Dunne Peter: Standing Orders—Sessional 
Dunne Peter: Standing Orders—Sessional 
[Volume:640;Page:10363] 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I want to say at the outset that I am not persuaded that the Standing Orders Committee got it wrong in its consideration of these matters. It spent some considerable time doing so. It drew on comparable international experience and it sought to develop a regime that would be more liberal than the one we have presently particularly given the changes in television coverage. The rules around satire and denigration I will return to separately but they I think have taken away much of the positive substance of these changes and I think it would be foolish for this Parliament to now overreact by going back the other way. 
We were confident in the select committee that we had the rules crafted properly and that we had provided for better coverage and more flexibility and I think we should let them have a run. These are sessional orders and as others speakers have said they can be changed at some stage over the next year or so. But I think it would be foolish to change them before we have even started them so for that reason I do not support the amendment that has just been moved. 
As this debate has unfolded over the last few days it has struck me that the media and the Parliament have one point in common. We both crave credibility. Parliamentarians are acutely conscious that their standing in the public is somewhat lower than the lowest. I point out that the media often does not rate a great deal more highly. So although we see as parliamentarians a need to protect and respect this institution through the way in which it is presented which might lead some people to view us as being overly cautious and concerned with our reputation and image—no bad thing I say—the media for its part also wants to be viewed in an equally responsible and credible light. 
That common ground then becomes the point at which we start to separate. We as parliamentarians say—and I go right back to 1936 when the Labour Government of the day first instituted the broadcasting of this Parliament—that broadcasting telecasting or some other form of transmission of what goes on here is the best way of ensuring that the public of New Zealand gets a true and an accurate picture of what is happening. The media say that their critical role is to inform to analyse and I guess to enable the readers and the viewers to make critical decisions based on the judgments they are putting before them. That is all very well in theory but the practice of the last few days as this debate has unfolded has been somewhat different from that. 
I have spoken to a number of journalists none of whom have expressed concern about their ability as a result of these changes to seriously report what goes on in this House. That is not an issue. The issue for them seems to be the restriction on their ability to satirise and to denigrate and that to me says something about the core of the problem. This is not about whether Parliament can be properly presented to the people of New Zealand and whether the voters who collectively decide our individual and ultimate fates can be better informed about what goes on here. That seems to have become a secondary issue to the view that the media has a right not just to inform but to satirise and to denigrate. 
I think what has got out of balance here is the issue of what the fundamental responsibility is. I have no objection to satire and denigration. It is part of our stock-in-trade most of the time. But I think that to say that that becomes the primary purpose which is the way that the debate seems to have unfolded in the last few days somewhat to be colloquial puts the cart before the horse. I think it is important that Parliament puts a stake in the ground and says that we are about being open and we are about being as transparent as possible—hence these new rules for the telecasting of Parliament. We are not contrary to much of the commentary changing the rules at all with regard to still photography. They remain as they have been. But at the same time we are about enhancing the credibility of this place. 
I think that to get hijacked as we are in danger of doing by the side issue of how satire is portrayed and what the rights of the media are to satirise is to miss the point. Satire will continue to occur. One simply does not need to take this feed. A tape can be taken off any broadcast anyway and used for those purposes. I see that the Minister of Health is here and I hope he does not mind if I draw attention to his abilities in this regard. Some of the examples that have been portrayed this week of outlandish behaviour by members of Parliament that would not be permitted under these new rules actually relate to the Minister and one of his colleagues dancing not in Parliament but somewhere else altogether. So presumably those broadcasts could continue and we could continue to see his skills— 
Darren Hughes 
: No we won’t. 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: The whip says that we will not and I think that is probably correct. 
The point I am making is simply this. I think this debate has lost a lot of its perspective. This is about the rules for the telecasting of Parliament. Parliament is the highest court in the land. It is entirely proper that there are some boundaries around how its presentation occurs. The media will always continue to satirise and to lampoon—that is a legitimate and strong historical tradition. But it is not a principle of democracy to start from the presumption that the first thing to be preserved is the right to satirise and to lampoon. That is a consequence; it is not a substantive principal argument. 
I want to see these rules be given a run. They may not be perfect. We can always review and change them. We do that constantly as it is anyway. I want to see New Zealanders have the chance to observe their Parliament in action in a full and an accurate way. When people talk about Parliament they are amazed when I tell them that what they see on television at night is probably 10 percent of the worst 10 percent—the excerpts from question time the unruly behaviour and so on—and that 80 to 90 percent of what goes on here would occur whichever party was in Government without contention and debate as members constructively get on about their work. People are stunned when they hear that because that is not the impression they have been given by the way that this place is portrayed. I think we do ourselves and our country a disservice if we continue to be lulled into a sense of saying: “Well let’s actually accept that the portrayal of this place is as it should be.” Then we have debates about why we do not have civics courses in schools to educate young people about the political process and how Parliament works. Part of the reason why that call is as strong as it is is that people feel disillusioned by what they see—which gets back to the way that this place is presented and reported. 
So this is really a chance for us to put in place some rules that are sustainable fair and reasonable and balanced. I think it would be wise for us to let ourselves have a run at them then in the wake of experience to decide where changes are to be made. On that score although I respect the amendment that Mr Tanczos has moved I think that it is a little premature. I think it would be prudent for the recommendations of the Standing Orders Committee to be adopted and for these new rules to be put in place and reviewed as to how they work out at a more leisurely pace.