A row over a single photograph has put the relationship between Parliament and the journalists who cover it under real strain, with Speaker Gerry Brownlee now weighing whether to ban reporters from one of the country’s largest newsrooms over how they filmed a Cabinet minister.
The dispute centres on Stuff Digital’s coverage of Social Development Minister Louise Upston, who claims an accommodation allowance of about $1000 a week to live in her own Wellington apartment. The payment is one she is entitled to as an out-of-town MP. As part of that reporting, a Stuff camera operator captured footage of Upston inside Parliament and a still image from that footage ran with the story. Brownlee has concluded the way the image was taken went too far.
“My conclusion is that a long range photograph taken β¦ through the Grand Hall into a corridor that is not for general filming, is just a bit too far,” Brownlee told RNZ. He confirmed he is considering either a censure or what he called a slight suspension of Stuff’s access to the parliamentary precinct, but said no final decision had been made and that he would meet the editors involved when Parliament resumes in about two weeks.
Stuff has pushed back firmly. The newsroom says the filming happened from the so-called black and white tiles near the debating chamber and close to the Copperfields cafe in the Beehive, both areas where filming is permitted under the rules agreed between the press gallery and Parliament. Stuff editor Keith Lynch said the organisation stood by its work. “We stand by the publication of the photograph which accompanied a story of significant public interest,” he told 1News.
What started as a complaint about one image has quickly grown into a wider argument about media freedom. The press gallery executive and a long list of political editors wrote to Brownlee warning that his reading of the rules would amount to a dramatic reduction in access for everyone who reports from Parliament, not just Stuff. The signatories included representatives from RNZ, TVNZ, the NZ Herald, the Post, Newsroom, NBR and Whakaata MΔori, a rare show of unity across newsrooms that usually compete hard against one another.
The journalists argue there is already a proper way to deal with grievances about coverage. “If any MP has concerns about the editorial content of a story, that should be dealt with through the usual channels for complaints, rather than by seeking to curtail our access to Parliament,” the letter said. In short, they say a minister who dislikes a story should make a complaint about the story, not see the reporters who wrote it locked out of the building.
Brownlee has not been swayed by the response so far. He described the gallery’s reaction as a little over the top while accepting reporters were entitled to defend their patch. “Look, they’ve got a right to protect their corner, I suppose, but I think it’s a little bit over the top,” he said. He also signalled that his concerns run wider than this one incident, telling RNZ there had been “just a little bit of a slipping of standards across the gallery, and you can see that with other incidents in recent times.”
Those other incidents are not hypothetical. In late April, Brownlee handed TVNZ’s then political editor Maiki Sherman a five day ban from the precinct after a complaint from the National Party. The party alleged TVNZ staff had followed chief whip Stuart Smith into a corridor and banged on his office door while chasing an interview, on the day Christopher Luxon survived a confidence vote in his leadership. Sherman accepted she had gone beyond the rules and accepted the ruling, but the episode was followed within days by her resignation, with opposition MPs claiming she had been hounded out of the job.
That history is why the latest stand-off has landed so heavily. Two of the country’s biggest broadcast and digital newsrooms have now found themselves on the wrong side of the Speaker within about six weeks, and the gallery clearly fears a pattern in which access becomes a lever to discipline coverage politicians do not like. The power to decide who may enter Parliament and film there sits with the Speaker, which makes the office both the referee of these disputes and, in the eyes of some reporters, a party to them.
For voters, the question sitting underneath the procedural argument is a simple one. How much scrutiny should ministers face inside the building where they make decisions about public money, and who gets to draw that line. Upston’s allowance was lawful, yet the public interest in seeing how MPs are housed and paid is exactly the kind of accountability journalism the gallery exists to do. Where that scrutiny ends and harassment begins is a genuinely difficult line, and right now the person holding the pen is the Speaker rather than the courts or an independent body.
Brownlee will rule when Parliament returns. If he opts for a suspension, even a short one, it would be an unusual step against a major newsroom and one likely to be tested loudly in the weeks before an election. With the country heading to the polls later this year, the way politicians and the press treat each other is itself becoming a campaign issue, and you can compare where the parties stand on issues like this using our voting tool.
What do you think, should the Speaker be able to restrict a newsroom’s access over a single photograph, or does that hand politicians too much control over their own coverage? Have your say in the comments below.
This article was written by AI, briefed to report the facts, hopefully without some of the bias people bring to the job π
Leave a Reply