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.

Where are they now?

Scoop has a feature on what has happened to our ex-MPs since their sudden de-election last September. Some have gone back to work, a few of the older ones are enjoying a holiday or retirement, and many are still involved in politics, holding internal party positions.

I was particularly interested in learning what had happened to Matt Robson, and I'm pleased to hear that he's gone back to the law, and will be involving himself in the Ahmed Zaoui case. Good to see that some people are still fighting the good fight, even if from outside Parliament...

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...

Candidate Survey: Twelfth Response

Matt Robson, Progressive list MP and candidate for Tamaki:

(Matt numbered his responses, so I've spliced the questions back in)

If you could ensure the passage of one act on one issue in the next Parliament, what would it be?

The cancellation of the student debt and the return to free tertiary education. Everyone requires a post-secondary school qualification. This step is good for our economic development, good for individuals, and it is just, in that irrespective of personal wealth the individual's talents can be developed.

What three other electoral candidates or sitting MPs do you think are most similar to you in their political views?

Jim Anderton - has commitment to a social wage for all new Zealanders
Keith Locke - on many, not all issues
Steve Maharey - if he could shrug off the careerism and opportunism of some of his colleagues

MMP is about coalitions: What sitting MP who is NOT in your party do you think is most similar to you in their political views?

immodestly foolishly? I can't think of many/any. But I can work issue by issue with many in Labour and in the Greens.

Do you support or oppose:

...raising the drinking age?

Raising the drinking age in tandem with controlling advertising, breaking the link with sport and enforcement of prohibition on supplying minors.

...legalising marijuana (or pharmaceuticals based on it) for medical use?

This is a perfectly legitimate use of marijuana as it is for many drugs that are banned for good use.

...decriminalising or legalising marijuana for recreational use?

No - the fact is that it is a "hard" not a "soft" drug, and such a step would be to forget its effect beyond the privileged classes.

...allowing same-sex couples to adopt children?

Of course - the criteria should be the happiness and welfare, primarily, of the children adopted.

...amending the Marriage Act to allow same-sex couples to marry?

I see it as a civil right.

...allowing voluntary euthanasia or physician assisted suicide?

Yes - with, of course, all the appropriate safeguards.

...state funding of integrated schools?

Yes, as with the current arrangement. But not at the expense of a total commitment to a free publicly funded school system.

...the retention of sedition as a crime in the Crimes Act?

No - this is a form of control and prevents free speech,

...the retention of blasphemous libel as a crime in the Crimes Act?

No - see 11.

...further restrictions on hate speech?

No - I think the answer to such speech directed at individuals, organisations and ethnic groups (in the main) is to allow the broadest use of democratic rights to rebut their propaganda.

...the use of indefinite detention without trial for those subject to a security risk certificate?

No - the state needs to have the onus of proof and to detain only for a specified crime on the state books

...restoring the death penalty for serious crime?

No - it is a state barbarism, whether it is "petty" or "serious" crime

...Georgina Beyer's Human Rights (Gender Identity) Amendment Bill?

Yes - it should be able to go to Select Committee. Human Rights should not/cannot be confined to "acceptable" groups.

...Gordon Copeland's New Zealand Bill of Rights (Private Property Rights) Amendment Bill?

No - property rights are protected. It is superfluous.

...entrenching the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act as supreme law?

I am in favour of a written constitution protecting the type of rights in the Bill of Rights. But these rights should be strengthened, such as complete protection of the right of habeas corpus, and to prevent the "detention without trial" scenario a la Ahmed Zaoui.

...New Zealand's participation in the International Criminal Court?

Yes - even though weakened by sabotage from the United States and other states, it sets norms and provides an avenue for ordinary people to pursue their persecutors.

...lowering MMP's threshold from the present 5%?

There is a case for not having such a high barrier.

Finally,

With the benefit of hindsight, how should the government have handled the Ahmed Zaoui case?

Natural justice should have been applied throughout and the legislation which allowed for the national security certificate to be issued without normal legal safeguards should have been repealed.

As usual, Matt's opinions are his own, and do not necessarily represent those of the Progressive Party.