheme. After consulting counsel, he said this was to select names of persons of integrity I whom the service could interview later. I The service was interested) in conditions in Russia and China, and whether the stuh dents had been approached or fikept under surveillance by inIltelligence officers there. I Mr Godfrey said at the end •of 1965 he had interviewed e Mr Gregg, of the school of r engineering, about two alien students in the university. He ” had told him he was a security '■ officer but had not thought it ?’ relevant to say he was a student. e Mr Godfrey said it was possible he did not disclose he was a student to Professor J. 0 A. Ascher when he saw him e during the first terra of 1966 5 ’ about a vetting inquiry. He did not tell Professor K. r Sorrenson when he saw him IS about a vetting inquiry into ’• a former student in the same e term, but he had not been try- *■' ing to mislead when he said he was a former history Stus’ dent. ,’i Alien Students e He did not tell Professor i- Collins he was a student when s he saw him in the first terra i- 1966 about current alien students in the university. Mr Godfrey said he could have made inquiries about Mr W. Pollard, a senior lecturer in French, but not specifically 1 and not recently, Mr Pollard’s wife was s foreign-born and this was of e interest.

Mr Wallace: This is what the university objects to. You were a student and were making general inquiries around the university?—This doesn't seem a real objection. The inquiries had to be made. It does not seem to make much difference that I attend three lectures a week.

Mr Godfrey said he had also made inquiries about Dr. G. Bartocci, mainly on social occasions.

On no occasion did you disclose that you were a student? —I am not sure of where you are getting your information from. His inquiries at the university had been widely made and over a wide period of time, Mr Godfrey added.

He earlier told Mr Chilwell, he had spoken to Professor Chapman on only a few ocea-j sions. He had given him the j assistance he wanted. Told Professor When he enrolled he told Professor Chapman he was a member of the security service. The professor said he! was pleased he was furthering his education and members of his service particularly should study politics. He said it was a pity he had missed stage II lectures on New Zealand politics and invited Mr Godfrey to attend . the lectures he gave on this that year. Professor Chapman’s attitude to him throughout had been perfectly fair, Mr Godfrey said.

When the decision was made about private tuition Professor Chapman rang him twice and left messages. When they made contact Professor Chapman said he could discuss it on the telephone, personally or by letter. Mr Godfrey said he would write, i They never discussed the type | of tuition. Mr Godfrey said he was prepared to accept that Professor Chapman was prepared to give his own time together with one other lecturer once a week. ‘Flying Wedge’ I ' ] On the evening of the demonstration he had walked to the lecture with Mr Mandle and two students. Mr Mandle said he understood there would be some picketing and that Mr Godfrey might need a “flying wedge” to get through the demonstrators. Mr Godfrey said he had; not taken this terribly seri-i ously and there was in fact! no-one there when they ar-! rived at the building. The security service had] been upset over a passage at-1 tributed to Professor Chap-1 man in the Sydney “Bulletin.” ; That night Mr Godfrey told { him he was not happy about ‘ the statement. Professor; Chapman said he. had heard ’ ;of the statement, had not f seen it and categorically de- ; nied making it. Mr Chilwell: Did you accept that then?—Ygs. Do you accept that now?— Now. I have some reservations.

Mr Godfrey told Mr Dugdale he had discussed the possibility of his withdrawal from the university and a possible transfer over the holidays before the second term.

But your return in the second term was a necessary face-saving gesture?—lt was a matter of principle. Mr Godfrey said his decision to refuse private tuition was partly his superiors’ decision, partly his. He agreed to it He could

have accepted the offer, but that would have been unwise. Re-examined by Mr Brown, Mr Godfrey said the approach made to a student to act as secretary for an organisation concerned an organisation in no way connected with the university. The security service was a branch of the Justice Department, and so regarded for Government estimates. To Sir Douglas Hutchison, on his inquiries concerning Mr Pollard and Professor Bartocci, Mr Godfrey said these would have been made at social functions. Those concerned would not know he was a security officer. Opening for the university administration, Mr Hutchinson said the university itself had instigated this inquiry commission to find out the true facts. This became necessary because, after the university had dealt with it as a domestic one. conflicting and erroneous reports had originated outside the university. Two Points Two main points stood out like beacons, said Mr Hutchinson. The first was that Mr Godfrey as a man and a student was acceptable; Mr Godfrey, as a student-cum-active security officer as a principle was unacceptable. “It is understandable that Mr Godfrey might find difficulty in realising the difference between being a man and being the embodiment of a principle,” said Mr Hutchinson.

The other beacon was that in every action and statement during the incident the underlying motive had always been a principle. The article in “Outspoke" had had Mr Godfrey as its subject matter but the purpose was a principle. Mr Godfrey was the subject of the demonstration but the reason was to state the principle that he was unacceptable. Four Principles Mr Hutchinson said everyone had been acting on these four principles; (1) It is the function of every university to train students to search for true knowledge in all things, and there must be freedom within university precincts to discuss all viewpoints without fear of consequences or fear of suspicion. (2) Any university recognises the prime importance of the security of the State and the right of those entrusted with that security to pursue legitimate inquiries in the university and elsewhere. (3) A university as a corporation must have mutual trust of all its members in matters within its sphere.

(4) Any student who has. at the same time, the role of active security officer has a loyalty to his superiors overriding his loyalty to the university, and this must engender mistrust and suspicion and disrupt the university’s function. The first two of these principles had been recognised from the outset by the university and the security service. Now. “with the benefit of hindsight.” the security ! service head had admitted i the other two points and an- ' nounced a change of policy. ‘Fully Justified’ Mr Hutchinson said the university’s offer was, to Mr Godfrey, the bona fide student, something of an academic privilege and of more value ultimately to him as a student. The offer of private tuition preserved the university's primary function and also preserved what the university would never deny—-to Mr Godfrey, the bona fide student—the opportunity and assistance to obtain his B.A.

Counsel said the university was fully justified in its actions relating to Mr Godfrey. Opening the case for the students’ association, Mr Leary said the principles of academic freedom and principles of security of the I [State were bound to clash on' !a campus. i Everyone would agree that ( (discussion was bound to be ! muzzled on certain topics! • that might be matters of! 'security. ‘lnevitable Clash’ Everyone had acted with! ! complete propriety from the beginning of the affair. The matter basically was a university matter. It was well handled by all parties and led to a satisfactory conclusion. The inevitable clash took place—the difficulties were resolved. • “It is very little more than a storm in a teacup and 1 submit it should be returned to the teacup,” said Mr I Leary. I Mr Leary asked for the (suppression of the name of lone girl student he would be! calling to give evidence. The girl—“ Miss Y”—would give evidence that she had been approached by Godfrey to become typist of an organisation outside the university,; but had refused. The commissioner ordered: that her name be suppressed ! The inquiry will continue tomorrow.