Attacked by an MP?

Persons who are attacked by Members of Parliament under the cover of parliamentary privilege may soon be able to come to the Parliament and re-spond. This is one of the recommendations of the Joint Select Committee appointed to consider and report on the public broadcast of debates and business of  both Houses. The report was laid in the House of Representatives last Friday by Chairman of the Committee Dr Keith Rowley. In considering whether parliamentary proceedings be broadcast live, the Committee held “extensive discussions” on the issues of parliamentary privilege and the legal implications which may originate from the abuse of  this prerogative.

The Report noted: “Members of the Committee expressed their concern about the protection of their parliamentary privilege and how this would be affected by live broadcast. The question was also raised as to whether there were any legal implications.” The Committee decided  however that all these issues should not be a deterrent to live broadcast. However it recommended that “as happens in other jurisdictions, in the use of parliamentary privilege, provisions be made whereby aggrieved members of  the public, with the approval of the Presiding Officer, be afforded an opportunity to present a response on record.” In its Report, the Committee said it met with members of the media at one of its sessions, and “the general opinion was that abuse of parliamentary privilege in our Parliament was a minimal occurrence.”

Members of Parlia-ment on both sides of the House have used parliamentary privilege to level allegations against members of the public. Because these statements are protected by privilege, the aggrieved person cannot sue. And very often the statement is made, “let him say the same thing outside (of  the Parliament).” Apart of this, affected persons sometimes respond in the media, but the offending statements are maintained unchallenged on the Hansard records of Parliament.

In weighing the advantages and disadvantages of live broadcast, the Committee found that broadcast of sittings would be beneficial to both Members of Parliament and the public. It believed that the time had come for live broadcast of parliamentary business. It also was of the view that live broadcast would improve the quality of news reporting on the activities of Parliament and by extension the perception which members of the public had of what transpired in the Parliament. The Committee however agreed that some “minimal delay” should be instituted in live broadcast to allow for times when the Presiding Officer (House Speaker or Senate President) may wish to have comments struck from the Hansard.

Concerns over the tendency of Members (of Parliament) to “play” to the camera were raised. The Committee noted though that experiences in other countries have shown that the behaviour of Parliamentarians had improved as a result of extended broadcast, as MPs were more open to public scrutiny and were forced to show greater responsibility. The Committee recommended that arrangements be made for full debates and the business of both Houses of Parliament to be transmitted live to the public through the electronic media, both television and radio. It also called for an upgrade of information technology of the Parliament to be undertaken to facilitate live transmission by Inter-net.

The Committee agreed that this is an imperative and recommended that this service be made  available “as soon as possible.” Some members of the Committee considered supporting the view that the speaking time of MPs, which is currently 75 minutes in the House of  Representatives and 60 minutes in the Senate, be reduced to 45 minutes. It was argued that this was sufficient time in which to make a meaningful contribution and would facilitate concise broadcasting. However this did not  find its way in the list of recommendations.