Kerre Woodham: Just get your facts right

Maybe I'm missing something; maybe it's because I'm a journalist, but this plan by our politicians to give themselves legal protection outside the House really gets my blood boiling.

Basically, the Privileges Committee has recommended that politicians be granted freedom from prosecution if they support statements they've made in the House.

Previously, if a politician backed up claims and allegations, or failed to withdraw the statements, those named could sue. And some did so. Successfully.

Act MP Owen Jennings fought a defamation suit all the way to the Privy Council, but ultimately he was found to have defamed an erstwhile anonymous civil servant. Winston Peters, too, was famously sued by businessman Selwyn Cushing.

And as far as I'm concerned it's a jolly good thing that protection is there. As we know, mud slinging and political point-scoring - playing the man, not the ball - seem to be the weapons of choice for the Beehive bandits, and they don't seem to care who gets caught in the crossfire.

It makes me damn nervous to think that the not-so-honourable members can get away with saying what they like about anyone at all, without being held accountable.

Don't get me wrong - they can say what they like within the debating chamber. They are entitled to freedom of speech under the rules of Parliament, subject to certain conditions, and that freedom is necessary if obfuscations and cover-ups are to be exposed.

But while they were subject to the defamation laws, they weren't able to repeat the allegations outside the house unless they had all their ducks lined up in a row. They had to remain tight-lipped despite persistent questioning until they were so certain of their facts they could make their claims in the public arena or until the media had done the investigating for them.

Why on earth should they be able to change that?

New Zealand First is the only party that's opposing the change and that's just because Winston Peters is flouncing because nobody came to his rescue when he was being sued.

When this law does go through, as it inevitably will, I'll be furious.

As a journalist, I've got it wrong before.

Sometimes, your 100 per cent reliable source turns out to be having an off day and has to be downgraded to 99 per cent. Other times, you just stuff up. And each time, you and your bosses are held accountable. In my case, the first time, it was enough to say sorry; the second time, it was sorry and a cheque.

And I am genuinely sorry that I got it wrong on those two occasions. It's a tremendous privilege to be able to speak your mind and interview people who tell it like it is, and expose incompetence or venality or corruption.

But as a rider to that privilege there should be punishment if you get it wrong. Because words do hurt and mud sticks.

A person's character or reputation is quite often more important to them than any of their material possessions. And for an MP to casually destroy that as they pursue bigger game is wrong.

They should be as sure of their facts as journalists are when they commit themselves to print or transmission, and they should suffer the same consequences as any other New Zealander when they get it wrong.