TV3 banned for three days
August 29th, 2006 at 6:29 am by David FarrarParliament is the loser with TV3 being banned for showing an MP giving a “fuck you” fingers display to another MP, yet nothing happening to the MP who did it.
For once I’ll defend Margaret Wilson in her decision to ban TV3 for three days. She does have to enforce standing orders. The problem is Standing Orders need to change so media can cover stuff like this. Congress has C-Span – we should be able to handle coverage of our entire debating chamber.
Anyway nice to see that TVNZ have agreed to share footage with TV3 during the ban.
No tag for this post.
August 29th, 2006 at 7:42 am
Wilson did not have to ban TV3. It was in the public interest for the public to see that obscene gesture. It seems showing the public what a dirty piece of work Ron Mark is (it reminds me of his criminal conviction) was somehow wrong. Wilson should have done nothing and asked for the SO to be “looked into”.
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 7:42 am
DPF:
Well, I take a slightly different POV on this. If Madame Speaker wants to take the most legalistic reading of standing orders on this issue she’s perfectly entitled to so, but she has to be consistent and ban every media organisation that airs footage of any MP who is not on their feet and speaking. It’s blindingly obvious that this doesn’t happen. Mags can’t have it both ways.
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 8:07 am
Mr. Barclay is right (above). The MP made the gesture didn’t he?? Why should this be censored? Why should NZers be shielded from the reality of the farce that our Westminster parliament is nowadays?. There’s much worse that happens there than a relatively harmless gesture, especially since the place fell under the control of a bunch of Marxist barbarians. For example, Wilson’s partisanship and Labour’s arrogant disregard for the principle of transparency in government has reduced Question Time to a ridiculous farce.
Wilson’s Stalinist style retribution against TV3 is just an abuse of power, and a stark reminder of what the left really stand for.
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 8:09 am
Actually Wilson did have to ban TV3 once a complaint had been made. The speaker is under an obligation to follow up any complaint and apply the rules as necessary. TV3 got done because some MP laid a complaint. TV1 remains in the clear because no-one’s lodged a complaint … yet.
Still the broadcast rules for the chamber are ridiculous. Print and radio can say what they see, why not TV?
I blame Jonathan Hunt.
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 8:24 am
And yet when TV breaks the rules and doesn;t offend Labour – as in Jhon Campbell having his juvenial hissy fit over Rodney’s seat (like many many others) being empty – there’s a stunning bloody silence.
I agree, she should have banned them. But she should have also banned them when they break the rules at other times.
I also agree that what they showed IS in the public interest.
In short the rules are wrong. We pay for this overpriced kindergarten and we only get to fire their asses once every three years. We’re entitled to know what we’re getting for our money and who has failed the three year job probation.
Open government, what a concept.
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 8:37 am
Agree. Obviously Ron Mark popping the bird is something that is in the public interest to be shown. Annabel Young yawning, whilst amusing, is something that a member should be allowed to get away with. I guess if a member is involving him or herself directly or indirectly in a debate then it should be fair game otherwise the rules should remain the same.
I did not agree with Wilson’s comment that by showing the incident it reflected badly on members – the incident itself reflected badly.
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 8:45 am
Its pretty clear the pollies have got it the wrong way round. Instead of changing funding rules they should be reviewing the Speakers rules. Especially the way in which members only have to “address” the question.
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 8:57 am
So would they be banned if Ron was standing whilst flipping the bird?
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 10:39 am
These people put themselves up for election to represent us If they are so sensitive that they dont want us to see them doing their job representing us then they should piss off. Yet another example of their arrogance and contempt. They need to be taught they are our servants and we are their masters Not the other way around.
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 10:39 am
I think the present rule is probably inconsistent with the Bill of Rights. My analysis is over here:
> LAWS179: “Broadcasting of Parliament”
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 10:46 am
Dean: Parliament being a law unto itself, and judge, jury and executioner in its own cases is probably inconsistent with the Bill of Rights (or at least with basic principles of justice). But they’ll have to be dragged kicking and screaming into surrendering their privilege (private law)…
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 11:34 am
The state has no problem in collecting data from it’s citisens, I have a folder of forms I am requried to fill out every year to satisfy their curiosity. We are continually under the states spotlight, unfortunately it seems the people should not have the same privledge.
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 1:55 pm
Wilsons partiality probably makes her the worst speaker in NZ history and is an excellent argument for re-establishing the link between electors and MPs ie it is impossible to for electors to remove Wilson at the ballot box short of no one voting labour.
Vote:August 29th, 2006 at 2:26 pm
TV3 is the Labour’s single biggest asset in any election campaign. Let ‘em fight each other.
Vote:August 30th, 2006 at 11:45 pm
Banning TV3 is wrong. Morally, journalistically and constitutionally.
If I were the editor of TV3 News, every time a report from Parliament came up I would put on a big red X with CENSORED BY YOUR MPs across it.
Wilson is behaving like Mugabe. We have a right to see waht’s happing in our house of Parliament. Ours, not hers. And if there are standing orders contradicting that view, then let’s identify which parties will tomorrow table a motion to alter those standing orders.
Preferably so that they say:
All proceedings in Parliament are open to observation by the New Zealand public, by personal attendance, by radio broadcast, by internet streaming in sound and pictures and by television broadcast.
Broadcasters are free to show any and all of the events that take place in the Chamber during their coverage. Such broadcasts are privileged, and no broadcaster shall incure any sanction for their broadcast of any event that takes place on the floor of the Chamber during a session.
The proceedings of Parliament, and the recordings made of them from time to time, belong irrevocably to the people of New Zealand, and no person or organisiation shall claim copyright in picturesr or sounds recorded or broadcast from the Chamber of Parliamemt.
Lawyers front and centre please. What did I miss?
Philip
Vote: