Deborah Coddington: Time to change archaic rule on filming MPs

You could argue that TV3 was let off lightly, banned from Parliament for only three days. But TV3 could also be forgiven for feeling unfairly punished, given that other media breached standing orders by publishing the photo of Ron Mark giving the finger to Tau Henare.

Speaker Margaret Wilson said her decision "should not be read as condoning Mr Mark's actions", but the rules state MPs must not be filmed unless they have the call to speak. TV3 knows that. This is the second time they've been sent to the naughty spot. Last year it was for filming a sleeping David Benson-Pope. While this might look like censorship, there are less sinister reasons. As Wilson pointed out, rules covering the filming of members are there to help viewers see Parliament as it is most of the time, and most of the time MPs' behaviour is "consistent with the standard of conduct the public expects from MPs".

Singling out bad behaviour, and broadcasting it to the nation, paints all MPs in a bad light.

The rule is now archaic, a hangover from the days when Parliament used to sit for 12 hours or more at one stretch. I doubt that even those mime beggars who paint themselves white or gold and adopt motionless poses in exchange for your donations could resist fidgeting through some of the most boring speeches ever to come out of human mouths. No MP could listen to his or her colleagues droning on about the finer details of shipping, tax or fishing legislation without fidgeting, reading the paper, texting or signing correspondence. That doesn't mean they're not doing their job. It means they're human. But if the current Speaker had more control over proceedings, the behaviour of some parliamentarians might not have descended to its present disgrace.

When Wilson presided over the Labour Party during its most tumultuous years, she had a fearsome reputation. The same can't be said now, for despite the occasional ejection, the Speaker at her most scary is a mere "Would members please settle" or "I'm sorry, I didn't hear that".

Jonathan Hunt was considered soft, but if he'd caught someone giving the finger, his jowls would be fair rattling as he delivered a good telling-off. Even Hunt's critics acknowledge that his strength lay in his almost prim love of the institution, and he would be deeply offended at Parliament being insulted by an "up you" gesture.

Seriously fierce Speaker Gerry Wall would have gone ballistic. He lined up MPs and ejected them for just thinking larrikinish thoughts.

Some of his decisions were considered so tough they're known as "wartime rulings" and were never published in Speakers' Rulings.

There's a solution to all this, but the Government won't accept it. Take up the proposal from Sky, TVNZ and TV3 to broadcast a continuous stream from Parliament. This is what happens in Canadian, Australian and British parliaments, but Labour has delayed making a decision for two years because it knows that in the long-term, continuous broadcasts tend to favour the Opposition by giving them equal time.

And while the idea's rejected by TVNZ and TV3 gallery staff who fear for their own jobs, it doesn't have to be either/or. A good news boss can see there'll always be scope for competent political journalists with experience and intelligence to add editorial comment or interpretation (as opposed to ignorant child-reporters emoting the news).

But there's no need for Parliamentary Services to pay millions for a parliamentary broadcast unit. Let the networks put up the capital for what will be cheap-to-make television drama, with moments of high drama, long periods of excruciating boredom and much messing with Mister-In-Between. The actors and sets are already funded by the taxpayers.

I doubt this will happen under Labour. If they learn one lesson from the past few weeks, it should be that the media - the print media, especially - have successfully held two inquiries that the Government tried desperately not to have.

First, the Taito Phillip Field scandal. The Prime Minister hoped that by poking Noel Ingram, QC, out on a stick, her government could "move on" unscathed. Despite spending nearly $500,000 on this report (an outrageous fee that gives all barristers a bad name - and despite claims to the contrary, Ingram could have taken a leaf from the Winebox inquiry and requested that the terms of reference be widened) media will not let Clark's Glade neutralise the powerful stench of corruption.

Second, the unlawful election spending. Gallery journalists have shaken to death every excuse put up by Clark until all that's left now are Labour, NZ First, United Future and Act caught between admitting guilt and repaying the money, or passing retrospective legislation to legitimise their actions.

Thanks to print journalists such as the Herald's Audrey Young, these scandals haven't become yesterday's news.

I suspect that MPs from affected parties are now scouring standing orders for an overlooked rule to send more reporters to join TV3 in Gallery Siberia.