Newspaper May Have Committed Breach (Press, 1 November 1968)
This is a Generative AI summary of this newspaper article. It may contain errors or omissions. Please note that the language in the summary is reflective of the original article and the societal attitudes of the time in which it was written.
Summary: Newspaper May Have Committed Breach (Press, 1 November 1968)
On 31 October 1968, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Mr R. E. Jack, ruled that Wellington's evening newspaper, the "Evening Post," had prima facie committed a breach of Parliamentary privilege due to a headline published the previous day. The headline stated: “Statistical claim is made that four M.P.s in New Zealand are probably homosexual.” This headline accompanied a report on hearings held by the Parliamentary Petitions Committee concerning a petition from the New Zealand Homosexual Law Reform Society, which sought the legalisation of homosexual acts between consenting adult males in private. During the committee hearing, the society's president, Professor J. H. Robb, had indicated that if Members of Parliament (M.P.s) reflected the general community, it would be reasonable to presume that at least four M.P.s were homosexual. Mr Jack acknowledged that Professor Robb's evidence did not constitute a breach of privilege, noting it was likely presented in good faith, despite it being an ill-judged and overly dramatic example. Mr Jack clarified that he had no concerns about the accuracy of the newspaper's report regarding Professor Robb’s statements, but he identified considerable issues with the impact of the newspaper's headline, deeming it much more provocative than the content of the article itself. He explained that the purpose of the Speaker's role in such matters was to prevent the House from being preoccupied with frivolous claims of privilege, which could distract from its essential business. The Leader of the Opposition, Mr Kirk, had previously accused the "Evening Post" of breaching Parliamentary privilege because of the headline and subsequently moved for the issue to be referred to the Committee of Privileges. This motion was met with unanimity in Parliament, reflecting widespread agreement on the necessity of addressing the matter.
Important Information
The text on this page is created, in the most part, using Generative AI and so may contain errors or omissions. It is supplied to you without guarantee or warranty of correctness. If you find an error or would like to make a content suggestion please get in contact
The text on this page is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 New Zealand