Lecturer Considers Demonstration Against Agent Was Cruel

Press, Volume CVI, Issue 31117, 21 July 1966, Page 3

Lecturer Considers Demonstration Against Agent Was Cruel

(Neu> Zealand Press Association)

AUCKLAND, July 20. The student demonstration at Auckland University against a security officer, Mr David Godfrey, on May 31 was, he felt, a “cruel and unwarranted personal attack,” Mr W. Mandle, a senior political science lecturer at the university, told the Commission of Inquiry at Auckland today.

Mr Mandle, who was in charge of the political science 111 class of which Mr Godfrey was a member, was giving evidence to the Commission, Sir Douglas Hutchison, at the third day of the inquiry into security incidents at the university. Under cross-examination, Mr Mandle said that the demonstration that evening was a cruel and unwarranted personal attack.

“I think it is unfortunate that this man should have been branded in this way and that it might have ruined his career,” he said. He said it did seem to be unfair that this man had been virtually ruined by the whole inquiry. Mr Mandle was also concerned about allegations “without basis” against colleagues of his.

Mr Mandle said he thought Mr Godfrey might reconsider his decision not to accept private tutorials —he, Dr. R. Butterworth and Professor R. Chapman would be pleased to have him back. Mr Mandle said on the day of the student demonstration his class met in the Station Hotel, as was the custom, and moved up to the lecture theatre just before 6 p.m.

Before the lecture started Professor Chapman addressed the class and immediately left. Mr Mandle said he then began his lecture but had been speaking for only about five minutes when he saw a crowd, bearing placards, beginning to gather outside. Class Moved

The blinds in the lecture . room were drawn, but the noise got worse so the class moved upstairs to his study. They had been there a short time when they heard people coming into the political science building and up the stairs, so the door to the study was closed and locked. The students came up the stairs and banged on the door. They shouted things like, “We want Godfrey.” “He’s in there, let’s light a fire on the veranda and smoke him out,” and sang songs such as “We Shall . Overcome.” Mr Mandle said he feared that if he opened his study door to reason with the students to persuade them to leave they might force their way in and injure Mr Godfrey or damage some property. Felt Trapped “Frankly I felt we were trapped,.” said Mr Mandle. “I hear laughter in the Court,” he said. “I can tell you it wasn’t an amusing position to be in, it wasn’t a position I wanted to be in and it wasn’t a position I liked being in.” The Commissioner: If people are here to be amused I will have them removed. Listen quietly. Mr Mandle said he decided to call the police. The members of his class generally agreed. The police arrived after a few minutes and he explained that he wanted the demonstrators moved. After several requests to move had been made to the students a constable took one youth under his armpits and carried him away. The students were asked again to move and they remained seated, said Mr Mandle, so a constable grabbed a bearded student by one arm, twisted it up his back, and took his ear in his other hand. This was a distressing thing to see, Mr Mandle said, so he asked everyone to wait until Professor Chapman, who had been telephoned, arrived. Professor Chapman reached the scene shortly afterwards and after he had spoken to the students for a few minutes they dispersed. During Week Questioned by Mr Brown, witness said Mr Godfrey was a disruptive influence within the class, by his presence as a security officer, during one week in April and at one seminar in particular. During the remainder of the lectures, although it had been known for some time that he was a security officer, there was no particular concern exhibited.

To Mr Chilwell, Mr Mandle said at the seminar in ques-

tion, on the subject of Ghana, there were continual comments about “secret police” and “pots” together with meaningful glances at Mr Godfrey made by a member of the class.

