Two law experts are recommending that a rule prohibiting the use of parliament TV footage for political advertising should go.
Law expert Professor Andrew Geddis and Wellington barrister Graeme Edgeler. Photo: RNZ
The Parliament's Standing Orders Select Committee is currently reviewing the use of Parliament TV coverage.
The topic has been thrust into the spotlight after the Speaker of The House ruled that the National Party should remove its online attack ads using House footage, following a complaint regarding a video post featuring Labour MP Deborah Russell.
National Party chose to defy the ruling.
A review of Parliament's rules was last carried out in 2017, which led to the loosening of conditions.
MPs representing all parties agreed to drop the ban on using coverage of proceedings for "satire, ridicule or denigration."
However, they were happy to stick with the rule that footage must not be used for political advertising or elections campaigning, with the exception that permission was given by all members shown in the footage, or it being used for commercial sponsorship or commercial advertising.
Wellington barrister, Graeme Edgeler told the committee he thought the current restrictions go too far.
"I think it's clear that the advertisements I've seen breach the rules as it is currently written, I just don't think there should be a rule that prohibits them the way they have been published.
"You're allowed to denigrate people using parliament TV footage, but you're not allowed to tell people not to vote for them, it seems an odd distinction to make," he said.
However, he thought adding a restriction around misleading edits, would be justified.
Law expert Professor Andrew Geddis said he didn't know what the purpose of the provision was in the first place.
"I also think that having that prohibition in place after having taken out the prohibition in the use for satire, denigration, etc, creates just a very difficult line to try and judge what is simply satire and denigration and what is satire and denigration for the purposes of political advertising," he said.
He instead thought it would be best to include a different prohibition taken from the UK's House of Commons' standing orders guidelines on editing, altering, adding to, distorting or digitally manipulating the TV coverage in any way - except from taking excerpts.
"Frankly, I think it's okay to judge MPs on what they say and how they say it in the House and to show that to the public and invite the public to draw their own conclusions.
"But, I think it's a dangerous slippery slope if we start allowing that imagery and what is being said to be digitally distorted, even if for the intention of emphasising it better, I just think that's just starting down the line of deep fake news," he said.
For enforcement, he recommended the coverage being under licence, so if people are abusing the terms of the licence, court measures could be used to stop them from doing so.