Mark Ron: Privilege — Consideration of Report of Privileges Committee Social Media—Reporting on Parliamentary ProceedingsText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMark Ron: Privilege — Consideration of Report of Privileges Committee Social Media—Reporting on Parliamentary Proceedings[Sitting date: 16 September 2015. Volume:708;Page:6698. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]RON MARK (Deputy Leader—NZ First): I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to take a call acknowledging that it was the Rt Hon Winston Peters who represented New Zealand First throughout these hearings and deliberations by the Privileges Committee on the question of privilege regarding the use of social media to report parliamentary proceedings. Going through the report as I have been doing over the last few moments it is hard to find any reason why the Privileges Committee members would not have come to the conclusions that they came to and the recommendations which we support.I guess there are some realities about life today. If I cast my mind back with regard to the use of social media—in fact if we consider just briefly where information and communications technology was when I left the House in 2008 and where it is at in Parliament today parliamentary staff need to be applauded for the amount of work that they have done. I guess that you would as the Hon Chris Finlayson said look something like King Canute if you were to try to ignore what has happened and the transformation that has occurred within communications not just within New Zealand but throughout the world. That clearly brings us to the point where we are now where we are considering whether or not social media and the use of it requires further constraints around it or whether we just need to accept the reality that it is there and just simply review our rules of privilege in order to ascertain whether or not we need to make any changes to them.Reading from page 7 of the report of the Privileges Committee the statement in the first paragraph says: “We consider the growth in the use of social media to communicate about Parliament in recent years to be a positive development.” New Zealand First agrees 100 percent. In fact it is interesting because we would argue that social media in many many ways is levelling up a very unbalanced political environment or communications environment. In fact I will probably remember for a very long long time the victory speech given by the Rt Hon Winston Peters up in Northland when he stormed to victory and humiliated the National Party. He did say that New Zealand First is a movement that is on the march and that rural provincial New Zealand had taken that opportunity to send a message. Much of that victory came down to the use of social media and the ability to get one’s message out despite the fact that the mainstream media had a particular way of portraying the messages that one tried to get out.So what the Rt Hon Winston Peters said at that time was that going forward New Zealand First had a message to deliver—this is in brief not word for word—and that we would do that with or without mainstream media. He said that we will go around them over them under them and straight through them and we will be able to do that—and what he was talking about was the use of social media and the use of the ability for people to within the constraints use that alternative means of communication. So it is only natural that that alternative means of communication should emerge within the House and within the parliamentary precinct and that there should be questions about the appropriateness of it and particularly around contempt and particularly when comments are made that may be interpreted as being contemptuous of the Speaker when in fact they may well have been guidance to the Speaker or guidance to someone else in the House as to what not to be as opposed to what to be. I guess that is why it is going to be a useful exercise to rewrite a part of the Standing Orders so that it fits more appropriately.I think there is another point that was raised by the Rt Hon Winston Peters and I guess New Zealand First has to take the opportunity to give this message right now. Despite the fact that we have heard speeches saying that out there on the hustings we are well used to the fact and we need to accept that we will come under close scrutiny—that is a given—and that things may be said that we do not particularly like or enjoy and that media or other people like entertainers may use satire ridicule or denigration New Zealand First would say: “Yeah that’s a given. Get used to it.” Someone over here used the words “harden up”.Hon Simon Bridges: I think it was over here.RON MARK: Get used to it—that is part of the job. But the question is—oh that was over there. That was the ACT Party. Thank you Mr Simon Bridges for the guidance there. It was the ACT MP who said that. But the question that New Zealand First would like to put on the floor now and the concern we have is best summed up in this saying “We reap what we sow”. The question is whether the House really wants to reduce itself to satire ridicule and denigration in the House by allowing the film clips to be used in that way.I can say that we have moved and we have transitioned from a time when there were very tight rules around the use of media. In fact I can remember when this House first proposed this and the Parliamentary Service Commission and the Standing Orders Committee looked at the issue of installing cameras in this House to cover the proceedings. I was here at that time when the media were up in arms and delegations from the media in the gallery stormed on the Speaker to stop what they considered to be an appalling abuse of Parliament’s rules and the Speaker’s office to constrain and contain how the House was portrayed.Now we stand here and there is something like—what is it—eight cameras in the Chamber itself and more above. I look up into the gallery and there is not one mainstream camera present quite unlike the old days when Television One TV3 Prime Television and Sky television would all have their cameras up there through question time. Now they have come to understand that what Parliament did and the Speaker of the day approved and the Parliamentary Service Commission and the Standing Orders Committee approved has actually advantaged them. It has given them the wonderful ability to download free all the footage they want to use as they want within the constraints laid down in the Standing Orders and according to privilege. That was a positive step forward. Do I hear one of those journalists standing up and saying: “We were wrong.” and that actually members of Parliament were right and that the Speaker was right? Not one. But I will not hold my breath waiting for it either.This report just reflects evolution in communications. It simply reflects the times that we are moving into. What has happened is there has been a timely review through the Privileges Committee as to where we stand today where we may go in the future and what rules if any need to be amended going forward. New Zealand First simply reiterates what we said with a view to opening up and broadening the way in which the video footage may be used “Be careful what you wish for”—Jono Naylor: Be careful what you say.RON MARK: —be careful what one wishes for. Well if I was to say to that member “Don’t be a jerk.” that is not implying that he is a jerk that is warning him that—Hon Members: Point of order.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! I was on my feet before the member so that member will sit down and that member will sit down. I think that issue and the use of that word have been pretty well canvassed over the last 24 hours and it will not be used in either a negative or a positive sense towards a member.RON MARK: Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. Just to conclude I would like to say that New Zealand First does support this report. Without being prissy we just caution about the widening of the rules around the use of video footage because in the long run the question as to whether that enhances the reputation of the House or denigrates it will be something that will be learnt only after the fact. We would say walk cautiously in that area. In respect of the rest of the recommendation and summaries we concur and we support them. Thank you.