Details Asked

Press, Volume CVI, Issue 31190, 14 October 1966, Page 1

Details Asked

The Minister of Internal Affairs (Mr Seath) said he would be glad to investigate allegations that a senior officer of the Department of Internal Affairs had deliberately suppressed a report on wapiti if Mr McCaskill would get in touch with him and supply details, according to the Wellington reporter of “The Press.”

Mr Seath said yesterday that he found it difficult to make any useful comment on an allegation couched in such general terms as Mr McCaskill employed. The Fiordland expedition referred to by Mr McCaskill was a joint New Zealand-American one and was mounted in 1949. In addition to being a scientific leader of the expedition, Dr. Murie was also directly associated with the investigations into wapiti made in the course of the expedition. Mr Seath said that a bull-

etin giving a preliminary account of the expedition was published in 1951. The preface to the bulletin said that the expedition’s technical members had agreed on publication of the preliminary result in the bulletin, but had also agreed that members of the expedition should be free to publish detailed scientific results of the investigations with which they were concerned. It was recognised that the publication of the full results could in some instances extend over several years. The bulletin in question was “The New Zealand-American Fiordland Expedition”, No. 103 in the D.S.I.R. bulletin series.

Neither the Department of Internal Affairs nor any of its officers; was responsible for the preparation of the D.S.I.R. bulletin, nor did the Department of Internal Affairs undertake any responsibility for publication of later and fuller papers. Mr Seath said that he understood that no former or present officer of the Wildlife Branch had had any responsibility at all for receiving and arranging publication of the later, full reports and he understood that the same was true in respect of any other officer of the department acting as such. “I find it very difficult indeed.” said Mr Seath, “to credit that any senior officer of the department and certainly any officer acting on departmental authority would have deliberately suppressed a scientific paper merely on the grounds of the facts or opinions contained in it.”