Speaker’s Rulings — Parliament TV—Use of Official Footage for Political Advertising

Members, I have got two rulings to make. The first I will do very briefly, and it will be circulated in writing. It has to do with the number of legs in primary questions. I have been somewhat slack in my approach to policing this, and I intend to follow the Standing Orders and Speakers’ rulings in the future, and the written ruling that people will get will apply from the next sitting day.

The second ruling: members, I have received a letter from Kieran McAnulty raising with me as a matter of privilege the use by the Leader of the Opposition of official television coverage of the House for political advertising without the permission of the member shown and publishing a false and misleading account of proceedings, contrary to Part B of Appendix D of the Standing Orders. In his response to the complaint, the Leader of the Opposition has raised some valid points about the conditions for the use of official footage.

This matter was discussed at the last review of the Standing Orders, and while some parties wish to further reform the rules, others were not in favour. Because the Standing Orders Committee generally operates on the basis of consensus, the only change made was to remove the ban on using the footage for satire or ridicule. I think this matter should be considered again by the Standing Orders Committee in its current review, and I encourage the Leader of the Opposition to make a submission to the Standing Orders Committee.

I intend to retain the matter of the privilege until the committee determines whether the conditions for the use of the official footage should be further reformed. I still, however, need to deal with the subject of the complaint.

Mr McAnulty’s letter has highlighted the existence of a range of videos posted by different parties that use footage of members for political advertising. I would be very surprised if those members had given permission, as the rules clearly require. While there has been some discussion around what constitutes a political advertisement, it is clear to me that the videos that support one party or aim to reduce support for another party are the sorts of items covered by Appendix D of the Standing Orders. That view is further reinforced by the description of the video as an “attack ad” in the material Mr Bridges referred to me.

I encourage all parties to consider the videos that they may have posted online. Those using official Parliament TV footage that has been edited and featuring other members without their permission should be removed by 5 p.m. on Friday, 27 September.

In relation to the specific matter complained of, the Standing Orders are clear that breaches of the conditions for use of the official footage could result in the loss of access to that footage and may be treated as a contempt. As I have indicated, I intend to withhold judgment on the matter of privilege until after the Standing Orders Committee has considered the current rules. Until that time, the Hon Simon Bridges and his office are to refrain from editing official video footage of MPs and posting it. They may still link to the official footage, but I will view editing it as an intention to make an advertisement. I may then have to proceed more swiftly in considering the matter of privilege.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I just looked up the relevant Standing Orders—406 and 407—when it comes to considering a matter of privilege. Standing Order 406(1) states that “If the Speaker considers that a matter involves a question of privilege, this is reported to the House at the first opportunity.” Standing Order 407 then makes it clear that that matter is automatically referred to the Privileges Committee. From your ruling, you have decided that the video footage concerned has been edited. That in itself is a contempt of the House. Standing Order 410(r) makes it clear that “publishing a false or misleading account of proceedings before the House or a committee:” is a contempt of the House, and you have indicated that you believe that the video footage is misleading. Appendix D makes it clear that the use of video footage from the House in a political advertisement is also a contempt of the House. Therefore, following the Standing Orders, having made that decision, you have satisfied the criteria of 406(1)—you have alerted the House’s attention to it. Therefore, the matter must stand referred to the Privileges Committee.

It might be more useful to hear your view on the somewhat extraordinary position being put to you and the questioning of your judgment by the Leader of the House. Can I just say that your decision today is not one that can be taken lightly by anyone in this House. It would appear that what you are saying to members of this House is that we are more constrained in making comment about political statements that are made in this House than any outside media might be. That seems to be an incredible censorship of what should take place inside a transparent democracy. So while we are not going to challenge, obviously, from the floor of the House, the decision you have made today, I do want to make it very clear that we think your ruling is harsh and very destructive of open democracy in New Zealand.

This matter was well-canvassed during the most recent review of the Standing Orders. During that review of the Standing Orders, the proposals were made to remove those restrictions on use of the footage of the House in their entirety. The removal of the prohibition on satire was removed. The removal of the prohibition on the use of footage from the House for political advertising was not supported by all parties, and one of the parties that firmly opposed that was the National Party, represented by the member who has just resumed his seat.

