The serious business of the House of Representatives - whither humour and freedom of expression?

The report of the Standing Orders Committee and sessional order, and the prohibition of satire, ridicule and denigration

The aim and purpose of televising Parliament was to make Parliamentary debate
more accessible to the public and to improve public understanding of the
democratic process. Parliament however now has new rules and conditions for television coverage of its proceedings which outline uses of the coverage
of proceedings which are not permitted, and provide that breaches will be contempt.

The Report of the Standing Orders Committee of Parliament in June 2007 concerning television coverage of the House of Representatives recommended amendments to Standing Orders and the adoption of a new appendix to the Standing Orders. to be embodied in a sessional order until a full review of the Standing Orders has been completed.

The changes recommended by the Standing Orders Committee include in Part 2 new conditions of use of coverage and in particular that coverage of proceedings must not be used in any medium for satire, ridicule or denigration.

Breach of the conditions may result in loss of access to coverage, and may be treated as contempt "and proceeded against accordingly". Contempt of Parliament is a serious matter.

Broadcasters have objected to the new rules, maintaining that the they are "anti-democratic" and that the public has a right to see how MPs behave in Parliament. Some broadcasters have indicated that they will defy the new rules.

The Attorney-General (who was the Deputy Chairperson of the relevant Standing Orders Committee) is obliged by s7 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act to inform Parliament if any provision in a Bill before Parliament is incompatible with the Bill of Rights, and must therefore be fully familiar with the right of freedom of expression, inherent in a democracy, that has been enshrined in s14 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. Section 14 provides that:

"Everyone has the right to freedom of expression, including the freedom to seek, receive and impart information and opinions of any kind in any form."

Justice Anderson in his powerful dissenting judgment in the Hosking privacy case, noted that:

"Freedom of expression is the first and last trench in the protection of liberty. All of the rights affirmed by the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act are protected by that particular right. Just as truth is the first casualty of war, so suppression of truth is the first objective of the despot."

The use of satire as political commentary has a long and distinguished history and is as old as democracy itself. From the plays of the ancient Greek comic dramatist Aristophanes to those of Shakespeare, and more modern examples such as George Orwell's Animal Farm, political cartoons, and "Spitting Image" television broadcasts. Tolerance of political satire is a sign of a healthy democratic society. When faced with misbehaving, pompous, humourless, overbearing, self-important or simply sleeping politicians, it is natural and healthy for the public - and the media as surrogates of the public - to resort to humour. All the more so when politicians so often seem oblivious to any form of reasoned critique so that humour may be the only effective commentary on their performance.

The resistance of the media to Parliament's attempt to constrain the use of satire and ridicule in televised reporting of Parliament has led to attempts to come to a compromise. One of the most important roles of the media in a liberal democracy is to fight for press freedom and for the right of freedom of expression.

It will be interesting to see where the line in this case is eventually drawn and what weight Parliament really attaches to the right of freedom of expression supposedly enshrined in our Bill of Rights Act.

Enquiries and information

For more information please contact Alan Ringwood, Partner.