Parliamentary privilege is a threat to all of us

People are rightly outraged about psycho fascist Parmjeet Parmar "inquiring" about using the privileges committee to arbitrarily imprison her political opponents. As Chris Hipkins said yesterday, that is the sort of thing which happens in tinpot dictatorships, undemocratic and wrong, and a permanent stain on our Parliament. But its worse than that. Because parliamentary privilege doesn't only affect MPs, but all of us. Among the examples of contempts listed in the standing orders is:

reflecting on the character or conduct of the House or of a member in the member’s capacity as a member of the House.

Taken literally, this means that saying that Shane Jones is a corrupt mining industry stooge, or Winston is a senile old racist, or Casey Costello is a tobacco lobbyist, or David Seymour is a racist little incel are all contempts, punishable by parliament's private star chamber, the privileges committee. And its not just a theoretical problem: its not that many years since Matt Robson - then a private citizen, not an MP - was dragged before the privileges committee and forced to apologise for saying that Peter Dunne was in the pocket of the liquor and tobacco industries and had always faithfully delivered his vote for their interests.

That was outrageous enough when it was a mere apology. But now government MPs are discarding years of parliamentary precedent and openly speculating about throwing people in prison on the basis of pure political animus. That is beyond "outrageous"; it is a threat. A threat to every single one of us. Because "reflecting on the character and conduct of MPs in their capacity of MPs" is something we all do, and something we all should do. Our democracy is predicated on it. So when the government is "inquiring" about the ability of their kangaroo court to throw people in jail for breaching their bullshit "privileges", it sounds a lot like they are trying to outlaw democracy.

There is something we can do about this. Currently there is a bill before the House - the Parliament Bill - which would codify and re-enact the existing law around parliament, including parliamentary privilege. During its select committee hearings, several submitters raised the House's purported power to imprison for contempt, and recommended that they be explicitly repealed (just as its power to fine was limited in 2014). They were ignored. As a result, the House continues to claim the power to imprison people for up to two years (or maybe longer), for pretended offences like "making an MP feel bad", on the say-so of a kangaroo court which convicts on a partisan vote.

This cannot be allowed to stand. Parmjeet Parmar's "inquiry" turns this power from a theoretical historical anachronism to an active threat to each and every one of us. It is an active threat to our democracy and our liberty. It must be repealed.

(And while we're at it: in 2014 we also explicitly said that the House cannot expel a member, because of the impact of such a decision on democracy. Suspensions have a similar impact, so its time we legislatively limited them as well, to a maximum term of three days. Parliament clearly needs its wings clipped, and its time we did some clipping).

Update: Graeme Edgeler has already drafted the required amendment paper. So, which MP wants to stand up and move it?

The obvious question

So, Parliament's "powerful" Privileges Committee has found Labour Education Minister Jan Tinetti innocent of deliberately misleading Parliament. Tinetti had given a false answer to a question in question time, been told it was false by her staff, refused to correct it, and then stood by her lie and gave a deliberately misleading answer later. Some of the Committee found her explanation - that it was all a dreadful mistake, which just coincidentally covered up her own control-freakery and lies - "unconvincing". But the Committee's report ultimately found that Tinetti's repeated refusal to correct her answer was not intentional, but merely the result of "a high degree of negligence" and "a significant error of judgement". Tinetti has now been forced to apologise to Parliament - a perfect example of a "powerful" slap on the wrist by a wet bus ticket.

...which is what happens when the government, which holds four of eight places on the committee, is allowed to judge itself. Meanwhile, the public can draw its own conclusions about Tinetti's honesty, competence, and the integrity of Parliamentary "justice".

Meanwhile, there's an obvious question: should someone who displays "a high degree of negligence" and makes "significant error[s] of judgement" even fit to be a Minister?

(Not) Privilege and contempt

See update below

Back in February, dirty old racist Bob Jones wrote a column so racist that the National Business Review - hardly a bastion of liberalism - pulled it from their website. In response, Renae Maihi organised a petition to Parliament calling for Jones to be stripped of his knighthood. Now, Jones has sued her for defamation over it:

Sir Bob Jones has filed defamation papers against a filmmaker behind a petition to have his knighthood revoked after a controversial newspaper column.

More than 68,000 people signed the petition, which was delivered to Parliament in March, in response to Jones' February 2 column in the National Business Review calling for a Māori "Gratitude Day" instead of Waitangi Day.

Filmmaker Renae Maihi started the petition and presented it to Labour MP Kiritapu Allan with the support of Waikato University Professor Pou Temara, an expert in te reo and tikanga.

