Mr Muldoon Argues About Privilege Charge (Press, 22 May 1975)

On 21 May 1975, it was announced that an alleged breach of Parliamentary privilege involving the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Muldoon, would be referred to Parliament’s Privileges Committee. This followed a ruling by the Speaker, Mr Whitehead, who stated that an article written by Mr Muldoon for the publication “Truth” constituted a prima facie breach of privilege. The announcement was made after an hour-long debate which allowed Mr Muldoon to present his explanation. In a notable decision, the hearings for the Privileges Committee will be open to media coverage, marking a significant departure from past practice. Additionally, another alleged breach of privilege involving a Wellington night-club owner, known as Carmen (Trevor Rupe), will also be investigated by the committee but in a private session. The Speaker, having initially dismissed the allegations against Carmen, reversed his earlier decision after considering the implications of a television interview in which insinuations were made about members of Parliament’s sexual orientation. During the proceedings, Mr Muldoon attempted to reference other articles and issues but was repeatedly called to order by the Speaker, who emphasised that the only matter to be determined was whether a prima facie case existed in relation to Mr Muldoon's article. Mr Muldoon contended that there was no such case and accused the Speaker of engaging in a political attack. The debate became contentious as Mr Muldoon argued that the Speaker had been biased, asserting that he had faced disproportionate rulings unfavourable to opposition speakers compared to the Government's. He insisted that this situation set a worrying precedent and was critical of the committee meeting in closed session, arguing that their decisions would be influenced by party affiliation. The Speaker maintained that, after hearing Mr Muldoon's explanation, his initial ruling had not been altered, and insisted that the case should be sent to the committee. Some members of the opposition expressed concern that the Privileges Committee would operate as a “kangaroo court” if hearings were conducted in private. However, Prime Minister Mr Rowling stated that the involvement of a party leader necessitated a different approach, allowing media access to the hearings without establishing a long-term precedent. Eventually, the House voted, and the matter was officially referred to the Privileges Committee with 44 votes in favour and 26 against. This incident highlighted tensions within Parliament regarding privilege laws, media transparency, and the balance of political power.

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