Sept. 9, 1966

Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of VUWSA.

Commission report no comfort

As Expected, the commission of enquiry's report on the Auckland University "spy" affair whitewashed all the important figures and left the students to carry the blame.

The report is illogical, weak and unconvincing. Worse, it raises the very doubts which it was supposed to quiet.

We do not accept that all the actions of Auckland students were either sensible or necessary—and we have already made this clear. But there are others equally deserving of censure.

We do not accept that the Auckland security agent, Mr. D. Godfrey, should be allowed to escape censure for his ineptitude and the pathetic glory which he found in his job.

And, above all, we completely reject Brigadier Gilbert's claim that the Security service acted properly throughout Mr. Godfrey's activities, exposure and downfall.

The Brigadier, in remarks endorsed by the commission of enquiry, said "if something which was clearly of Security interest was revealed or becomes known to one of our officers who is taking courses he will be expected to report on it, in the same way as, for example, a policeman, if he saw an offence being committed, would be required to take some action."

This view, it appears, will govern the future conduct of Security officers attending universities for education.

If this is to be the approach the Security service takes, then it can expect to have the Godfrey affair repeated again and again— probably more viciously.

For the logical flaw in the Brigadier's comparison is the very crux of the whole matter.

The Security service is not making reports on breaches of the law, on offences against statutes in the way that the Brigadier's hypothetical "policeman" is doing.

It is interested in views, in opinions, in "reliability"—subjective impressions which are not subject to the adjudication of a court or the knowledge or appeal of the person being judged.

The commission was forced by the weight of evidence to concede the main points of the student protesters—that the security police through Mr. Godfrey had made inquiries on campus, had recruited personnel, and had kept campus activities under general surveillance.

It even went so far as to admit that these activities should not be carried out by a security person posing as a student.

Why, then, could it not see that the real fear of students remains?

There can be no reasonable objection to officers of security intelligence studying at university. But, as we have said before, our confidence in the good faith of the Security service has been broken—and neither the Brigadier nor the commission's report has done anything to restore it.—H.B.R.

Liquor poll is meaningless now

Shortly, the triennial liquor farce will be played out again. We will be invited to vote for prohibition (which no one believes in), State purchase and control (which no one understands), or continuance (which no one likes).

Except for the few remaining suburban no-licence areas (where, it may be said, the hypocritical stand of the prohibitionists does them no credit), the poll is of no significance.

If the government is to continue with the liquor poll, it should at least make it meaningful. This has been the cry of the reformers for some time. They have advocated without success a straight contest between continuance and prohibition, followed by options on control if continuance is carried.

This has been rejected, but it seems probable that we will now get a referendum on licensing hours in the near future.

In this case, we would suggest that the Government borrows a leaf from the reformers' book. First, give voters straight choice between prohibition and continuance. Second, let only those who voted for continuance determine the licensing hours.

We can see nothing undemocratic or illogical in disqualifying prohibition voters from determining licensing hours.

It may be objected that people who would otherwise vote for prohibition will vote for continuance merely in order to also vote for licensing hours.

In fact, this would be one of the major advantages of the poll. For this would show just how many voters sincerely believe in prohibition as an ideal, and how many merely want to impose their own ideas of social conduct upon others.

Should the vote for prohibition fall below 10 per cent of total votes cast, this would, we feel, be a valid mandate for any government to abandon the triennial referendum altogether.

H.B.R.