The petition read: "In signing this petition we urge you, our Prime Minister the Rt. Hon. Jacinda Ardern, to take his knighthood away from him. It is in your power. Set a precedent for the country and a message that this will not be tolerated and hate speech of this type is not welcome here."

Jones is obviously being a bullying arsehole here. But his case also seems to be doomed. The reason? A petition to Parliament is very clearly a "proceeding in Parliament" under the Parliamentary Privilege Act 2014, and therefore no case can be brought about it. And as telling people about the petition to get them to sign it is an act done for the purpose of transacting that business, that's covered too.

But that's not Jones' only problem with Parliamentary Privilege. Because pretty obviously what he is trying to do here is punish someone for petitioning the House about him, and incidentally discourage others from doing so. And that seems to be contempt of Parliament, in the same way and for the same reasons that punishing or threatening a select committee witness is. Hopefully someone will be informing the Privileges Committee of this...

Meanwhile, this simply confirms that Jones is not the sort of person kiwis should ever have given a knighthood to. I'm in favour of abolishing all feudal "honours", but starting with his would be richly deserved.

Update: So, it turns out that while the petition was presented at Parliament, it wasn't a petition to Parliament, which means Parliamentary Privilege and associated protections do not apply. The lesson in this is clear: protect yourself from bullying arseholes like Bob Jones, and always petition the House rather than the PM.

White, male privilege

You compete for a position. You're new and inexperienced, with no track record and no idea how it works. So you get a trial spot, somewhere you can prove yourself and work your way up. So naturally, you throw a hissy fit and quit because you weren't given the top spot on the first day:

Being a "white, middle-class male" meant Rohan Lord had no future in the Labour Party, the former East Coast Bays candidate says.

Mr Lord withdrew from the race yesterday, after being placed 72 on the party list.

He told Morning Report he was very appreciative Labour considered him and he fully supported the party's platform and policy, but the message he got from his 72nd placement was that he was probably not for them.

"Wrapping it all up really, there's probably limited future prospects."

"I'm white, middle class, male, I couldn't really see a long term future."

Lord is a perfect illustration of white, male privilege in action - imagine, having to actually work for a top spot rather than just having it handed to you! The horror! The insult! But he's also a perfect illustration of the sort of person political parties - and most organisations - are simply better off without: entitled arseholes. Labour is well rid of him.

America to the rescue!

Earlier in the month, Parliament changed its standing orders to protect MP's overinflated egos from public puncturing by resurrecting lese majeste and banning the use of images from the House for the purpose of "satire, ridicule or denigration". This hasn't gone unnoticed elsewhere in the world, and so we get our very own mention on The Daily Show:

Yes, we may not be able to shit on our own politicians, but John Stewart will be our anus. And a very good anus he is too - though I wish he'd pointed himself at Peter Dunne. It would have been interesting to see him explode...

All I can say is that I love having a free market in legal jurisdiction. I wish Parliament luck in trying to drag Americans into their Star Chamber for "contempt" (something MP's are fully deserving of over this move). Still, there is an interesting question: will they try and stop it from playing on local TV (C4 screens the Daily Show four nights a week)? And will they go after people who violate their ban by spreading it?

(Hat tip: DPF)

Update: Apparently it screened on C4 last night - the one night this week when I haven't been able to watch the Daily Show. Damn.

Shifting the ground on satire

Last month, in one of the more blatant displays of self-interest from our elected representatives, Parliament changed the rules governing the filming of Parliament, barring the use of footage for the purposes of "satire, ridicule or denigration". Worse, they made violating these rules a contempt of Parliament - meaning that journalists who show the honest truth of what MPs get up to in the chamber face "trial" before a Star Chamber of MPs, fines, or even imprisonment.

The media have not been pleased about this resurrection of lese majeste, and have vowed to ignore the ban. And now they have the backing of both the National Party and the Greens. That's not enough to swing a vote on the Standing Orders Committee - they'd need the backing of NZ First or the Maori party for that - but its a strong reflection of public discontent. And hopefully Labour and the other parties will get the message.

A sanitised picture

Parliament's Standing Orders Committee is proposing new rules for the upcoming live broadcast of Parliament. Reading their report [PDF], many of the changes are good - the cameras will now no longer be limited to focusing on the Speaker or the Member with the call, but will also be allowed to show reaction shots, as well as some wide-angle shots of the chamber. However, they will be explicitly forbidden for using images for the purpose of "satire, ridicule or denigration" - and violating the rules will become a contempt of Parliament. So, broadcasters could face a Star Chamber of MPs and be fined, forced to apologise, or even imprisoned at the pleasure of the Speaker for reporting accurately the fact that sometimes our elected representatives sleep on the job, make obscene gestures, or generally abuse each other like children.

Talk about setting the fox to watch the henhouse. Like the absolute monarchs of old, our elected representatives are resurrecting lese majeste to protect their overinflated egos from being punctured by their subjects voters' displeasure at the vulgarity of their behaviour. They are abusing their power to protect themselves from the political consequences of their own behaviour. And that is something we should not allow. The recent abuse of Parliamentary Privilege shows that a sovereign Parliament is just as dangerous as a sovereign monarch. It's time we emasculated it.

(Oh, and it appears that this image will now be considered a contempt. I await my summons from the Seargeant at Arms)

What its all about

Listening to the "debate" today on the Privileges Committee's finding of contempt against former MP Matt Robson, and the statements of Michael Cullen, Gerry Brownlee, and Peter Dunne, it was clear that their position boiled down to one key thing: they think that members of the public have no right to question a Member of Parliament's integrity.

I think that axiom speaks to its own ridiculousness. I think it can only be described as "feudal".

Like the absolute monarchs of old, these people think they are so far above us that they should be beyond criticism. We must show them that they are not.

I am in contempt of Parliament

Parliament has voted to uphold the Privileges Committee's judgement of Matt Robson and demand his apology to both Peter Dunne and the House, with not a word raised against. By doing so, they have proven conclusively that they are self-serving sacks of shit, unwilling to live under the same laws as the rest of us, and willing to restort to arbitrary tyranny to suppress their critics. I would expect such behaviour from the government of Singapore, or the dictatorship of Fiji, not from the Parliament of New Zealand.

The absurd claim that elected representatives should have special protection of their self-proclaimed "dignity" strikes at the heart of our democracy, and our egalitarian society. Their ability to use their own Star Chamber to enforce it and punish "infractions" against themselves strikes at the heart of the rule of law. It is one thing for Parliament to be master of its own house. It is quite another for them to claim the right to drag one of us in there for imagined infractions which do not meet the test for being an offence in law.

If an MP feels public criticism is unfair, they have a clear course of action available: they can respond, front up to the voters, and explain why a perfect record of supporting the tobacco industry has nothing to do with the unfailing financial support gven to them. They can meet speech with speech, rather than seeking to suppress it. Or, if they feel criticism is false and damages their reputation, they can sue for defamation. The ability to suppress critical speech undermines MPs accountability to voters, and the freedom of speech on which our system of government rests.

We have just had a clear demonstration that an absolute Parliament is as dangerous as an absolute monarch. Over the last four hundred years, we emasculated our monarchy, limited its power, and finally locked it away in its little doll's house where it couldn't bother us. It is time we did the same to Parliament. We have a Bill of Rights Act affirming fundamental freedoms; it is time we made our MPs subject to it.

Robson Replies

Matt Robson has replied to the Privileges Committee's attempt to resurrect the ancient monarchical abuse of lese majeste - and being a nice guy rather than a rabid freedom of speech advocate, he's willing to apologise. On the other hand, he also lays bare the committee's hypocrisy and the effect on Parliament's standing:

Mr Robson had no problem with unreservedly apologising to Mr Dunne however. Mr Robson noted that now that the Committee had decided its punishment he looked forward to Helen Clark referring Don Brash to the Privileges Committee for Dr Brash's comments about the 'corrupt Labour government'.

Mr Robson was however concerned that members of the Committee had inferred that he had lowered Parliaments' standing in the eyes of the public.

"I can't claim the credit for that," he informed Scoop.

Unfortunately, you need to be an MP to raise a complaint of privilege - otherwise I think it would be worth lodging one on both issues. They'd be dismissed of course - but that would simply show the inherently political nature of Parliamentary privilege. Which is yet another reason to get rid of it - it is bad enough that they claim the right to restrict what we can say about them beyond the bounds of ordinary defamation law; it is worse when you consider that they are engaging in what are effectively selective and politically motivated prosecutions of their opponents. We disapprove of this sort of oppression when it occurs in Singapore, and we should not tolerate it here. It is time we put our Parliament on a leash.

The Committee's report is first on the Order Paper, and will be debated immediately after Question Time. National Radio's net feed was playing up yesterday, so people may have to rely on an old and outdated form of technology, which uses (so I am told) broadcast electromagnetic radiation. It's almost like carrier pigeons...

Resurrecting lese majeste

A political commentator criticises someone in power, and is forced to grovel before them for forgiveness on pain of indefinite detention. It's the sort of scene you'd expect to see in an absolute monarchy or shitty third world despotism, in Louis XV's France, in China, or in Bainimarama's Fiji. In fact, it is happening right here in New Zealand. Parliament's Privileges Committee [PDF] has demanded former Progressive MP issue an "unqualified apology" to both Peter Dunne and the House for accurately observing in his "Robson on Politics" newsletter 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.

If he refuses, the House could - arbitrarily and without trial - fine him, or even imprison him.

The Committee is acting under Standing Order 400(n), which declares as Contempt of Parliament

reflecting on the character or conduct of the House or of a member in a member's capacity as a member of the House

The purpose of this rule, according to the Speaker, is "to protect members going about the business of the House from unfounded, scurrilous allegations of serious impropriety or corruption". It is also, according to the Committee, to ensure that MPs can carry out their duties free of "obstruction". But we shouldn't think that the Committee has forgotten about freedom of speech:

We agree the House must be slow and reluctant to use its penal powers to stifle criticism or even abuse, whether of the machinery of the House or of a member, however strongly the criticism may be expressed and however strongly unjustifiable it may appear. Regard must be had for the importance of preserving freedom of speech in matters of political controversy. Privilege should not be invoked so as to inhibit or discourage the free expression of opinion outside the House, by members and citizens equally, in relation to the conduct of the affairs of the nation. Such criticism is the lifeblood of democracy. A sensible politician must expect it.

Of course, they then go on to do exactly that, on the basis that Robson's observation "diminished the respect due" to the House, and that this somehow "obstructed" Dunne in his duty (by hurting his poor widdle feelings, perhaps?). The resemblance to the ancien regime abuse of lese majeste is not accidental. The "dignity of the sovereign" has simply been appropriated by Parliament - and defended in a similarly abusive fashion.

The resurrection of this ancient abuse is simply outrageous. In case Parliament has forgotten, we live in a democracy, not an absolute monarchy. We are citizens, not serfs. Democratically elected representatives are not "due respect" simply because of their position. Their pretension to deference is exactly that - pretension.

Matt Robson should stand up for his rights to free speech and to criticise our representatives, and tell them in no uncertain terms to go fuck themselves.

More power to Parliament

Every Thursday when Parliament is sitting, the government makes a "business statement" setting out its agenda for the next sitting week. Something interesting turned up in yesterday's one: there is likely to be a Privileges debate on Thursday. This isn't interesting because someone (most likely TVNZ) is going to be dragged over the coals; it's interesting because of the timing. Traditionally, reports from the Privileges Committee were presented on a Tuesday and debated on a Wednesday. As Wednesday is also Members Day, this tended to cut into the time to debate Members' Bills. But now the government has lost control of many of the select committees - and particularly, the Privileges Committee - that has changed. The other parties have already shown a strong desire to protect members time (witness last years' filibuster by National and ACT to force consideration of Sue Kedgley's flexible working hours bill after the government killed debate so they could go off and attend a state banquet), and this is another stage in the process. And the result is to shift more power from the government back to Parliament - which in the long run can only be a Good Thing.

Privilege and accountability

The other day Matt Robson presented the Privileges Committee's report on "effective repetition" and Parliamentary Privilege, which recommended a law change to ensure that MPs could not be sued for defamation merely for saying that they stand by something said in the House. The privilege goes back to the Glorious Revolution and the subsequent Bill of Rights, which stated that

the freedome of speech and debates or proceedings in Parlyament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parlyament.

There are legitimate concerns about the abuse of Parliamentary Privilege - and we just have to look at Winston Peters' behaviour to see why - it exists for a reason, and it is important that our representatives be able to discuss matters without fear of legal sanction. While defending the privilege, Robson recognises this, saying that it "is not a cloak or barrier to stop MPs from being accountable" and that

MPs should be held to account if they unfairly abuse parliamentary privilege and hurt innocent Kiwi families.

But how, if not by law? By their fellow MPs, of course. And Robson is starting by announcing that he will name Winston's sources. This will apparantly shed some light on what is going on here, possibly expose them to legal action, and hopefully dry up the sewer he is getting his information from.

Update: Fixed link to point to Robson's full press release. Looks like he'll be using his Parliamentary privilege to remind people of exactly how Winston has abused it in the past, as well...