Other formats

    Adobe Portable Document Format file (facsimile images)   TEI XML file   ePub eBook file  


    mail icontwitter iconBlogspot iconrss icon

Salient: Victoria University Students' Paper. Vol. 29, No. 14. 1966.

We say

We say

"Students were entitled to take exception to what was done." (Hon. J. R. Marshall.)

"If the charges made are true of course they are repugnant." (Mr. Holyoake.)

Mr. Holyoake has made no issue of the students' association's allegations against Mr. Laurenson.

In the light of this, the National Party must remove Mr. Laurenson from his post.

Students can have little confidence in the party until they do this.

And Mr. Holyoake's singularly impolite letter shows him in a poor light.

His claim that "allegations and condemnatory charges were given the widest publicity before I had any opportunity of taking any action" is completely incorrect.

The full nature of the allegations were known to Mr. Holyoake's office three days before they were published.

Mr. McGrath's letter would have been in Mr. Holyoake's hands two full days before publication of its contents— if his office had had the courtesy to accept it when it was delivered—instead of bureaucratically insisting that it be posted.

We agree that Mr. Barnes's faults lie on a much lower plane.

But he was wrong in ever ringing security.

And he says in his statement "I told Mr. Laurenson of the non-confidential information I had received."

It seems to us that it is quite erroneous lo suggest that information collected for national security can be supplied to anyone simply because it is "common knowledge."

A high proportion of the content of most security files would probably be "common knowledge"—but this in our view does not entitle security to divulge it to anyone.— H.B.R.

[The editorial on Page 12 was written on Wednesday.]