Weak protection for media reporting on what happens in Parliament may be beefed up as a result of an inquiry into freedom of speech versus court restrictions.
MPs' freedom of speech is protected by parliamentary privilege so they do not need to worry about legal actions arising from proceedings
in Parliament.
Professor Philip Joseph and Clerk of the House Mary Harris separately told Parliament's privileges committee yesterday that better protections were needed for reporting proceedings in Parliament.
Professor Joseph said there was a mistaken belief that media were protected from liability as long as stories were balanced and accurate. "That is only under the law of defamation ... It's good that this inquiry is being conducted because I think this issue should be revisited."
Defences were severely narrowed unintentionally when defamation laws were updated in 1992.
Professor Joseph said there was no protection against liability for contempt of court for live and delayed broadcasts of the House. Reporters and their employers were also in contempt if they published proceedings where a court order was breached.
He suggested:
* A delay on live broadcasts so the Speaker can intervene when an MP flouts an order and stop it going to air.
* Press gallery accreditation be conditional on agreeing to Speaker's orders against naming a person covered by a suppression order. He said "press gallery journalists might think this draconian" but it was up to the House to manage freedom of speech issues.
* Re-introducing protections in the Defamation Act 1954. Professor Joseph said there was a strong case to extend protections to broadcasts of proceedings of the House.
* Qualified privilege for political journalists and their employers.
Ms Harris recommended changes to the Legislature Amendment Act to protect live and delayed broadcasts and for qualified privilege to be extended to extracts broadcast, other publication of extracts and fair and accurate reports or summaries of what happened in the House.
The select committee inquiry followed a complaint by Labour MP David Parker over actions of Act MP Heather Roy when she gave suppressed details of a case where a criminal who should not have been on the loose killed a 20-year-old woman in a road crash.
Commonwealth Press Union NZ section representatives and newspaper editors Tim Pankhurst (Dominion Post) and Tim Murphy (Herald) told the committee Ms Roy's actions had been in the common interest, and such cases were rare.
They argued against putting limits on reporting what MPs said in such cases.
Mr Murphy said the case was a "searing example of the merits of those freedoms for our democracy".
The editors would welcome increased media protections. Mr Murphy said media had operated under the understanding they would not be found in contempt for reporting events in Parliament.
Solicitor-General David Collins, QC, recommended that either Standing Orders (Parliament's rules) be amended to prohibit MPs from referring to information suppressed by the courts, or that the law be changed so courts could enforce court orders.
Dr Collins said it was more complex when media reported comments made by an MP breaching a court order.
He said media should be subject to discipline of court in that case.
- NZPA
Weak protection for media reporting on what happens in Parliament may be beefed up as a result of an inquiry into freedom of speech versus court restrictions.
MPs' freedom of speech is protected by parliamentary privilege so they do not need to worry about legal actions arising from proceedings
AdvertisementAdvertise with NZME.