John Armstrong: 'Stupidity' of TV3 ban shows need for change

What better way of hammering home Taito Phillip Field's invisibility yesterday than to film the Mangere MP's empty seat in Parliament?

Afraid not. The stifling, nonsensical rules covering the televising of the House prevented television news using such symbolism to underline how the Labour MP spent the day hiding in his office and avoiding the media.

Screening the empty seat risked landing the kind of ban on filming meted out to TV3 for showing Ron Mark's now infamous "fingers" gesture.

The good news is that Speaker Margaret Wilson has hinted at a possible rewrite of the rules - but only when the decision is finally made to broadcast Parliament in full.

However, just as TV3 serves out its sentence, the parliamentary consensus regarding the existing rules - which essentially restrict filming to the MP with the call - might be collapsing.

Or so it might have been assumed listening to National's Gerry Brownlee going into bat for TV3 in Parliament yesterday and challenging the "stupidity" of imposing a three-day ban on the channel for showing Mr Mark's gesture when the NZ First MP had escaped censure.

However, Mr Brownlee's upholding of media freedoms appeared to have more to do with National's daily ritual of finding ways to annoy the Speaker. National has been on Margaret Wilson's case following her ruling that the Ingram report on Mr Field not be referred to Parliament's privileges committee.

That brought matters to a head between the Opposition and the Speaker. The challenges to her authority - some subtle and some not - continue unabated.

Mr Brownlee, National's shadow leader of the House, started on the subtle side, professing to being somewhat perplexed why Margaret Wilson had made her ruling on TV3 by press release rather than first informing the House.

He also wanted to know what thought the Speaker had given to how the public might perceive the "stupidity" of TV3 being punished, while Mr Mark had not been censured at all.

Was the Speaker ruling "that as long as the public don't see what is going on , anything pretty much goes?"

Margaret Wilson quietly thanked him for this contribution to her afternoon before explaining that TV3 had admitted the breach, which had been compounded by the gesture being broadcast more than once.

Leader of the House Michael Cullen inevitably joined the discussion, saying that while people might argue about whether the rules were the right ones, repeated breaches could hardly be ignored by the Speaker.

Dr Cullen was also keen to point out that TV3 - like National - might have other motives for getting worked up about the rules.

"Let us be clear. TV3 were seeking to be punished so someone could raise a point of order on their behalf so they could get some more favourable coverage out of their supposedly brave actions."

Mr Brownlee wasn't satisfied. How could the Speaker complain to the House about the number of people writing to her concerned about parliamentary standards, only to then punish a media outlet for displaying some of that bad behaviour but not dealing with the bad behaviour itself.

The constant references to Mr Mark, who was away from Parliament yesterday, were finally too much for the NZ First MP's deputy leader.

Peter Brown wanted to place on the record that Mr Mark had apologised three times for making the gesture. He had apologised to Parliament. He had apologised to Mr Brown. He had apologised to his caucus colleagues.

"Every time he sees that [gesture] on TV, he cringes. He knows he let the side down. The man has made a mistake and taken his punishment."

Mr Mark may be repentant. But it is TV3 that copped the ban - not him - and for the crime of doing the public a service.