No malice in remarks, says Mr Muldoon

Press, Volume CXII, Issue 32873, 23 March 1972, Page 2

No malice in remarks, says Mr Muldoon

(New Zealand Frees Association?

WELLINGTON, March 22.

The Minister of Finance and Deputy Prime Minister, Robert David Muldoon, said in the Supreme Court today he had in no way been actuated by any feelings of malice towards Brian Thomas Brooks in making the statements over which Mr Brooks, industrial relations manager and university lecturer, of Auckland, is suing Mr Muldoon for $25,000.

Mr Muldoon said that he had “got into this thing accidentally.”

The claim relates to newspaper reports of statements made by Mr Muldoon, and a television programme on which Mr Muldoon was interviewed. Mr Brooks alleges that as a result of words “published" by Mr Muldoon, he was obliged to withdraw his application for the position of Chief Industrial Mediator.

The hearing is before Mr Justice Haslam and a jury. In evidence, Mr Muldoon said that at the time of the events he was Minister of Finance and chairman of the Cabinet Committee on Economic and Financial Policies.

Industrial strife

Since about 1968, industrial relations and wage fixing, and the effect on prices, had been the most important item in the New Zealand Economy. For that reason it was the most important item before the committee. 4! Mr Muldoon said he had tried to bring home to the public and industry that the wage-price spiral could not be stopped if major employers, in particular, made agreements with trade unions to Buy off industrial strife. This, in turn, affected smaller employers.

The Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment No. 33, the legislation which gave rise to the mediation service, was a move to diminish industrial conflict. In the long term the Government expected it to have a bearing on the wage-price spiral. Cabinet talks Mr Muldoon said the selection committee made a recommendation about May last year on the appointment of the Chief Industrial Mediator. The formal recommendation came before Cabinet on June 8. It mentioned two persons as being probably suitable in the view of two members of the committee. According to his recollection, neither was acceptable to the president of the Federation of Labour (Mr T. E. Skinner), : Mr Muldoon said. “And then it said that Mr . Skinner had introduced the I name Of Mr Brooks, someone > he got, from Auckland by , some means, and that the t committee, after interviewing the three applicants, was • prepared to agree unanim- [ ousiythat Mr Brooks be . recommended,’’ Mr Muldoon Mr Muldoon said a number of Ministers expressed reservation about, or opposi- , tion to, the appointment of , Mr Brooks. They did so of their knowledge of Mr Brooks’s activities in other 1 fields with which they had 1 been- in, contact. i There had been quite a

considerable discussion in the Cabinet, and the paper had been deferred for a subsequent iheeting. He believed

t it was then raised at a meet- . ing of Government caucus that week. “Militant” groups s The main objection was to 1 Mr Brooks’s activities in the 1 National Union of Teachers,

which Mr Muldoon thought was known to all the Ministers as being a militant organisation. Mr Muldoon said the other objection was more difficult to define. But a number of Ministers, including himself, knew of Mr Brooks as “what today would be called an activist.” By that term he meant someone who had been a member of a number of unorthodox, or even anticaucus, and you were present He knew of a campaign for higher salaries by the National Union of Teachers in 1970, and the measures spoken of by the unions: he had the impression that at the time the Post-Primary Teachers’ Association and the Educational Institute were campaigning vigorously for higher salaries, relative to other sections of the com-

munity. A joint committee was set up to examine the matter and to make a recommendation to the Government. “This recommendation was finally made, and I think accepted almost completely, if not completely,” Mr Muldoon said. “In the meantime the National Union of Teachers was campaigning, as I understood it at the time, for stronger and more immediate action in this field of salaries.”

Mr Muldoon said some of the pronouncements of the 1 N.U.T. had been referred to lin evidence — withholding teachers from certain duties, and stop-work meetings. The Government was never in doubt that the N.U.T. was advocating strike action if these 1 demands were not met. Use of “activist” Mr R. G, Collins (counsel for Mr Muldoon): We live in 1 a political world, and on . both sides of the House you . have people who, according > to their own standards, are . activists.

Mr Muldoon said he did not think the term "activist” was discreditable when used in that sense. But he believed

that for what must be a neutral position, a man who had been an activist was, to some extent at least, disqualified. “And I notice that this point was in the mind of the committee,” Mr Muldoon said. “Mr Brooks said, *Well, Ses, I have been an activist, ut, I would discontinue controversial activities’.”

Mr Muldoon said the job of mediator required a neutral approach and, he thought, essentially a low-key approach. This certainly was a factor which weighed against this appointment. Mr Collins: You say the matter was passed from the Cabinet to the Government caucus, and you were present at the caucus. What was their attitude?

Mr Muldopn: Caucus’s attitude supported the view of the Cabinet that this was not a suitable appointment. And again, various members had known Mr Brooks.

Referred by Mr Collins to an Imprest Supply Debate on August 27, Mr Muldoon said that at the time of the debate no Chief Industrial Mediator had been appointed. Mr E. E. Isbey, the member for Grey Lynn, had raised this question. •Though my reply was short, I covered a number of topics and the non-appoint-ment of the industrial mediator,” Mr Muldoon said.

He was approached the next week by a Mr Swift, who represented the “Sunday News.” Mr Swift had referred to the debate in Parliament, and had said it was of public interest At Mr Swift’s request he had elaborated on the answer he gave in the debate. Remarks admitted Mr Muldoon said he had agreed in his pleadings that part of the information he gave to Mr Swift was reported verbatim in the newspaper. T accept in substance I used those words,” Mr Muldoon said. "It is a condensation, but I generally accept it.”

Mr Muldoon was asked by Mr Collins if he could tell the Court the factual basis for the references to “wayout militant” and “way-out Left-winger.” Mr Muldoon said: “Principally, but not exclusively, Mr Brooks’s activities as president of the National Union of Teachers. But, as well, other activities over a period known to various members of the caucus and Cabinet.”

Mr Muldoon said he could not say he had any particular feeling toward Mr Brooks at all. He certainly had none of malice.

“I got into this thing accidentally,” he said. “As will be realised from the debate in the House and the subsequent moves, none of them came from my instigation.”