Kedgley Sue: Standing Orders—Sessional 
Kedgley Sue: Standing Orders—Sessional 
[Volume:640;Page:10365] 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 I rise to support the amendment of my colleague. I think that we MPs are taking ourselves too seriously over this issue. I think we are being too precious. Ridicule cannot be banned; that is absolutely ridiculous. I think we ridicule ourselves by trying to ban it. Satire cannot be banned; that is ridiculous. I think we will attract the very ridicule we are fearing by seeking to ban it—to prohibit it. I think we need only to read the letters in the  
Dominion Post  
today to see the sort of ridicule that this unfortunate decision has already attracted on to this House. 
As my colleague said the members of the Standing Orders Committee probably were not thinking too deeply about these issues. They did not hear from the media as they ought to have done and frankly in my view they got it wrong. You know this happens. It happened with the microchipping. We had to admit that Parliament had got it wrong and we could seek to rectify it. So I think we need to acknowledge that the committee has got it wrong and that we need to give it a bit more thought. We need to re-examine the issue and we need in particular to realise that we should stop taking ourselves so seriously and being so precious. 
We should just think for a moment about how ridiculous it is that we in this House are trying to ban ridicule. It is a bit like prohibition. You know people try to prohibit the use of marijuana and so that encourages its use. This is the same sort of thing: by trying to prohibit the ridicule and satire of this House I am absolutely certain that we will encourage it. We will have media people all over the place up and down the land—not just those from  
Eating Media Lunch  
but others—inevitably having the temptation to ridicule us to satirise us and indeed to denigrate us. 
Frankly much of the behaviour in this House is behaviour that should be ridiculed and probably is ridiculous. It may be that by allowing more open coverage I hope we will encourage better behaviour in this House. We need to remember that it was not very long ago that Onslow College students came and did a survey of behaviour in this House and they said that they would have been expelled from their school for the bullying and appalling behaviour that takes place in this House—they would have been expelled. Some think that the behaviour in this House is very clever and funny but a lot of the time it degenerates into bullying and abuse. That sort of behaviour frankly deserves to be exposed deserves to be ridiculed and deserves to be satirised. 
I think the one other issue concerns the question of why we are having one rule for still photography and another for TV and film. I have asked what the underlying principle is—what is the reason what is the thinking behind this? But I have not had a satisfactory explanation. There is not one as far as I can see. It seems to me that that is another instance where the people on that committee have got it wrong. What is the point of passing what effectively is a rule that has no justification—that does not stand up to scrutiny? I think that that is another rule that needs to be rethought. 
 In summary I seek to support my colleague’s amendment. I implore members to support it to acknowledge that we have made a mistake and to acknowledge that it is ridiculous to seek to ban ridicule. In so doing we will hold ourselves up to ridicule satire and abuse as has already happened. In making this ban we will encourage exactly what we fear. Let us stop being so precious and taking ourselves so seriously. Let us drop this ridiculous prohibition and support my colleague’s amendment.