That is quite correct, but the member over there assumes that he is the arbiter, as does the Speaker today, of what constitutes political advertising. The reality is the playing of a speech that anyone can read in Hansard any day of the week, in a way that can only be described as a satirical presentation, is not a political advertisement in our view. So it is a difference—[Interruption]

💬 SPEAKER: Order!

Well, is the member over there, who is the subject of that video—

💬 SPEAKER: No, that wasn’t the member who interjected.

—and published herself as being proud of being part of this, really saying that this was a serious contribution to the debate in the House and not something that some people might find somewhat strange? What I think we’ve got here is a situation where you have said you will wait until there is consideration by the Standing Orders Committee before you come down with further decisions about the way in which this might progress—or possibly progress—to the Privileges Committee, but you’ve also acted as a judge by, effectively, denying the Leader of the Opposition the opportunity to use footage in the way any other media outlet in this country is legally, and inside Standing Orders, able to do. Also, you have said that the Speaker can now determine what is content of an advertising nature on a political party’s website. That, I think, is a step well beyond the responsibilities of the office you hold.

I think there is an important point that the shadow Leader of the House has completely wrong in that statement. That is, if the media took video footage from the House and edited it and used it in a way that was misleading, that gave a misleading impression of what somebody had said, then they too would be in contempt of the House.

There he goes again, acting as the judge in this case, which is not before the Privileges Committee—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order! Addressing me on this.

I am. I’m looking at him, but I’m addressing you, sir. It would seem to me quite simple; the statements that are made in this House should be as public as possible. It is not appropriate to misrepresent—

💬 Nicola Willis: That’s right. Hear, hear!

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Who’s interjecting then? Nicola Willis; stand, withdraw and apologise.

💬 Nicola Willis: I withdraw and apologise.

It’s not appropriate to misrepresent them. But the question is whose judgment decides what a representation is? That has always been a difficult point. There was no alteration of the content of the speech from the member concerned. There was no commentary over the top of the speech of the member concerned. Simply, a presentation of it, and the asking of a question. Not unreasonable.

OK, right, I thank members for the contribution. I think, addressing the first point made by the Hon Chris Hipkins, I have not yet decided that a question of privilege has arisen. I think I’ve indicated that I would give it serious consideration, but I am deferring that in order for there to be a possible review of the decision that the House took to adopt the current Standing Orders, following the review that occurred in 2017. I’ll say to Mr Brownlee that he was one of the people who insisted the rules be different for political parties, and I accept that that is an unusual position, but because of the way that the Standing Orders Committee works, on the basis of a broad consensus, that is what the Standing Order says, and it is up to me, if you go nowhere else but to Standing Order 2, to be the person who has the responsibility for enforcing what it says.

What it actually says is that I can stop—I’m not sure how people thought that I could technically do it—but it does say that I can stop organisations actually getting the feed. You know, I’m not—as people know—a technology expert. I don’t know how you would actually do it, and I’m pretty sure that it was aimed at media organisations rather than political parties. But as I indicated, I’ve looked very carefully, both at the report of the Standing Orders Committee and at the slightly unusual set of Standing Orders on this matter that we have, and I am convinced that it is a matter that needs to be looked at, and things should be held in abeyance until then. The broadcasting through linking of any speech or any question; I’m not suggesting that people can’t do that. What I am saying is that they cannot edit them. At the point that they edit them there is a danger of them becoming an advertisement, and, until we’ve considered this matter, that’s not to continue.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It might then be helpful, Mr Speaker, if you were able to indicate what it is, or what are the bounds you consider for “editing”.

Clearly, a link—you know, the member’s aware that each of the questions, and each of the speeches in the House can be individually linked, and if members want to do that, and the entirety of the link is available, then there is no problem with that. It is when it is shortened and things are taken out of it that I consider that an edit.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It’s to get a clarification. So if I, for example, give a speech in the House on a particular issue—it might be in a general debate, it might relate specifically to something in the electorate that I represent—am I breaching Standing Orders, under your direction today, if I only publicise the part of that speech that I want to publicise?

No, if it’s the member’s own speech, there’s no problem.

Speaking further to that point of order. I think the reason it’s the member’s sole discretion is the Standing Orders are quite clear about that: that if you have the permission of the member concerned, then, of course, you can use that footage. Unless the member forbids himself to publish it, I don’t think there’s going to be an issue.

Order! Order! Now, Mr Hipkins, that’s now actually not being helpful. Right, is there any further discussion on this point? There appears to be none.