Precious Parker and his Staring at Goats strategy

Labour party researchers looking for another cause

Labour party researchers looking for another “scandal” to investigate

David Parker isn’t happy that parliament is thinking of relaxing rules around satire. He wants the ban to remain.

Parliament’s top official has urged MPs to “grow up” and allow the official television feed to be used to mock them.

Mary Harris, Clerk of the House, told the Privileges Committee a ban on using footage of Parliament for satire may need to be relaxed “in this day and age”.

The powerful committee is considering reviewing the rules which apply to Parliament about footage in the age of social media.

Currently footage of proceedings is made available free of charge, but cannot be used in any medium for “satire, ridicule [or] denigration” or for commercial or political advertising.

Harris, whose seven-year term as Clerk ends on July 3, said the rules around satire were developed at a time when television was among the only ways of viewing Parliament, but with the proliferation of media the concerns had changed.

The rules have “been lifted in Australia [and] we borrowed our rules from Australia, and we maybe need to grow up,” Harris told the committee on Wednesday.

“I don’t think there’s a need to shelter Members [of Parliament] any longer.”

“It’s difficult to police. Once or twice Speakers have brought people in and given them a bit of a lecture about it but I think it’s a bit like slapping people with a wet bus ticket.”

Labour MP David Parker said MPs may need protection from people who deliberately edited footage in an attempt to mislead viewers.

“There’s plenty of people out there who want to misrepresent us and I wouldn’t want to enable that under the claim that ‘oh, I was just being satirical’.”

This of course, is the same David Parker who defamed me and my friends under the protection of parliamentary privilege. Now he wants people to continue to be banned from mocking goat shaggers like him. 

He should be mocked, especially when you consider the large amount of time he has wasted asking questions on behalf of Twitter Terrorist Giovanni Tiso and his other lap bloggers whom he is playing dirty politics with.

He asked 10 questions of the Minister of Internal Affairs about Cactus Kate and her blog. Continuing on his staring at goats strategy.

These are the questions and the answers.
7428 (2015). Hon David Parker to the Minister of Internal Affairs (12 Jun 2015): Is the National Library restricting access or censoring its collection, is so why is this?

Hon Peter Dunne (Minister of Internal Affairs) replied: I refer the member to my reply to Question 07326 (2015).

7421 (2015). Hon David Parker to the Minister of Internal Affairs (12 Jun 2015): Does the National Library believe there is a difference between traditional media like newspapers and digital media including blog posts?

Hon Peter Dunne (Minister of Internal Affairs) replied: Yes, the National Library understands that there is a wide range of differences between the treatment of traditional and digital media in regards to legal deposit. These differences have been recognised in the relevant legislation. Section 29 of the National Library of New Zealand (Te Puna Mātauranga o Aotearoa) Act 2003 (definitions in relation to legal deposit), provides separate definitions for public documents, electronic documents and Internet documents. Even though the Act defines all Internet documents as electronic documents, and all electronic documents as public documents, separate definitions are necessary because different law applies to the collection, storage, use and distribution of material collected in different formats. Many of these distinctions are reflected in the National Library Requirement (Books and Periodicals) Notice 2004, and the National Library Requirement (Electronic Documents) Notice 2006, which give different powers to the National Library and place different obligations on publishers to deposit their publications, depending on the format of the material. One of the key differences is that the National Library Requirement (Electronic Documents) Notice 2006 authorises the National Librarian to copy any Internet document. There is no equivalent authority for print-based books and periodicals.

7419 (2015). Hon David Parker to the Minister of Internal Affairs (12 Jun 2015): Has the National Library received any complaints asserting that the National Library is not permitted to collect or allow unrestricted access to materials relating to Cathy Odgers or Cactus Kate, and if so what sections in the relevant legislation is the complainant alleging apply?

Hon Peter Dunne (Minister of Internal Affairs) replied: I refer the member to my reply to Question 07325 (2015). While the request is not focusing on the specific sections of any Act, the analysis and investigation that is being done in relation to this request requires the National Library to consider its interpretation of the National Library of New Zealand (Te Puna Mātauranga o Aotearoa) Act 2003 (primarily sections 9, 29, 31 and 34 of that Act), and the National Library Requirements (Electronic Documents) Notice 2006.

7417 (2015). Hon David Parker to the Minister of Internal Affairs (12 Jun 2015): Has he been advised by the National Library why the following message is being displayed in response to attempts to access Cactus Kate blog posts in material held by the National Library; “Access is not permitted. Permission is required to access this item within the Alexander Turnbull Library’s Katherine Mansfield Reading Room. Please contact a librarian”?

Hon Peter Dunne (Minister of Internal Affairs) replied: I refer the member to my replies to Question 07325 (2015) and 07328 (2015).

7409 (2015). Hon David Parker to the Minister of Internal Affairs (12 Jun 2015): Is he aware that internet links to Cactus Kate blog posts on the National Library website are now no longer working, if so why have these posts been removed?

