Headline Found To Breach Privilege (Press, 21 November 1968)

On 20 November 1968, the Parliamentary Privileges Committee in New Zealand reported its findings regarding a headline published by the “Evening Post” that was deemed a breach of parliamentary privilege. This was related to a petition that sought to legalise homosexual acts between consenting adult males. Prime Minister Mr Holyoake, who chaired the committee, stated that the headline failed to accurately reflect the substance of the evidence provided by Professor J.H. Robb during the hearings before the Parliamentary Petitions Committee. The committee maintained that the misleading nature of the headline could undermine the public’s respect for Parliament. Mr Holyoake clarified that the criticism was directed at Parliament as an institution rather than at individual members. Although the editor of the “Evening Post” did not fully agree that the headline lowered the esteem of Parliament, he expressed regret for any negative perception created by the article. In response to the findings, the “Evening Post” editor indicated plans to publish an apology acknowledging that the headline may have contributed to a diminished view of Parliament. The proposed apology clarified that the misleading headline was unintentional and asserted that the “Evening Post” had no malice in its reporting. Attorney-General Mr Hanan spoke regarding the matter, emphasising that the breach of privilege involved Parliament as a whole, stating that it was a significant affirmation of parliamentary rights. He suggested that the incident highlighted the importance of press responsibility within a parliamentary democracy. Mr Hanan concluded that, due to the expression of regret from the newspaper, the matter should be considered closed. Dr A.M. Finlay, another member of the committee, supported Mr Hanan’s remarks. He noted that the editor seemed somewhat puzzled over how the headline could lead to such confusion. There was a discussion about the term "statistical" used in the headline, which could mislead readers unacquainted with its context. After reflecting on this feedback, the editor acknowledged that many readers might have misconstrued the headline, potentially believing it implied a statistical analysis of Parliament’s views on homosexuality. Overall, this incident served to reinforce the principles of parliamentary privilege and the responsibilities of the press in reporting on issues of public interest.

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