KEY POINTS:
Two legal academics have attacked the new parliamentary rules on the use of television, suggesting they constrain freedom of expression and run contrary to the Bill of Rights.
Most of the criticism so far has centred around MPs' intention of banning the use of footage in a way
that satirises, ridicules or denigrates them. But they also ban political parties from using images of each other for attack advertising in election campaigns.
The rules, which the MPs devised, will take effect from next month, when Parliament will broadcast its own proceedings. They will apply to all filming, including that done by news organisations.
Uses of the footage that will be banned include:
* political advertising or elections campaigning (except with the permission of all members shown)
* satire, ridicule or denigration
* commercial sponsorship or commercial advertising.
Barrister and media law lecturer Steven Price said it was difficult to see how the proposed restrictions "can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society" - a reference from the Bill of Rights Act.
"I'm also astonished to see that it doesn't permit the use of material for election campaigning."
So, for example, if even the Prime Minister could be shown to have lied in the House, the Opposition couldn't use footage of that in its election campaign.
"This is core speech, in the sense that it falls at the heart of the two key justifications for speech: promoting the work of democracy and the search for truth."
He said it was notable that there was not a single mention of the Bill of Rights Act.
The act applied to actions of Parliament and it guaranteed the "right to seek, receive, and impart information and opinions of any kind in any form" subject only "to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society".
Auckland University law professor Paul Rishworth said that in applying that standard it was justifiable to ask what appropriate goal was behind the restriction and whether the rule was proportionate to the goal.
There was something to be said for restricting the use of a broadcast image of Parliament, he said. "It does not strike me as plainly unreasonable that the MPs might choose to impose conditions designed to ensure that their broadcast images are used for the right reasons [to allow people to view the democratic process without attending Parliament in person] and not used to denigrate them."
But he was worried by the requirement that coverage not be used for satire or ridicule "for these can be legitimate tools in the commentator's armoury for offering robust commentary - and freedom of expression certainly protects political debates".
He argued that freedom of expression would be better served without having such a rule. "Having a broad rule in place can deter legitimate speech, even that which would ultimately have been found permissible by a narrow reading of the rule."
Mr Price said that while Parliament was subject to the Bill of Rights Act, it was difficult to enforce, as the courts would not review standing orders, which include the television rules.
Parliament is due to debate the new rules this afternoon.
