Tanczos Nandor: Standing Orders—Sessional 
Tanczos Nandor: Standing Orders—Sessional 
[Volume:640;Page:10361] 
NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) 
: 
 I move  
That 
the motion be amended by omitting the words “satire ridicule or denigration” 
. I intend to seek leave of the House at the conclusion of my speech to allow full debate on the motion my amendment and any other amendments that may arise to ensure that the debate is not constrained in any way because I think it is an important debate. 
Let me explain why I am moving my amendment to the motion. I will start by talking about the context of the motion. First of all by and large it is a positive change. I think the points that Mr Brownlee made are quite correct in that this motion represents an opening up of Parliament in a number of ways. It is unfortunate that this debate has overshadowed that broader opening-up. 
The first thing is that we are seeing access to a live feed through these cameras a feed that will be free and a feed that will mean that all of the proceedings of this Parliament are broadcast through the Internet and through any media channel that chooses to use it. There is an intention that select committee proceedings will also be ultimately televised or at least the public parts of them. That is something we must all applaud and I think it is important to remember that what is driving the move as a whole is an attempt to open up Parliament and make it more accessible to the people of New Zealand. That is extremely important. 
In the context of that the motion includes a relaxation of the rules regarding television coverage. Rather than coverage being restricted to the member who has the call the new rules will allow reaction shots and some broad shots of the House to be used. That is an improvement; that is an opening-up of what can be shown. I think it is important that we acknowledge those positive elements. 
I also want to thank Dr Cullen for explaining quite clearly the import of this matter being a sessional order and what that means in terms of the procedures of the House. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Mr Tanczos I do not want to interrupt you but there is a slight dilemma here. You indicated that you would be seeking leave to broaden the debate for subsequent speakers but you are now going very broad indeed—strictly speaking outside of your amendment. I do not mind but I just mention that so that you do not think it has slipped past me. 
NANDOR TANCZOS 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Would it be appropriate to seek leave at this time? 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Right. 
NANDOR TANCZOS 
: Thank you Mr Deputy Speaker for your guidance. I seek leave of the House for the debate to include discussion of the main question my amendment and any further amendments that members may see fit to move and for the questions on the amendments and the main question to be part of the conclusion of the debate. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Leave has been sought for that course to be followed. Is there any objection? There appears to be none. 
NANDOR TANCZOS 
: Thank you Mr Deputy Speaker for your guidance and I also thank the members of the House. 
I thank Mr Cullen for explaining clearly the import of this matter being a sessional order and the possibilities that the House will have at a later time to re-examine the matters in this report and in the sessional order. 
 As I was saying by and large this matter is being driven by a desire for a positive move which is the opening up of Parliament but it is fair to say that since the publication of the report major concerns have been raised in public not only by media and media representatives but also by other people—lest we think this matter is driven purely by media self-interest. I would characterise the concerns—at least as I have observed them—as being centred on three key issues. 
The first one is the process. I acknowledge the letter that Vernon Small wrote to the Speaker indicating that although the media have been consulted on the broad changes specific elements within them had not been made apparent to them. I think that is an issue and I note that the  
Dominion Post  
reported today that the Speaker had acknowledged that and had apologised to Mr Small for it. I am simply going by media reports; obviously I was not there myself. 
The second issue is the rule that coverage must not be used for “satire ridicule or denigration”. That presents members with problems. The first thing is how we are to define what is denigration or ridicule or even satire for that matter. I think we open ourselves up to the potential for a very restrictive regime. Although I accept Dr Cullen’s assurance that this rule would be interpreted liberally in this Parliament we always have to acknowledge that when we do these things we do them for the future and for Governments of a different nature from the sorts of Governments we currently enjoy. I certainly would not like to see members put in place rules that a more authoritative regime could use to suppress criticism of itself. 
Again as Mr Small has said members should ask themselves whether programmes like  
Eating Media Lunch 
 will not be able to use the proceedings of the House for satirical material. I think it would be inappropriate for members to try to stop them from doing that. Not only is such a rule unenforceable but also I think members would not want to stop satire. Political satire is an important part of the culture of New Zealand and of other countries. I certainly remember when I was growing up seeing David McPhail and Jon Gadsby on television. Political satire and the ability to poke fun at and prick the pomposity of politicians had a significant impact on my political development. It was an extremely important element and I think it would be unfortunate if members were seen to be trying to stop political satire. 
Like Mr Rodney Hide my personal view is that people should be able to film what they like. If as Dr Cullen said the concern is about misrepresentation of the proceedings of the House or if the concerns are those that Tariana Turia raised about racism and targeting then it may be possible to find better phrasing that actually goes to the heart of what we are trying to avoid rather than our having these fairly blanket statements. That is why I moved a motion to refer this matter back to the Standing Orders Committee. I think it would be quite useful to have another look at these issues. 
Dr Cullen referred to the photos in the  
Dominion Post  
as being a case in point; that if that is the objective of the exercise well members do not want to allow that. But I think that comment misses the point. It seems patently obvious to me that what the  
Dominion Post  
was doing was playing up and giving members a bit of a shot across the bow because it does not normally engage in that kind of thing. It was quite a pointed protest. Although I think the choice of photos may have been unfortunate as Tariana Turia has pointed out it would be wrong of us to take that as an indication of what the media’s concern is about this issue. The only time in the past that I remember the media showing a photo of members of Parliament yawning it was a photo of Annabel Young. The media were slapped over the wrist for it but the context was—[ 
Interruption 
] No it was Annabel Young. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: Yes I know but David Benson-Pope was sleeping. 
NANDOR TANCZOS 
: I offer my apologies to Mr Donnelly. The thing about the Annabel Young photo was that it taken when the House was sitting under extraordinary urgency to debate a tax law. Members were sitting until 4 or 5 in the morning or something; we were certainly sitting into the early hours of the next morning. The photo was really portraying the kinds of hours that we were sitting and I do not think that was an unreasonable thing for the media to do. I do not think the photo was intended to be derogatory at all; if anything perhaps it was intended to be sympathetic. 
The other issue is the inconsistency around the use of stills photos. When we think about it we realise it is difficult to see why there should be inconsistent rules for stills photography compared with the rules for television feeds. Again the concern could be that photos can be taken out of context much more easily than film footage because a photo of someone blinking can be portrayed as a photo of someone asleep. I have certainly been subjected to more than my fair share of photographic misrepresentation in my time—not by the press gallery I must say but by media outside the House. But I think it must be possible for us to say that what we are concerned about is unfair misrepresentation if that is what we are trying to get at. I cannot see that a very clear case can be argued to support a blanket rule that makes the rules for stills photography different from those for television feeds. 
So huge concerns have been expressed since the publication of the proposed rules and I think it is worth re-examining these matters. 
Lastly I would say that yes I was on the Standing Orders Committee as Dr Cullen said. The committee does work by consensus but I think the committee got it wrong in this instance. We all get it wrong sometimes. The Government has backtracked on policy the National Party has backtracked on policy and we have all made mistakes in our time. Getting it wrong is nothing to be ashamed of. What members should be ashamed of is if we refuse to rectify it. That is really the issue. Issues were raised in the select committee around these matters in any case. The weight of opinion was against it; that is fair enough. But the public concern is a good reason for us to go back and review these rules. As Gerry Brownlee said of the  
Dominion Post 
 if the media have concerns they can talk to MPs and Parliament will look into the matter. Well let us do that.