Key Takeaways
- Social Development Minister Louise Upston receives a weekly $1,000 allowance to live in her own Wellington apartment, which complies with current parliamentary rules.
- Parliament Speaker Gerry Brownlee has indicated he is considering a temporary suspension of press‑gallery filming privileges after a photograph showed journalists filming through open doors in the Level 1 foyer (“the black and white tiles”).
- Senior political editors and journalists from major New Zealand newsrooms have written to Brownlee, arguing that the proposed change would undermine long‑standing media access and threaten transparency.
- The journalists contend that any MP concerns about story content should be raised through existing complaint channels, not by restricting gallery access.
- Brownlee maintains that while journalists enjoy a privileged position, clear rules are necessary to protect MPs’ rights, and rule interpretation should be handled at the executive level, not by individual gallery members.
- The controversy echoes previous restrictions on press gallery access, including a five‑day ban on former TVNZ political editor Maiki Sherman and a 2011 ten‑day accreditation removal for NZ Herald staff.
- Veteran journalist Shayne Currie, who has held senior editorial roles at NZME, is cited as an experienced voice on the evolving relationship between Parliament and the press.
Living Allowance for Minister Louise Upston
Social Development Minister Louise Upston currently receives a weekly stipend of $1,000 to cover the cost of living in her own Wellington apartment. This arrangement is permitted under the existing remuneration framework for ministers, which allows them to claim accommodation expenses when they choose not to reside in ministerial housing. The payment has drawn public attention because it highlights the disparity between ministerial entitlements and the average New Zealander’s cost of living, yet officials confirm that the scheme operates within the rules set by the Remuneration Authority.
Speaker Gerry Brownlee’s Concerns About Filming Locations
Parliament Speaker Gerry Brownlee confirmed that he had reviewed a photograph showing press‑gallery journalists filming through open doors in the Level 1 foyer of Parliament House, an area colloquially known as “the black and white tiles.” According to Brownlee, the gallery’s rules explicitly state that filming, photography, and interviews may only occur on the tiled area and must be conducted for the purpose of an interview. In the contested image, the camera was pointed through a doorway into a corridor linking the grand hall to the legislative chamber—a space designated for members’ regular ingress and egress, not for media activity without prior MP consent.
Potential Temporary Suspension Under Consideration
Brownlee revealed that he is contemplating a “very temporary” suspension of the press gallery’s filming privileges in response to the incident, although he stressed that a final decision would not be made that day. He noted that he is currently engaged in discussions with the journalists involved and would refrain from commenting further until those talks conclude. The speaker’s remarks signal a willingness to enforce existing rules more strictly, but also indicate an openness to dialogue before implementing any punitive measure.
Journalists’ Letter Defending Press Gallery Access
In response to Brownlee’s considerations, a coalition of senior political editors and journalists from outlets such as the NZ Herald, TVNZ, RNZ, Newsroom, The Post, NBR, Politik, and Whakaata Māori penned a letter to the Speaker. They asserted that the Level 1 foyer has long been regarded as a permissible zone for interviewing, filming, and photographing MPs, and that requiring express MP consent for such activities would constitute a dramatic reduction in access. The letter warned that this shift would erode media freedom and impede the public’s right to scrutinize parliamentary proceedings.
Arguments for Maintaining Existing Access Rights
The journalists’ correspondence emphasized that any concerns an MP might have about the editorial content of a story should be addressed through established complaint mechanisms, not by curtailing the press gallery’s ability to gather information. They argued that incremental restrictions over the years have already narrowed media access, and that further limitations would cumulatively undermine the transparency and openness essential to New Zealand’s representative democracy. The group urged Brownlee to reconsider any move that would jeopardize the press gallery’s role in supporting democratic accountability.
Speaker’s Position on Privilege and Rule‑Making
Brownlee countered that press‑gallery journalists occupy a “pretty advantaged position” compared with many other media outlets, noting that their access is funded at taxpayer expense. While acknowledging the privilege, he insisted that clear rules are necessary to safeguard MPs’ rights and that any disputes over rule interpretation should be escalated to the executive level—specifically, to himself—rather than being resolved by individual gallery members. He maintained that journalists are free to challenge the rules, but ultimate authority rests with the Speaker and the parliamentary administration.
Historical Precedents: Maiki Sherman’s Ban and Past Accreditation Actions
The current debate is not isolated; it reflects a pattern of tightening press‑gallery access. In April, former TVNZ political editor Maiki Sherman was suspended for five days after attempting to interview National whip Stuart Smith in a corridor where interviews required explicit MP permission. Brownlee deemed the sanction the “most appropriate course of action,” stating that Sherman had exceeded both the letter and spirit of the agreed‑upon rules. Sherman resigned from TVNZ two days after serving her ban, citing an untenable work environment exacerbated by the incident and a prior altercation involving Stuff journalist Lloyd Burr in Finance Minister Nicola Willis’ office.
Earlier, in 2011, then‑Speaker Lockwood Smith removed parliamentary access cards from NZ Herald political staff for ten days following the publication of a photograph depicting guards restraining a man attempting to jump from the public gallery. The Herald described the move as “without precedent,” and former editor Tim Murphy labelled it “outrageous.” Although the suspension technically barred Herald journalists from the complex, they managed to continue work through the goodwill of fellow reporters who shared access. Smith argued that the image violated standing orders prohibiting filming of protests or disturbances in the public gallery.
Veteran Perspective: Shayne Currie on Media‑Parliament Relations
Editor‑at‑Large Shayne Currie, a distinguished figure in New Zealand journalism with senior editorial stints at NZME—including Managing Editor, NZ Herald Editor, and Herald on Sunday Editor—has been referenced as an experienced commentator on the evolving dynamics between Parliament and the press. Currie’s career spans decades of covering political developments, and his insights are often invoked when discussing shifts in media access, press freedom, and the balance between governmental transparency and parliamentary propriety. While the article does not quote him directly, his inclusion underscores the gravity of the current debate and signals that seasoned media leaders are watching closely how Speaker Brownlee’s deliberations may affect future journalistic practices within Parliament’s walls.
In summary, the controversy centers on whether the press gallery should continue to enjoy unfettered filming privileges in certain parliamentary spaces or whether tighter controls—potentially including temporary suspensions—are warranted to protect MPs’ rights and uphold decorum. The outcome will likely influence not only the immediate working conditions of journalists covering Parliament but also the broader perception of media freedom and democratic accountability in New Zealand.