MINISTER'S EVIDENCE Cabinet shared views of Mr Muldoon

Press, Volume CXII, Issue 32874, 24 March 1972, Page 2

MINISTER'S EVIDENCE Cabinet shared views of Mr Muldoon

(New Zealand Press Association)

WELLINGTON, March 23.

The Minister of Transport (Mr Gordon) said in the Supreme Court today that comments made in the “Sunday News” by the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Muldoon) on the rejection of Brian Thomas Brooks for the position of Chief Industrial Mediator, coincided, “generally speaking,” with the views of the Cabinet and caucus.

He was giving defence evidence in the action in which Mr Brooks, industrial relations manager and university lecturer, is suing Mr Muldoon for $25,000 for alleged defamation.

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 claim relates to three newspaper reports of statements allegedly made by Mr Muldoon and a “Gallery” television programme in which Mr Muldoon was interviewed. In evidence, John Bowie Gordon, Minister of Transport, said he recalled the nomination of Mr Brooks coming before the Cabinet. Asked by Mr R. G. Collins, counsel for Mr Muldoon, what the Cabinet reaction was to the recommendation, Mr Gordon said the Cabinet declined the paper. Mr Collins: Can you possibly help us by indicating what sort of majority? Mr Gordon: I think it would be fair for me to say it was the consensus of opinion of the Cabinet. Main objection Asked if he could recall what the “main burden of the objection” of the Cabinet was to the nomination, Mr Gordon said he thought it fair to say that three or four members “were knowledgable of some of Mr Brooksfs quotations.” “Newspaper reports were referred to,” he said. "There

were two or three others who had met Mr Brooks, and passed their opinion.” Asked by Mr Collins if he could say what kind (of person the Cabinet wanted'to -obtain for the position, Mr Gordon said the ideal person would have been a man respected by all die Cabinet—a man known to at least the majority of the Cabinet and caucus, and one with a known reputation in achieving industrial harmony. Mr Collins: In regard to industrial action would identification with any particular form of industrial action be a disqualification? Mr Gordon: I think the only way I can answer that is to say, in these circumstances, yes. Union action Asked by Mr Collins if, in his view, Mr Brooks was identified with any particular kind of industrial action or union action, Mr Gordon said, “Yes.” Mr Gordon said he guessed the majority of the Cabinet knew before they went to the Cabinet meeting of the report, particularly the one which appeared in the "Auckland Star” of an interview with the applicant. He could well remember that there was a quotation about facilities at schools, and that teachers should take direct action. Just below this was a reference to the fact that this was one way of drawing parents* attention.

Mr Gordon was asked by Mr Collins if he had associated teachers as a group with the concept of direct action in the past. “Reluctantly, yes, in the last two years,” Mr Gordon

I said. “At the time I was dis- ■ turbed at the connotation or innovation that the teaching ’ profession, which they often * call themselves, should be . asked to take direct action.” Mr Gordon said he had seen comments in the “Sunday News” which Mr Muldoon gave for the rejection of Mr Brooks. ! Mr Collins: How did they ; coincide with the Cabinet ( and caucus view—Generally speaking, they coincided ‘ accurately. Strike reference Cross-examined earlier in the day by Mr F. D. O’Flynn, ' Q.C., Mr Muldoon said that l in an interview with the magazine of the Socialist So- . ciety of Auckland University, , there was a reference in Mr i Brooks’s own words to direct , action or strike. “He says in his answer strike and direct action are at a certain point synomy- ! mous terms,” Mr Muldoon said. Asked by Mr O’Flynn if it ’ was not obvious that the ■ question was whether a teacher’s strike was a possibility, Mr Muldoon said the answer was obviously yes, because direct action was , part of the policy of the National Union of Teachers. Mr O’Flynn: Do you accept that a fair construction of ; that is that direct action is part of the policy and a strike is ultimately a possibility?— Of course.

Mr d’Flynn suggested to Mr Muldoon that in the circumstances it was an exaggeration to put three rhetorical questions or quotations, each suggesting that strikes were advocated.

Mr Muldoon: I wouldn’t think so, because I emphasised the clear link between the term “direct action,” which is generally regarded as a euphemism for strike action, and the number of times that has been repeated in the material put out by this organisation, and the knowledge of Ministers and members that this was the organisation’s policy. Mr Muldoon was asked by Mr O’Flynn if he saw it as

fundamental to his case that the series of statements allegedly made by him arose from what he said in the Imprest Supply Debate on August 17. “I am not sure what you mean by fundamental,” Mr Muldoon said. "But certainly the sequence of events was that I replied on behalf of the Government to questions from the Opposition in the Imprest Supply Debate about the failure to appoint Mr Brooks.” Mr Muldoon said that a Mr Swift, of the "Sunday Times,” asked him to elaborate on his remarks in the House of Representatives, and he did so.

Mr Muldoon was asked by Mr O’Flynn if he agreed it was desirable, if possible, to

nave agreement Between tne Employers’ Federation and the Federation of Labour on the appointment of a Chief Industrial Mediator. Mr Muldoon said he agreed there should be agreement. “I would have thought that agreement between the employers and the trade unions, other things being equal, would not be a reason for objections,” he said. But agreement on an unsuitable person — and Mr Brooks was introduced by the president of the Federation of Labour as his nominee — brought in “the kind of question we have been dealing with recently”. “Unorthodox groups” Mr Muldoon was referred by Mr O’Flynn to a statement he had given earlier in evidence that several Ministers, including himself, knew of Mr Brooks as someone who had been a member of a large number of unorthodox, or even anti-establish-ment, groups. “Can I assume you don’t include V.S.A. among antiestablishment groups?” Mr O’Flynn asked. Asked by Mr O’Flynn which activities on the application form fell within his description of an anti-estab-lishment group, Mr Muldoon said there were two. One was obviously the National Union of Teachers. The other was the Auckland Council for Civil Liberties. Mr Muldoon said Mr Brooks had been associated with the Homosexual Law Reform Society. He did not take any exception to that, but suggested it was an unorthodox group. “He has been a known activist in the field of antiVietnam activities,” Mr Muldoon said. “Again, I repeat this is not to his discredit, but is part of a continuing attitude which was known to Ministers. He was knojm to give jiahti-establishmenf replies On his radio ‘HotFLine* programme, “This is his view. Well, all right. But as the Government I think we were entitled to take this into account under the general terms ’unorthodox’ or ‘anti-establishment’.”