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

Members, when the House last sat, I ruled on a complaint about the use by the Leader of the Opposition of official television coverage for political advertising without the permission of the members shown and publishing a false and misleading account of proceedings contrary to Part B, Appendix D of the Standing Orders.

It is clear to me that the video complained of was a political advertisement. It was intended to encourage support for one political party or discourage support for another. Obviously, Mr Bridges did not have the permission of the member concerned to publish the video. There is a prima facie case to refer the matter to the Privileges Committee. At the time that I ruled, I deferred doing so. I then relied on assurances given by the National Party that my requirement to take down the advertisement would be complied with, and I am disappointed to have been misled.

On the basis of that assurance, I promoted rapid consideration by the Standing Orders Committee of changes to Appendix D of the Standing Orders. It will consider and start hearing evidence on the matter this week, ahead of a wider review of the Standing Orders.

The rules around the use of footage for proceedings were considered at the 2017 review of the Standing Orders. I was one of the members who advocated for more extensive changes than those finally approved by the committee. Those changes were opposed by the then Government, which is now in Opposition. It is a matter for the current Standing Orders Committee to consider whether it proceeds with any further changes and whether they apply from the start of the next Parliament or by sessional order.

No question of privilege has, in my opinion, been established in this case, because the case involving the Deborah Russell video is a trivial breach of the Standing Orders, and no further complaints have been received about other videos before the House sat today. However, there is still a matter of order that I have responsibility to address. It is the duty of the Speaker to uphold the authority of the Chair, which in fact is the authority of the House itself—Speaker’s rulings 15(1) applies. I ruled that videos using Parliament TV footage had to come down by 5 p.m. on Friday, 27 September. The Leader of the Opposition has defied that ruling. I cannot choose to selectively enforce the Standing Orders agreed by the House any more than the Leader of the Opposition can choose to ignore the Standing Orders he does not agree with. It is my role to interpret the Standing Orders and to decide on cases not previously provided for—Standing Order 2.

I have relatively few tools available outside referral to the Privileges Committee or naming a member for grossly disorderly conduct. I do not intend to exercise either of these options. I will shift my supplementary question allocation system instead, under Standing Order 387. The Leader of the Opposition will have a maximum number of supplementary questions, equal to his party’s total number of supplementary questions each day, divided by the number of primary questions it has each day. That means that he will have a maximum of five supplementary questions each day this week. I remind the House that supplementary questions are given at the discretion of the Speaker and no member has an absolute right to ask for them—Speaker’s ruling 172/1.

The National Party will retain its full allocation of supplementary questions, so other members can make use of them. The restriction will be for one sitting week for each working week that the advertisements have been online in contravention of the ruling. If they are [not] down by 5 p.m. Friday this week, then the Leader of the Opposition’s allocation of supplementary questions will reduce by one more next week and then again each week going forward. Any new advertisements that breach the Standing Orders will result in a further reduction.