Section 14

Matt Robson has made the apology required of him by Parliament’s Privileges Committee. Back in November Robson made some remarks about Peter Dunne’s links to the tobacco industry and Dunne complained.

Despite Robson no longer being a member of Parliament, the Committee was still able to act as judge and jury for Robson’s “offence”. No need for Dunne to worry about any inconvenient libel case like the rest of us would have to.

Robson made sure to reinforce his original point during his apology

In my November 1 newsletter I contrasted United leader Peter Dunne’s strong rhetoric in favour of the interests of families against his party’s vote against family-friendly policies like my Four Weeks’ Annual Leave Bill in 2003 and his own vote against my 2005/’06 Bill to raise the alcohol purchasing age to 20.

I would like to make an unqualified apology to Hon Peter Dunne that the wording of the original version of that November 1 newsletter to members and friends might have been misinterpreted by some to suggest that Robson-on-politics was in anyway suggesting that Mr Dunne was not an honourable person.

The High Court injunction forbidding anyone from releasing the contents of Don Brash’s e-mails raises some very interesting free speech questions.

The interim injunction was gained by Don Brash on Friday. It enjoins unknown respondents (John and Jane Doe) from copying, issuing to the public, broadcasting or making an adaptation of any of Don Brash’s e-mails. There is already a criminal investigation going on into the copying of these e-mails from Brash’s computer.

Nick Russell of Chen Palmer says in this morning’s Dominion Post (Brash blocks ’stolen’ e-mails) that this sort of prior restraint is very unusual.

“This is absolutely a gagging writ on the media.”

It’s worth noting as an aside that this injunction doesn’t cover documents tabled or read out in Parliament or select committee as these arenas are covered by parliamentary privilege.

There are a whole swag of questions here: In what circumstances (if ever) should we allow prior restraint of the press? To what extent can a “public figure” (or anyone) expect privacy? Should the probably illegal manner in which the information was gathered have an impact on whether it can be published? Are copyright restrictions relevant here and how should they apply?

(more…)

Former Progressive MP Matt Robson is going to be hauled before Parliament’s Privileges Committee for implying that United leader Peter Dunne was in the pocket of the alcohol industry. (Hat tip: No Right Turn, via Not PC.)

In his November 1st newsletter (since modified) Robson, angry at Dunne for not supporting the bid to raise the alcohol purchase age, said that “the liquor industry’s support for Peter Dunne, as with that of the tobacco, has always meant that he has faithfully delivered his vote for their interests.”

Rather than accuse Robson of libel, as the rest of us would have to do, and have the matter decided in a real court, Dunne went running to the speaker to try and get Robson hauled before the kangaroo court of the Privileges Committee. Speaker Margaret Wilson determined that Robson has a case to answer.

Standing Order 400(n) establishes that the House may treat as a contempt reflections on the character or conduct of a member in the member’s capacity as a member of the House. Its purpose is to protect members going about the business of the House from unfounded, scurrilous allegations of serious impropriety or corruption.

I am satisfied that to allege that Mr Dunne has “faithfully delivered his vote” as a result of support from the industries concerned could carry such an implication. Whether or not it actually does is for the Privileges Committee and ultimately the House to decide.

Accordingly, I have determined that the statement in the newsletter does involve a question of privilege in that it may constitute a reflection on the character or conduct of a member in the member’s capacity as a member of the House. Consequently, the question of privilege stands referred to the Privileges Committee.

Remember that Robson is no longer a Member of Parliament. This is not an internal matter - the proper domain of the Privileges Committee. This is Parliament attempting to shut down external criticism without the hassle of getting a libel conviction in a real court.

UPDATE 6/12/06: Matt Robson had his appearance before the Privileges Committee yesterday and has apologised for any offence he caused. Hat tip: No Right Turn.

I’ve received a reply from Reporters Sans Frontières about why New Zealand’s press freedom index rank slipped this year.

RSF preface their comments by saying that in the past New Zealand’s ratings have been “especially good, even perfect”. The two reasons given for our drop are

1. tensions and pressure around the Mohammed cartoons [when Helen Clark attacked the Dominion Post and The Press for printing the cartoons, saying the issue “is not one of freedom of the press but of taste and judgement and the cartoons will do nothing to bring communities together”], and
2. TVNZ’s Board being hauled before Parliament’s Privileges Committee during the Ian Fraser affair.

RSF gave New Zealand black marks for having Parliament interfering in the running of TVNZ (interference from the politically appointed Board was Fraser’s original reason for resigning) and then, when the TVNZ Board punished Fraser for what he’d said to the Select Committee, the Greens defended Parliament’s punishment of TVNZ’s Board on freedom of speech grounds.

Both of these comments are about government meddling in the media. The temptation to meddle will always be there for politicians who think they know best, but clearly the meddling is more effective when the medium in question is state-owned.