There’s general agreement that Lockwood Smith has been an excellent Speaker. His quiet, natural authority has allowed him to control the House without getting to his feet every few seconds to call for order. He has refused to allow Ministers to get away with non-answers to questions. If any party is unhappy with him, it is considerably more likely to be the National Party than anyone in opposition, perhaps the ultimate tribute to his impartiality.

But yesterday the Speaker seemed to lose the plot when he warned the media that their coverage of MPs’ expenses bordered on lobbying and that, if it continued, he would treat them as lobbyists. The media, he said, should ‘stop parroting a view’.

He then issues this threat:

‘If the newspapers do want to have a view and want to lobby on it, I’m very happy to issue them with a lobbyist card and relieve them of their [Press Gallery] offices here, and if they want to be lobbyists – fine.’

This somewhat petulant outburst had all the hallmarks of an attack on the freedom of the press to rigorously examine and question the judgement, decision-making and personal behaviour of our lawmakers, including the Speaker himself. Dr Smith seemed to be confusing best practice  journalism with lobbying. And he seems piqued at the suggestion that the rules which govern MPs’ expenses, which only he can administer,  might be flawed or in need of change. His personal integrity, he seems to feel,  is being called into question:

‘You’ve seen how principled I’ve been in the chamber. I’ll take the same approach of other things as well.’

To which one might reply, ‘And if you do, Mr Speaker, we’ll all be delighted to pat you on the back.’

In the meantime, the media are not only within their rights to question every alleged example of ministerial double-dipping on expenses, particularly when the person concerned is the Deputy Speaker, who ought to know better, but also to actively campaign for an overhaul of the parliamentary rules and regulations that have made such scandals, in Britain and here in New Zealand, possible.

As Pete Hodgson observed, ‘When questions of a presiding officer of Parliament are raised, they must be followed through. The integrity of Parliament deserves that.’

The integrity of Parliament probably also requires the Speaker not to abuse his power by threatening to ‘relieve’ Press Gallery journalists of their offices when he perceives some criticism of himself or his job in their investigations.