Congratulations on your excellent special edition of Salient.

Let's not be fooled by The Dominion or by Tony Jaques, who claim that there is not sufficient evidence on which to base claims that Security agents are operating on campus. These people are just saying that because they are scared that their Illusions might be shattered. Let's look at the facts.

It cannot be denied that there Is a Security Service in New Zealand, it cannot be denied that there are at least three known instances in the last four years of Security agents being active in some way on the campus; it cannot be denied that, as Brigadier Gilbert himself said in a TV interview (Salient, June 17, 1966), the Service "has a duty to follow Communist and Communist front activities and the possibility of espionage wherever these may occur".

Given these three established facts it is not being the slightest bit unreasonable to assume that Security is engaged in spying on students. Of course we have no concrete proof of this, and we probably find it impossible to get resorting to measures which in terms of law could quite possibly be highly punishable offences. The only additional fact really necessary to render such an assumption (and other universities in New Zealand) there is "Communist and Communist front activity", admittedly little from the Communist Party itself).

It it not true, however, that there are declared (not to mention silent) Communists, socialists. Trotskyists and many other "subversives" operating openly at Vic?

What with the Socialist Club, the Spartacist Club, anti-this and anti-that, Action Committees, the RED SPARK magazine, left-wing articles in Salient—this fact is so obvious that not even the second-rate sleuths in the Security Service could fail to miss it.

But Mr Jaques and The Dominion have missed it, and they even cast aspersions on the Service by saying that it has, too. If it had it would be reneguing on what even it itself has publicly declared to be its duty. Mr Jaques and The dominion are guilty of disloyalty or the most childish inconsistency imaginable.

Ian Mcgill.