' These reached the stage i where for the last 10 minutes i the discussion had to be cut I off and Mr Mandle had to go 1 into a monologue. ; Class ‘Upset’ Afterwards, Mr Mandle said, ■ he informed Professor Chapi man, Dr. Butterworth and Mr ! Maidment (the Vice-Chancel- , lor), that his class was upset i by the presence of Mr Godfrey. Cross-examined by Mr Dallow, witness said he said he might be mistaken about the ear pulling. Objections to questions put to a girl witness were made by Mr Brown. The girl, a former university student, whose name was ordered not to be published, was called as a witness by the Students’ Association. Mr Brown told Mr Shenkin, for the Students’ Association, that if names of Left-wing students were to be mentioned, he, too, would have to mention names, which might not be desirable. The girl student had told the inquiry that as a member of the Students’ Association publicity committee she had been required to report meetings of organisations for the head of that committee, Mr Quennell. Towards the end ' of the first term, Mr Quennell had said he had a friend in the Justice Department who was interested in what she was doing and wanted to meet her. This was Mr Godfrey and she agreed to meet him. Mr Quennell drove her to the domain, where she met Mr Godfrey. He showed her his identity card as a security member and said he wanted to talk privately. They drove off in Mr Godfrey’s car to near trees in Carlton Gore road. ‘Somewhere Secret’ “He said he wanted to go somewhere secret,” she said. “I was surprised but also curious. He said he had been reading my articles and asked if I could type and if I’d like to take a job that was vacant in the Peace Council.” Witness explained that the Peace Council was accepted in New Zealand as a Communist front organisation. She understood the position was a secretary’s one and that she would be required to take minutes and hand over carbon copies to' Mr Godfrey. The girl said she refused and said it was against her moral principles. He continued to press her and said it was her duty as a New Zealand citizen to agree. She received the general impression she would receive some reward. Witness said she had been secretary of the International Relations Club in the university at which people spoke on political matters. Mr Godfrey apparently felt her membership of this would make her acceptable to the Peace Council. She said she became tired of Mr Godfrey’s persistence and ridiculed the idea. Left-wing Groups “Then he moved to Leftwing organisations in the university,” she said, “and suggested that perhaps I could at least . . .” At this point Mr Brown [ objected. ( “If names are going to be ( mentioned I, too, will mention names and it might be , desirable to reconsider this [ line of questioning,” he said. , To the Commission, witness said she had not told , her story to the university . newspaper, “Outspoke,” but had told a reporter from a j city newspaper. i Mr Shenkin said he would ■ ask witness if she were ] asked to keep a watch on 1 Left-wing students. 1 Mr Brown: If that is asked ] I may have to extend the sub- < ject The Commission suggested i that this line be dropped be- < cause it did not figure in the 1 “Outspoke” allegations and ] Mr Godfrey had not been 1 cross-examined on it. i Mr Shenkin: Did Mr God- i frey mention any person in | the university he believed j were Communists? ; Mr Brown: There has been no cross-examination on this. ’

The Commission: Is there anything wrong in an open approach to a person to ask questions? Mr Shenkin: I believe there is. She knew he was a student and he was asking her to make inquiries about leftwing students. The Commission: If this had been a person who was not a student, would you have an objection? , Mr Shenkin: It would still be resented that a person with Left-wing opinions at the university should be investigated. The Commission said he could not see the point of all this, as Mr Shenkin’s senior counsel, Mr Leary, had already conceded that security activities were proper in a university. If a security jfficer made his position clear and asked a person to make inquiries, was that improper? He added: If you open this line of inquiry I will have to recall Mr Godfrey and Mr Brown has mentioned that names may have to be mentioned. The witness, continuing her evidence, said that after her refusal in the car, Mr Godfrey had driven her back. ‘Very Shaken’ She had spent three-quart-ers of an hour in the car and was very shaken and upset, and remained upset for about two weeks. “It was so unusual an experience and he’d got at me in an emotional way,” she said. Asked what her politics were, she replied: “I think I’m apolitical.” Earlier, continuing his address, Mr Leary said there

was no doubt that the students were right in attitude and had the right to demonstrate. They had intended the demonstration to be entirely pacific. At the demonstration nothing happened more than would among high-spirited young people. Songs, including the not-so-leftish “God Save the Queen,” were sung, access was gained to the building and some placards were pushed under a door. Their actions must be considered in the light of their age. Mr Leary said Mr Maidment’s May 9 statement was too general to allay further fears. It made it appear the students’ complaints were fancied and Mr Godfrey was coming back. - Mr Maidment’s second pronouncement satisfied everyone and agitation at the university died overnight. Before it, the students had planned a monster demonstration to bring home to the outside world they felt strongly about the matter. They expected the whole university would join in. Mr Russel Armitage, another witness, said Mr Godfrey had asked him to keep an eye on two Russian visitors and he obliged. Later, Mr Godfrey, who had decleared himself a Security officer, asked him about a student travel exchange scheme. Student Visits Later, he asked about students going to Russia and China and asked why they were going there instead of Canada, Scandanavia or the United States. Mr Armitage said he told Mr Godfrey he did not know the names of those going but would not tell him if he did. After they became “tangled up in stupid arguments” he asked him to leave. Mr Armitage told Mr Brown his relations with Mr Godfrey had been pleasant and co-operative until their last meeting. He had not thought about how he might have co-operated if he had known Mr Godfrey was a student. Mr R. Wood, president of the Students’ Association, said that after Mr Armitage told him about Mr Godfrey, he rang Security and asked that inquiries should be directed through him. He made it clear association employees should not be approached for information against students.

Later he met Mr Godfrey who did not ask for specific

(information. He asked why an anthropology student might be interested in going to Russia. Would not only political studies and history students be interested? Mr Godfrey said he was not in the least interested in student politics. He said he had recruited two agents at Auckland University and they had been transferred to Wellington. Asked about a photograph, he said he could not censor the student press. ‘Warned On Talking’ Later, a female student said she had been warned not to talk too freely in the political studies 111 class because one of the students was a security agent Mr Wood said he referred the first “outspoke” article to Mr Maidment who said he would investigate. But his press statement of May 9 seemed ambigious to students. The students executive, dissatisfied with the statement, passed a motion asking that Mr Godfrey be required to continue his studies extramurally. Mr Wood said he then heard of the incident concerning the girl asked to beeome secretary of the Peace Council and that she had also been asked to. get information on other students. Two political studies 111 students said they would not give seminars as they felt inhibited. Mr Wood said he was disquieted and approached Mr Maidment, who told him the matter was closed. The next day, Mr Maidment told him he thought the allegations were too strong but had enough content to justify Mr Godfrey’s not coming

back. But it had been decided he would return and drift out after a month or so. No-one was to be told of this because if it was not confidential it could involve bringing a Government department into ridicule. Mr Wood said he was still unhappy and asked the student representative on the University Council, Mr J. Strevens, to ask Mr Maidment to make a more explicit statement.

He heard about the demonstration in the university coffee bar the night before. It was to be a silent protest. He thought by participating he could express that he was unhappy and do more to ensure it was quiet. Mr Wood said he addressed the political studies II class before the demonstration and said it should be quiet and orderly. He thought the demonstration was a legitimate way of expressing concern when it seemed to the students that all channels were blocked. He said he had not entered the building with the demonstrators. He was outside the political studies class when the student demonstration occurred. After the arrival of the police there had been no resistance. He later saw a student, Mr Richard Northey, lying whitefaced upstairs. I The police had carried Mr Northey downstairs. ‘You Have Now’ “Then I saw the police lift him and throw him on to the concrete outside the entrance,” said witness. “I turned to a constable on my right and said: ‘How dare you treat students like this. I’ve never seen people treated like I this.’ I was angry. The constable replied: ‘Well, you have now, mate.’ ” Mr Wood said he then went to students in the coffee bar and suggested they go over and watch but not become involved.: He had warned them not to obstruct the police. To Mr Brown, Mr Wood said he had addressed a political studies II class before the demonstration and told the students they should make it a quiet and orderly protest. Entry was gained to the building where Mr Godfrey’s class was in session, when Dr. Butterworth came out the door. He gathered other students from various parts of the university to stand outside the I building and watch silently.

