Power Simon: Privilege — Consideration of Report of Privileges Committee Freedom of Speech of Members of Parliament—Court Orders 
Power Simon: Privilege — Consideration of Report of Privileges Committee Freedom of Speech of Members of Parliament—Court Orders 
[Volume:654;Page:4066] 
Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I thank Charles Chauvel for leading the debate on the report back on this very important matter of the Privileges Committee’s report and I congratulate him on taking up the role of chairperson of that committee. I am reliably told that it is not an easy job so I wish him well in that task. The Hon Michael Cullen commenced the chairing of this issue in the new Parliament. When he departed from the House Mr Chauvel stepped up to the mark and he has done a very good job of putting a very complex matter into relatively straightforward terminology. I also thank other committee members for their work on this issue. 
As the chairperson of the Privileges Committee said in June 2008 the Hon David Parker referred to statements made by Heather Roy as a matter of privilege. He was concerned that they may have been in breach of a suppression order made in the Nelson High Court. As Mr Chauvel said the Speaker ruled that the immediate complaint could not be regarded as tending to impede the House in the discharge of its functions. However the Speaker referred the general matter of the exercise of the privilege of freedom of speech in the context of court orders to the last Parliament’s Privileges Committee. Another matter came to the Privileges Committee at that time which saw this particular issue sidelined at that point. However the new Privileges Committee in this Parliament took up the challenge of dealing with this very technical area. The principle which determines the balance to be struck between the courts’ role in making orders suppressing information and members’ freedom of speech was referred to as “comity” by Mr Chauvel and several submitters. Simply put it means that there is mutual respect and restraint between the legislative and judicial branches. Whatever is under discussion or determination by either should not be discussed or determined by the other. Over the time I have been in this House members tend to be very careful about that issue in particular when commenting to the media or when members are involved in the justice or law and order areas. The temptation to comment on cases that are before the courts and to offer an opinion is always available but my experience has been that members on all sides of the House have exercised considerable and rightful restraint in that area. 
As Mr Chauvel said the committee recommended that the sub judice rule be revised to clearly recognise that there are two strands to the rule of issues concerning prejudice to a matter awaiting or under adjudication in any New Zealand court including one awaiting sentencing. I was particularly keen to see that addition to the summary of recommendations because I can recall a number of occasions over the last 9 or so years when the issue of what stage a matter was up to in the court proceedings became an issue for debate during question time or in other proceedings in this House. It was always the intention in my view that matters relating to sentencing should be included in that rule even though the actual judicial discretion and process may have been concluded at that point. The second part of that rule is that the principle of comity comes between Parliament and the courts. 
As Mr Chauvel stated the committee has made a second series of recommendations to the Government. The first recommendation is that it “recommends to the Government that it introduce legislation to amend the Legislature Act 1908 to provide that the live broadcast of Parliament’s proceedings including select committee hearings is protected by absolute privilege” that “delayed broadcasts or rebroadcasts of Parliament’s proceedings including select committee hearings that are made by order or under the authority of the House of Representatives are protected by absolute privilege” and that “a fair and accurate report of proceedings in the House”—that is a fair and accurate report of matters and proceedings in the House—“or summary using extracts of proceedings in the House by any person is protected by qualified privilege.” It is a matter that will no doubt be of some interest to New Zealand’s media. The recommendations continue: “the broadcast and other publication of extracts of Parliament’s proceedings including select committee hearings that are not made by order or under the authority of the House of Representatives are protected by qualified privilege in a manner consistent with the provisions of the Defamation Act 1992.” Significantly—and this is something that will particularly interest members—the Privileges Committee has recommended that the Government introduce legislation to amend the Legislature Act to provide that “the criticisms made of the decision in  
Buchanan v Jennings 
 be addressed so that a Member of Parliament or any other person participating directly in or reporting on parliamentary proceedings who makes an oral or written statement that affirms or adopts what he or she or another person has said in the House or its committees will not be liable to criminal or civil proceedings.” 
I think it is fair to say that the vast bulk of the committee’s work when it came to the consideration of this report was to have the specific nature of the wording on that last point put together in such a way that the Government’s legislative response to these recommendations would get the least ambiguous steer possible as to what the committee was recommending. It is quite a step and as the chairperson indicated it will require the Government to respond formally in due course. It covers a range of issues that up to now have seen many a member of Parliament walk straight from the Chamber to his or office and past the media without saying anything since that particular— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: It’s expensive for some of us too. 
Hon SIMON POWER 
: Mr Mallard can have his contribution shortly under the new circumstances. We have to wait until the new legislation comes to the House. 
I do not want to say anything more other than the Privileges Committee work is often done in a very tightly held way that sees matters of some weight considered by the committee. From time to time the committee has been referred to in a slightly flippant way as the “all-powerful Privileges Committee” but it is one of those few committees in Parliament that genuinely acts in the interests of this institution and does so in a way whereby all members of that committee leave their politics and party affiliations at the door. That is to be encouraged because members on the committee take seriously this House its proceedings and their obligations to each other and this House.