Price on Parliament and court cases
September 27th, 2008 at 3:00 pm by David FarrarReaders may recall a massive scarp between Rodney Hide and the Speaker when she refused to allow him to talk about the Wayne Crapper perjury video, because Winston claimed it was the subject of a court case.
Steven Price takes a look at how the Speaker ruled:
In the end, the Speaker ruled in Peters’ favour, saying Hide was in breach. “Nothing said in the House should prejudice, however slightly, the decision of any court,” the Speaker said. “The House applies more rigorous inhibitory standards on itself than apply to the media in reporting judicial proceedings.” This is because the legislature “should take extreme care not to undermine confidence in the judicial resolution of disputes by intruding on individual cases”.
I don’t know what precisely is in issue in the lawsuit. But I think that ruling is wrong. I’m worried about the phrase “however slightly”. It’s a ridiculously low threshold, far lower than that applicable to the media. The rules applying to them say they can’t create a “real risk of prejudice” to an upcoming trial. That’s nebulous and chilling enough. This “however slightly” nonsense goes much further.Is it required by a sensible reading of the rules? Nope. In fact it flies in the face of the language that demands “a real and substantial danger of prejudice”.
Is it required by the needs of the administration of justice? Nope. If the courts can tolerate the media commenting on cases as long as they don’t create real risks of prejudice, then they can put up with MPs doing the same.
Is it good policy? Nope. There seems even more reason to cut our elected representatives some slack when conducting the business of the nation than there does for the media.
Is is good law? Nope again. The Speaker has forgotten that the Bill of Rights Act, which was passed by Parliament and says explicitly that it applies to Parliament, requires any restrictions on free speech to be demonstrably justified. You’d think that might be a relevant factor when considering how to interpret Standing Order 111. Apparently not.
I also thought it was a bad ruling. It actually allows any MP to gag any other MP by claiming that what they are referring to is the subject of a lawsuit.
Related posts:
- Steven Price
- Media access tightened in Parliament
- Supreme Court agrees to hear Maori Council appeal
- Carter overturns Environment Court
September 27th, 2008 at 3:26 pm
It was just part of Labours efforts to protect Winston and themselves. In the future whenever you talk about how pathetic this Labour government was you have to mention this incident.
It was embarrassing to any democrat and every New Zealander.
Vote:September 27th, 2008 at 3:57 pm
Hear, hear, Kimble, an embarrassment to Democracy in NZ………Mr Farrar and the “centrists” like to be too gentlemanly to talk about any sort of slide into one-party-statism in NZ………BUT, hey, waaaakey, waaaakey, smell the roses, guys……
Vote:September 27th, 2008 at 4:14 pm
This is what we can expect when the Labour Party has assumed control over all aspects of government. They have taken every single aspect of our democracy and perverted it for their “cause”. I believe Margaret Wilson is simply another puppet dancing to Helen Clark’s tune. As she has the police, the Electoral office, the Public Service, TVNZ and a whole host of other supposedly independent agencies under her thumb. It’s a disgusting state of affairs, supported by our dearly beloved socialists. They are happy to sell everything for their one party state and their ideology. It’s truely disgusting.
Vote:September 27th, 2008 at 7:03 pm
It was a shocker but no less than we expect from the worst Speaker in our history. (Hunt = No. 2)
The Speaker’s DUTY is to be fair. It’s not an option, it’s not a ‘nice-to-have,’ it’s a constitutional requirement.
Instead she doesn’t even ATTEMPT to be seen to be fair. It’s the BIAS committed at those times where the DUTY to supress BLATENT SELF-INTEREST is the greatest, that really irritates me. She doesn’t even make an attempt to hide it. Does she think we don’t see it, or does she just not care?
Worst. Speaker. Ever.
Vote:September 27th, 2008 at 9:13 pm
DPF
Only if the speaker is sad and sorry enough to act in such a partisan way.
This Labour-led govt has been so self serving it’s ridiculous.
Vote:September 27th, 2008 at 9:22 pm
Yes – Worst speak ever.
By a country mile.
The rot was broadcast the moment she declared that ‘questions need not be answered’, but merely addressed.
Bananas anyone?
Vote:September 28th, 2008 at 7:59 am
To be fair getstaffed, that wasn’t Wilson’s ruling. That rule was made by the Standing Orders committee.
And Wilson never quite reached the dizzying heights of imcomptence and ineptitude of the late Dr Gerry Wall is the 1980′s, when it was not uncommon to have half a dozen MP’s ejected each day. If you’re talking about partisanship though, Wilson wins in a canter!
Vote:September 28th, 2008 at 11:31 am
Dumbest speaker ever by a long shot – I have seen more smarts from a mentally handicap person that from her.
Vote:September 28th, 2008 at 8:48 pm
I’m disapppointed with Mrs ? Wilson. She hides behind a rule book, the hand book of parliament, what ever it’s fucking called. She may be a lawyer and have more brains then a bull can shit but I think she has been the worse speaker to infest parliament. We need someone that kicks arse, throws MP’s out instead of jumping up and down all day and pretending she seriously pissed off but most of all I would like the speaker to make them address the fucking question without being clever bastards.
Vote: