Parliamentary Broadcasts And Privilege

Press, Volume XCIX, Issue 29271, 1 August 1960, Page 10

Parliamentary Broadcasts And Privilege

Parliamentary broadcasts, by now an accepted feature of New Zealand life, raise legal problems that appear no nearer solution than in 1936, when the broadcasts began. Dr. O. C. Mazengarb, a distinguished lawyer, has done well to summarise objectively some of the important issues involved. When the doctrine of Parliamentary privilege was conceived it was impossible to contemplate the effect of permitting a vast unseen audience to listen to the proceedings of Parliament. No democrat is likely to concur readily in the abridgement of Parliamentary privilege, a right fundamental to English-speaking legislatures. But is it just that privilege should be extended to cover every statement broadcast from Parliament? At least one Prime Minister—Mr Fraser—considered legislation to validate the present assumed right of members to complete privilege, Irrespective of whether their statements are broadcast or not. Dr. Mazengarb has properly emphasised the difficulties of replying satisfactorily to broadcast allegations by Parliamentarians about persons outside the House. Although they purport to be reports of proceedings Parliamentary broadcasts may be held to fall short of fair and accurate reports, in that nobody can listen to everything said and a retraction or correction may be made an unreasonably long time after the original statement. Moreover, the atmosphere of a debate cannot be conveyed by broadcasting. Although the avowed objective of the broadcasts is to increase the public’s knowledge of their own business, an undesirable result has been competition among members of Parliament for opportunities to speak when the radio audience is likely to be biggest. This distortion of Parliamentary procedure is another reason why the present broadcasting arrangements should be reviewed; but the question of privilege is even more important because of its relationship to the administration of justice. At first Parliamentary broadcasts were confined to “ great “occasions” chosen by Mr Savage, then Prime Minister. Such occasions are hardly likely

to cause the problems to which Dr. Mazengarb has referred, and an objection to these broadcasts would not easily be sustained. There is, however, a good case for recording the ordinary debates of the House and for broadcasting edited summaries, which might prove more interesting t<? the general public. No new curb would be put on members’ freedom of speech within the House; but unnecessary harm to personal reputations might be prevented by limiting the immediate currency of some remarks to the audience originally envisaged by the authors of Parliamentary privilege. Before television can add to the legal complexities of Parliamentary reporting it would be well to clarify the rules on broadcasting and to eliminate the hazards about which Dr. Mazengarb has warned.