Brownlee Gerry: Standing Orders—Sessional 
Brownlee Gerry: Standing Orders—Sessional 
[Volume:640;Page:10354] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 The National Party will support these rules being enacted as a sessional order in the Parliament this afternoon. One of the things that has perplexed us over the last couple of days is that when members sat on the Standing Orders Committee and made the decision to go ahead with the cameras here in the Parliament it was largely with the thought that we were opening the place up and that there would be more coverage more access and more opportunities for the public to see what goes on in Parliament which has such a big effect on their lives. So it has been slightly perplexing that as the week has unfolded we appear to have narrowed down on two relatively simple matters as far as I can see. 
The first is the issue of whether still cameras should have the same flexibility as television cameras. I hasten to point out that the television cameras do not actually have all that much flexibility. The only advantage they have is that because there are multiples of them a statement and a reaction can be seen from various sides of the House. I do not discount though that at some point in the very near future we will need to have a further discussion about the role and the access of still cameras. After all if we want to have the place more open then I do not think that should be too much of an issue for us to deal with. I certainly indicate that the National Party is saying—and I believe the Speaker has said this to the gallery and to other interested parties—that we can have more discussion on this matter. 
The reality is that a sessional order lasts from the time it is passed today until the end of this Parliament. So there will be discussion in the Standing Orders Committee about what arrangements will endure from the start of the post - 2008 - election Parliament. In that I think there might be—in fact I would say there will be—some opportunity to overcome and get past some of the concerns that the media have. I want to state very firmly that in supporting these sessional orders as I believe would be the case for everyone else here there is no attempt to restrict the media in any undue way whatsoever. 
I want to speak about the issue of the ban supposedly on satire ridicule and denigration. It is an interesting prospect that serious gallery reporters say they want the absolute right to satirise ridicule and denigrate the proceedings of Parliament. I do not think that that upholds their entire argument about wanting to have greater access to a more open democracy. 
Satire will always have a place in the political arena; it does just about every day in the cartoons and it does in the weekly wrap-ups that we see in our news media particularly on television. To some extent if the right journalist is doing it it can be exercised on radio and it is frequently the case in the  
Dominion Post  
that a particular reporter writes her almost daily column or commentary the day after the House has had proceedings. 
Ridicule is an issue that the public should decide on. I would have thought that reporters would report the facts of any particular case or incident and the public would make their decision about how that was to be treated and if ridicule was the result then so be it. But to have the right to actively ridicule at large people who are elected here is not right. Denigration is much the same. It is interesting to note that the appendices that are attached are quite specific in saying that these matters all relate to what are already broadcasting standards rules. If they are read in that regard I do not think there is a total ban on satire. I would find it exceptional if the Broadcasting Standards Authority were to uphold a complaint of satire in many of the cases that we could all outline where one or two of us may have felt somewhat aggrieved because we were the centre of attention on any particular day. 
It is also worth noting that any censure or other condemnation that might come from breaching these rules arises as a result of the Privileges Committee making a decision. The step prior to that is that the Speaker determines whether a matter of privilege is involved and the step prior to that is that the member or members who feel aggrieved take the step of writing to the Speaker. 
I want to give an absolute assurance that if I am caught sleeping in Parliament and my photo appears in the paper on the television or otherwise I will not write to the Speaker complaining. I know that if I did the Speaker would find it very hard to suggest that publishing that photo was a contempt of Parliament. The proof of that is that although it is annoying and irritating in the last few days when various photos like that have been publicised there has been no such action taken. 
It is very hard and unreasonable at times though that those photos appear. I know that journalists particularly in the gallery work extremely long hours and extremely hard for the particular media outlets that they represent. But members of Parliament do also and I think it only reasonable to accept that from time to time there will be contributions made in this House that will be so difficult to listen to that if bottled they would be a fine remedy for the worst insomnia anyone could ever possibly suffer. As a consequence people do occasionally have their eyes shut but that should be no impediment to the thought process continuing. 
In short the National Party will support these rules because we have to have some rules in place from 17 July. Media outlets once the televising goes free to air can take still photographs or a range of still photographs off that feed and they are not going to miss out in the way they might currently be protesting about. The only difference will be that they will not have to send a photographer along here to wait the many hours that might be needed in order to get that particular gem in the lens. But if that is what they want to do then we give our commitment to talk further about that with the Speaker. We support these television coverage rules today because we need them. 
This is as I said before a sessional order that will be in place until the 2008 election. As a sessional order of course it can be altered and changed at any particular point so it is hardly a shutting off or a total denial of any particular rights. Beyond 2008 there will be Standing Orders that we hope will reflect the best interests of the people of this country because ultimately that is what this should be all about. 
I conclude by simply saying it was our intention and I believe the intention of everybody who sat on that Standing Orders Committee to open Parliament up to greater scrutiny and view so we remain a little perplexed by some of the extraordinary reactions in the last couple of days. We accept that they are genuine we will take them on board and we will discuss them further. Thank you Mr Deputy Speaker. 
Debate interrupted.