House In Wrangle After Carmen Case (Press, 26 July 1975)

In a heated session on 25 July 1975, the New Zealand Parliament accepted an unqualified apology from night-club owner Trevor Rupe, known as Carmen, over remarks regarding the sexual habits of Members of Parliament made during a television interview. The Privileges Committee, which reviewed the case, concluded that Carmen breached Parliamentary privilege by suggesting that some members of Parliament were homosexual, and they recommended no further action after Carmen expressed contrition. Despite Carmen's apology, the debate in Parliament escalated into a confrontation between Attorney-General Dr Finlay and the Opposition, led by Mr Muldoon. Dr Finlay was critical of the television interviewer, Spencer Jolly, whom he accused of asking misleading questions that influenced Carmen's comments. The Committee report suggested it would have been appropriate for Jolly to show some contrition as well. As the discussion progressed, Mr Muldoon took the opportunity to criticise Dr Finlay, calling him a "petty party politician" and expressing disdain for the manner in which Dr Finlay had handled previous privilege breaches, including a complaint against him. The session featured back-and-forth exchanges, with Opposition members prolonging the debate to reprimand the Attorney-General. In his remarks, Dr Finlay maintained that Carmen's statements diminished the respectability of Parliament. Carmen distanced himself from his earlier allegations, claiming ignorance and asserting that he would be more circumspect in future media interactions. He publicly regretted making the statements about homosexuality among MPs. The debate highlighted broader themes, including the standards of behaviour expected from Parliamentarians and the scrutiny under which they operate. Observations were made that the ensuing argument was a diversion from other significant issues facing the Parliament, with some legislators suggesting that the House's reputation was at stake. Further exchanges of personal attacks ensued, with accusations flying about political motivations and tactics used by both sides during the debate. These tensions underscored a sense of precariousness regarding the integrity and image of Parliament amidst seeming triviality surrounding Carmen's comments. In conclusion, the incident reflected not only on the individual actions of Carmen but also on the robust, often contentious nature of political discourse in New Zealand's Parliament, raising concerns about respect and privilege among its members.

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