Minister's Evidence Cabinet Shared Views Of Mr... (Press, 24 March 1972)

The Supreme Court proceedings on 23 March 1972 involved a defamation case brought by Brian Thomas Brooks, an industrial relations manager and university lecturer, against New Zealand's Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Muldoon. Brooks is suing Muldoon for $25,000, claiming that comments made by him in media discussions led to the withdrawal of his application for the Chief Industrial Mediator position. The case centres around various statements made by Muldoon, particularly those published in the "Sunday News" and shared in a television interview. Transport Minister John Bowie Gordon testified that the Cabinet's views were consistent with Muldoon's comments concerning Brooks' nomination. He noted that the Cabinet had declined Brooks’ recommendation and indicated a consensus among its members. Gordon revealed that some Cabinet members were aware of controversial quotations from Brooks, which contributed to their decision. When asked about the qualities desired in a suitable candidate, Gordon stated that the ideal nominee would be someone well-respected by the Cabinet, known for fostering industrial harmony, and without affiliations seen as disqualifying. Gordon acknowledged that Brooks was associated with controversial industrial actions, citing a specific instance where Brooks suggested teachers should take direct action to garner parental attention regarding educational facilities in newspaper quotes. He implied that such connections posed a concern for the Cabinet. During cross-examination, Muldoon defended his statements by highlighting Brooks’ own references to "direct action" and "strikes," asserting that they were essential components of the policy of the National Union of Teachers. He maintained that his remarks reflected the views of the Cabinet and were substantiated by the general perception of Brooks as an individual aligned with unorthodox or anti-establishment groups, including the National Union of Teachers and the Auckland Council for Civil Liberties. Muldoon rejected claims that he exaggerated his statements regarding Brooks’ advocacy for strikes, stating that his emphasis on "direct action" was well-founded due to its frequent association with strike activities within the political context. He confirmed that discussions around Brooks' application occurred during the Imprest Supply Debate in August 1971, indicating the timeline of his remarks stemmed directly from his responses to opposition queries about Brooks’ rejection. The case highlights the intricate balance between political opinions, media representation, and personal reputation, with the outcome potentially impacting both Brooks’ professional prospects and the government’s public perception of its industrial relations policies.

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