About 200 stood outside until eventually Professor Chapman arrived, spoke to the students inside the building, and they dispersed. The next day he twice saw Mr Maidment and discussed the situation with him but was unable to obtain a satisfactory statement from him. After discussion with students and some staff members he prepared a list of questions and the next day handed these to Mr Maidment. Reply Received Later that day a reply was received which was read to a lunch time meeting of students and accepted as “a perfectly adequate assurance.” (This was the- announcement that Mr Godfrey would not be permitted to attend any further lectures at the university.) Mr Wood said the day before the statement (that Mr Godfrey would not attend further lectures) was issued he had seen Mr Maidment and indicated that there would be further demonstrations if Mr Godfrey were not removed. To Mr Dugdale, Mr Wood said the demonstrators were never in a condition in which they could be described as a “mob.”

Mr Dugdale: It had been publicly suggested that Dr. Butterworth opened the door acting in collusion with the demonstrators in order to let them in. Is that the position as you understand?—l saw her coming out of the building and I would doubt It. Mr Leary said it occurred to him that the whole matter had been covered now by Security, by the university and by himself with the possible right of the police to have something to say about the only uncovered allegation. The Commission had now really all the facts before it to decide the question. Mr Leary said he felt it could go on for a long time and get no further. ‘Bulletin’ Report The Commission said that Mr Chilwell indicated Professor Chapman denied having made remarks attributed to him by the Sydney "Bulletin.” Mr Chilwell: With respect it really doesn’t seem to me to feature in this inquiry. It does seem to me with respect to be labouring a minor point. The Commission said he agreed with Mr Chilwell. He did not think there was anything for Professor Chapman to answer. Dr. Butterworth Mr Dugdale said that his client’s position was not dissimilar. She sought leave to be separately represented because certain allegations had been made outside the inquiry and she expected them to be repeated at it. Mr Dugdale said: “It has been said of her in another place by certain people I won’t name—because I have no doubt that by now they are thoroughly ashamed of having said these things—that my client grossly abused a privilege she enjoys by unlocking the door to let in the rioters. “All 1 say about that is that it just isn’t true,” he said. “All that happened was that my client was leaving the building to go home..” She was laden with various impedimenta which she had to put down to open the outside door of the political studies building. Dr. Ruth Helen Butterworth in evidence said there had been a suggestion that Mr

Godfrey might belong to the Security Service. Mr Bailey and Mr Potter were both very disturbed that there was a security agent in [their class. “I said well if you want to find out all you need do is telephone,” said Dr. Butterworth. She was subsequently told that the number had been rung and Mr Godfrey asked for. The caller had been told Mr Godfrey was out | Mr Savage: Towards the end of the term was there any 'tension to your observation in the political studies class?— Yes. There was. Mr Gerald Ryan, a member of Mr Godfrey’s political science 111 class, said he first learned that Mr Godfrey was a security officer when fold by another student five minutes before a lecture started. He was also told—“and this,” he said, “is typical of all the innuenda and rumour that has been flying about”— that the class was a suspected Communist cell and Mr Godfrey was there to spy on them. The knowledge upset him so that afterwards, while he was travelling home with Mr Godfrey he asked: “Is it true that you are a security agent and that you have been snooping around the campus.” Mr Godfrey hesitated and then admitted he was, said Mr Ryan. He gave an assurance that Security was not the slightest bit interested in any of the members of the class. Telephone Call This assurance was accepted and after that the presence of Mr Godfrey in the class did not upset him although some members of the class may have been. Later that week his wife received a telephone call from a woman who asked: “Did you know that your husband is going around with a bunch of reds,” and hung up. Mr Ryan said he was confident that Mr Godfrey had nothing to do with the call. Cross-examined by Mr Dallow, Mr Ryan said that his observation was that the police acted with decorum. “I think they held back a lot,” he said. The hearing will continue tomorrow.