It is nothing of the sort. No foreign leader has ever addressed a sitting session of Parliament, and it would be highly unusual for one to do so now. The Greens' Kennedy Graham has explained why the decision not to allow Gillard to speak during session was made.
The NZ House of Representatives, sitting in session with the mace, is the symbol of national sovereignty. No one apart from New Zealand MPs has ever been allowed to address a sitting session of Parliament, not even our own Governor-General. The reason for this is that sitting sessions of Parliaments are for New Zealand law makers to exercise their democratic powers.Nobody is saying Gillard can't speak. And she will speak - just not during session. This is not an issue of freedom of expression, as some have suggested. Nobody is being censored.
The idea that we would only invite our ‘closest friends’ to address Parliament in session is problematic. Who might they be, and where might the line be drawn? Australia might be seen as no. 1. Perhaps the US would be no. 2, and the UK no. 3. Which other countries might fit in the top ten? What would be the criteria? Where could the line be drawn? Such decisions are intrinsically political, and therefore subjectively influenced by the colours of a particular Government of the day – whereas the issue must be seen as having constitutional implications independent of politics.
Our politicians are often all too eager to break with parliamentary and constitutional traditions (witness the CERRA disgrace of last year). We don't have a written constitution, which makes our parliamentary conventions all the more important. That's why there's nothing petty about the Greens' decision not to allow Gillard to speak during session. Parliamentary traditions should not be broken without good reason. I've not heard a good reason why this one needs to be.
Well explained, Scott. The early NZ Herald article on the topic framed the objection as being to JG speaking in the house at all. That's daft -- we open it up for glorified student debates, weddings and such -- but it's also the position one Green defended on Twitter today, so the confusion can't be blamed entirely on the NZH, tempting though it is. Ken Graham's article makes clear the objection, and why (outside session) there isn't one.
ReplyDeleteL
No one ... not even our own Governor-General.
ReplyDeleteI hope they mean "especially not our own Governor-General". Can you imagine the constitutional firestorm that would erupt if the Queen's representative was seen to be influencing parliament?
Kennedy's explanation is reasonable - with the exception of the point Andrew makes. Keeping 0ur head of state,the Queen and GG, from the House goes back to the days monarchs used to lop off people’s heads.
ReplyDeleteBut when justifying the Greens' stance, Russel Norman said:“The government of the day could invite all sorts of unpleasant people, like (former United States president) George Bush for example they had in Australia, that I think a lot of Members of Parliament would be uncomfortable with and so we thought the best thing was to keep a simple precedent.”
That is an objection because of what someone might say which is a freedom of speech issue.
The link to the quote I used in the comment above is: http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/4653479/Greens-block-Gillard-speech-to-Parliament
ReplyDeleteIt's pretty clear that Norman was talking in the context of allowing foreign leaders to speak during a parliamentary session. It isn't a freedom of expression issue, because leaders can still be invited to speak while parliament is not in session.
ReplyDeleteThere isn't a freedom of expression issue here at all, full stop. No-one is saying to Gillard "you can't say that". Rather, they are saying "you can't speak in this venue". Which neither she nor any other person not elected to Parliament has a right to do ... hence her "freedom" hasn't been restricted.
ReplyDeleteIt's the same thing as if Scott said "only people with names beginning with S may comment on my blog site". That stops a lot of people commenting. But there is no "freedom of expression" issue involved, as those people didn't have any rights claim to be allowed to speak in the first place. Of course, it may be a dumb rule ... but that's a different issue.