The Moyle Report: What More Can There Be? (Press, 14 April 1978)

The Moyle report, released in April 1978, appears to echo the conclusions drawn by Sir Alfred North in his earlier summary of events surrounding a controversial incident involving Mr Moyle from December 1976. The report describes two distinct incidents: one occurring on June 17, 1975, in Harris Street, Wellington, and the statements made in the House of Representatives on November 4 and 5, 1976. The first incident involved Mr Moyle's encounter with a plain-clothes police officer, during which he allegedly invited the officer into his car and suggested they go to his home. The constable reported his concerns about Mr Moyle's location, recognising it as an area frequented by undesirable individuals. Sir Alfred ruled on several points, starting with the access to police files by government ministers. He concluded that the Police Act of 1958 and its amendments allowed the Police Commissioner to disclose matters of public importance, particularly when they pertain to the behaviour of government ministers. Sir Alfred confirmed that the Commissioner acted appropriately, stating that the rules were not breached regarding Mr Moyle. The police file was disclosed to the then Minister of Police, Mr Connelly, and Sir Alfred deemed this action proper as it was passed to the current Prime Minister, Mr Muldoon. Sir Alfred clarified that Mr Connelly was the only person to have seen the police file, and he accepted assurances from Mr W. E. Rowling that Mr Connelly did not share the file or correspondence about the incident with Mr Rowling. He also addressed statements made in Parliament about the police report concerning "questions of homosexuality", asserting that Mr Rowling was likely unaware of the report given to Mr Connelly. Mr Moyle had initially justified his behaviour by stating he was meeting men involved in homosexuality to prepare for a parliamentary debate. However, his later explanation diverged significantly from this, alleging "security leaks" and suggesting that his actions were unrelated to investigating homosexuality. Sir Alfred expressed that Mr Moyle's latter attempt to clarify his actions was likely motivated by a desire to defend himself against accusations of lying to Parliament. Furthermore, Sir Alfred noted that Mr Rowling suffered from an error of judgment by Mr Connelly, who mistakenly assumed the incident was resolved. He warned that situations like this could resurface unexpectedly. In concluding his report, Sir Alfred stated he would not adjudicate between the conflicting narratives regarding the incident but believed Mr Moyle's late alternative explanation for his conduct was imprudent and destined to fail. Despite the findings, he concluded that no legislative changes were necessary concerning the disclosure of such 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