Hon Peter Dunne (Minister of Internal Affairs) replied: Yes. I refer the member to my replies to Question 07325 (2015) and 07328 (2015).

7408 (2015). Hon David Parker to the Minister of Internal Affairs (12 Jun 2015): Is he aware of any attempts to censor or restrict access to any materials held by the National Library in respect of Cathy Odgers or Cactus Kate, if so, what was the response of the National Library to any such attempt?

Hon Peter Dunne (Minister of Internal Affairs) replied: I am not aware of any attempts to censor or restrict access beyond the standard practice described in my reply to Question 07325 (2015).

7328 (2015). Hon David Parker to the Minister of Internal Affairs (10 Jun 2015): Has the National Library placed any restriction on access to the blogs, emails, or other material it holds or held relating to Cathy Odgers or Cactus Kate, and if so what are those restrictions?

Hon Peter Dunne (Minister of Internal Affairs) replied: As advised in my reply to Question 07325 (2015), the National Library has followed its standard practice of restricting access to the material held while its status is being determined. The material is not currently accessible online or in the National Library reading rooms, and is not searchable in the National Library’s catalogue.

7327 (2015). Hon David Parker to the Minister of Internal Affairs (10 Jun 2015): Has the National Library removed from its collection any material that it earlier held in respect of Cathy Odgers or Cactus Kate, if so what?

Hon Peter Dunne (Minister of Internal Affairs) replied: No.

7326 (2015). Hon David Parker to the Minister of Internal Affairs (10 Jun 2015): If the National Library has restricted access or censored it’s collection, what legislative basis does it have for those actions?

Hon Peter Dunne (Minister of Internal Affairs) replied: There are multiple reasons that may require the National Library of New Zealand to restrict access to its collection material. These include protection of original items for preservation purposes; protection of cultural rights or an item’s status as taonga; recognition of conditions placed on access by creators, donors or former owners of an item; recognition of restrictions placed by the publisher on an item’s access or use by members of the public; and protection of privacy. Censorship is a function of the Office of Film and Literature Classification. In regard to access, the National Library adheres to classifications of material in its collections which may require restriction or may be objectionable as determined by the Office. Access may also be restricted where there is a dispute about ownership or copyright, or where there are legal proceedings underway or court decisions that relate to collection material held by the National Library. The relevant legislation includes: • The National Library of New Zealand (Te Puna Mātauranga o Aotearoa) Act 2003 • The Privacy Act 1993 • The Films, Videos, and Publications Classification Act 1993. • The Copyright Act 1994 The National Library also adheres to any and all other legal obligations it has under New Zealand law.

7325 (2015). Hon David Parker to the Minister of Internal Affairs (10 Jun 2015): Has the National Library received any complaint or representation from, or on behalf of Cathy Odgers, in respect of material collected or held by the National Library concerning Cathy Odgers or Cactus Kate including blogs, emails, websites, or other materials?

Hon Peter Dunne (Minister of Internal Affairs) replied: Yes. The National Library of New Zealand has received a request from Cathy Odgers to remove its archived copies of her blog that were made between 2008 and 2012 on the basis that her permission was not obtained beforehand. The National Library relied on the relevant provisions of the National Library of New Zealand (Te Puna Mātauranga o Aotearoa) Act 2003 and the National Library Requirements (Electronic Documents) Notice 2006 to make copies of the blog material from the Internet, and make that material available to researchers both offline and online. The National Library is currently reviewing the request and has followed its standard practice of restricting access to the material while its status is being determined.

As you can see he has gotten nowhere other than causing a massive amount of cost in the Minister’s office.  If the National Library received a request from Cactus now some nine months ago and they have not determined the status of the request at law, then it should be obvious to all that there is no legal precedent for non-resident New Zealanders requesting their blogs not be archived or copied by the National Library.  Cactus requested the archives were removed at the time of the Chisholm Inquiry during what can only be described as a period of Dirty Politics Derangement Syndrome – where every left wing blogger and media commentator was out to influence the Inquiry. A sensible request, given a senior journalist after appearing at the Inquiry immediately wrote a column attempting to influence the Inquiry. The Inquiry was run by the same Department of Internal Affairs, therefore always had access to the blog archives in any case.

It is rather creepy behaviour, but then again this is a guy who stole a stroke victim’s wife literally from under his paralysed nose.

Labour really are continuing to show they are unfit to govern, and concentrating on staring at goats.

David Parker needs to get over his sick panty-sniffing crusade against Cactus Kate. I’m surprised he is so against satire and mocking when he is a living example of satire in action, and he certainly deserves all the mocking he gets.

 

– Fairfax


Do you want:

  • Ad-free access?
  • Access to our very popular daily crossword?
  • Access to daily sudoku?
  • Access to daily code cracker?
  • Access to Incite Politics magazine articles?
  • Access to podcasts?
  • Access to political polls?

Our subscribers’ financial support is the reason why we have been able to offer our latest service; Audio blogs. 

Click Here  to support us and watch the number of services grow.

41%