page 5

Salient Interview

I had this idea that had been jelling from way back— '61 or '62—that there was a gap of some kind. There was a gap which every publication, including the daily newspapers seemed unable to fill. No one was prepared to step out of line and be severely critical and of course there were good reasons, I suppose, in terms of the current laws on libel and sedition, the Official Secrets Act, indecency laws and so on. These things obviously worry them because they have large investments in their papers and also they don't want to attack people for other reasons.

What was there to be critical of?

The whole New Zealand scene, There's plenty of room in New Zealand for criticism. Severe criticism is something we've lacked for a long time. We don't have enough information to make decisions. The newspapers don't give us enough information on a lot of important parliamentary decisions. It's generally agreed that the police are here to protect us from a series of vague threats but no one ever inspects closely the administration of justice by the police. Cock was set up to print the news that will never get published anywhere else . . . the news which is deliberately avoided because it causes embarrassment to 'people in high places'. I wanted a magazine that laughs; that laughs at the times in a savage and cutting way; that laughs at some of the ridiculous and stupid aspects of this society.

How successful is Cock in doing this?

We're not doing it particularly well at the moment. The failings of Cock are the failings of any enterprise such as this in a small country. You've got extremely limited resources—an idealist is never paid and you're up against it from the start. You can imagine what it's like producing a magazine such as Cock when you haven't all the equipment you need...when you haven't got a vast printing press—you've got a pretty old and clapped out machine which doesn't do its job as well as it could and you haven't guillotines and things like that.

What other sort of problems are there?

Well, there's the usual problem of getting people to know about the magazine and the first thing that one comes up against is that bookshops aren't interested in it. And the Post Office won't give me a permit to post it at a discount rate. Then the fact that you can't distribute it means that you can't get to the sort of people who could provide you with information. You can't get to your contributors. And of course the financial thing becomes a problem here too because this is a fairly mercenary, materialistic sort of society and unless people strongly beleive in what you're doing there's not much incentive for them to do anything for you if they're not going to get paid. And of course because this is a small publication you haven't got the money to pay them and you have to recognise this right from the start. It's no good giving them a piddling 50 cents because this means nothing. This is what a lot of publications do in New Zealand though-they give this purely nominal fee which, to my mind, might as well not be given at all.

What do you sec as the role of Cockerel Print?

It's an alternative press. There is not another press in the country like it—outside the Gestetners operated by the young activists, the dedicated bands of students and young socialists and PYMers, there is no permanent alternative press and this is what Cockerel Print provides.

When you established the Cockerel Print and Cock were you setting out with specific things in mind which you wanted to say?

Well, in a fashion, you know. I have something to say and I want an opportunity to say it. And I have sufficient ego to think that what I have to say is fairly important and that a good majority of people don't realise it.

What are some of the principal things you've been concerned with in Cock?

Well right from the start there was the business of censorship of the written word. Words like fuck, shit, cunt, bum have a purely emphatic value. They have an emotional effect on people. People by and large everywhere need to get used to the sound of these words.

Why?

These words are just sounds...they're always used in emotional situations. I use them without really thinking about them. There's no such thing as indecency or obscenity. You can say and do whatever you like as long as it doesn't harm anybody else. Some people may suffer psychic harm from hearing these words, perhaps, though I don't know of any instances. I've been very interested in this and I don't think it causes any crippling harm. I think in actual fact that it would do the sort of people who are shocked by this sort of language good, in fact, to receive some sort of psychological help, which is really what they need.

One of the big concerns of Cock then has been with censorship. Then of course Cock itself has been censored, by the Post Office, and an attempt by the Indecent Publications Tribunal, and the police...

And by the Customs Department. They seem to have taken some particular delight in confiscating my mail from overseas or rummaging through it and running their 'Examined by Customs' stamps all over it.

The Security Service was, of course, Cock's other big thing.

Yes, I became interested in the activities of the Security Service through being associated with the Committee on Vietnam and Nuclear Disarmament, and started to become particularly angry about the activities when I discovered that an acquaintance of mine had failed to get a job in External Affairs due to one simple event in his life when he'd been in Hamilton and he'd signed a petition to Parliament against the exploding of nuclear devices. The signing of this petition to Parliament had prevented him getting a job in External Affairs. And he was told this by the person interviewing him, as a reason for his having been refused. He was told External Affairs couldn't afford to have somebody with his record working for them. In actual fact, he has since proved to be a fairly conservative right-wing sort of fellow, and ideal material for External Affairs, yet he failed to get that job simply because of that petition. And a whole host of people are on the security files simply because of this, and this of course is the immoral thing about it. This is a democracy, and anybody who in this democratic society signs a petition to Parliament can be assured of the fact that a copy of the petition will go to the Security Service. Holyoake automatically passes it on and the names are recorded as part of the files.

The list of members of the Security Service published in Cock 5 was accurate as at what time?

As at December 1966, I think.

Where did you get the list?

The list was handed to me.

By whom?

It's the start of the game.

Why is that?

Well, the reasons are obvious, aren't they?

No. What are the reasons? The Official Secrets Act? Was this person a member of the Security Service?

The reasons are the usual ones in the circumstances.

Well, what are they? What are the usual reasons?

The reasons are the ones which involve every journalist—although I wouldn't call myself a journalist—the fact is that you have to protect your sources. You always have.

Is the person who gave you this list likely to be able to supply you with any further information?

That person is, yes.

Is that person a member of the Security Service?

I can't say.

There were some inaccuracies in that list, weren't there?

The inaccuracies were built in due to the fact that that list was dictated, dictated in a hurry.

Somebody rang you up and gave you the list over the phone?

The list was handed to me by the person who had taken it over the phone. We had mistakes in the initials of Brigadier Gilbert, for instance. We called him A.D. instead of H.E. And of course Gilbert in his announcement that the list was merely made up and nothing more than anybody could have had by taking a certain interest in the Service was trying to point out that of course the list was full of inaccuracies. He was referring to these son of mistakes, in initials and in the spelling of names but this list was passed on under rather hurried circumstances, so you would expect this sort of thing to happen. In actual fact, the list had what appears to be quite an effect on the Security Service itself.

Why are you particularly interested in the Security Service?

Any secret police in a society are potentially an extreme danger. It means that no one can trust anybody else in the society. This of course includes the New Zealand police force too—the sort of pimps and narks operating for the CIB, the police force in general, the vice squad. Having informers in a society, having spies, having secret lists of names of people, is not part of the democratic process. We're not an open society as long as there is a security file on Chris Wheeler, even if it merely enumerates the number of demonstrations he's been on. This is extremely undemocratic. You see, my argument is always going to be that these files are never used to help somebody. I don't care what Gilbert says. They serve a purely negative purpose. If I'm applying for a job, and somebody rings up Gilbert, he's not going to say "Wheeler's a hell of a good joker, he's got these ideas about such and such, and he's a pretty idealistic sort of humanistic fellow, and he likes his fellow man, and he's generally trying, he's got the interests of the country at heart." He's not going to say any of these things. He's going to give them a list of what Gilbert considers to be subversive activities.

Do you believe those things you just said about yourself are true?

I would say, you know, that without...that as a broad generalisation, that one might say that, yes, those are my general principles.

Christopher Robin Wheeler is 33; an old boy of Christs College; a BA Honours graduate in Education from Victoria; an ex-clerk (Civil Aviation), student-teacher, carpenter and caretaker; and Editor of Cock and sole proprietor of the Cockerel Print. Now read on: