Robertson Grant: Parliamentary Privilege Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeRobertson Grant: Parliamentary Privilege Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 22 July 2014. Volume:700;Page:19354. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central):I too join with other members in commending this Parliamentary Privilege Bill to the House. I will speak more generally in this contribution about the changes that we have made to the bill and save the details for the Committee stage when we come to that.I want to acknowledge the previous speaker Anne Tolley as one of the other non-lawyers on the parliamentary Privileges Committee. We were a small club in the room but we attempted throughout to try to ensure that what we were writing was not only legally correct but also understandable to a range of people. This was a challenge but we took it up. I agree with Anne Tolley that all members of the committee contributed strongly to the piece of legislation that is in front of us today.I will make some reference to the comments that Kennedy Graham made towards the end of his speech because I think they are important. I am not sure that the difference between what he said and what David Parker said is large but there are a couple of critical elements that I think are different and are very worthy of debate. One of those I will mention now. I respect the points that he made particularly about the adversarial nature of this debating chamber and the way in which politics plays out under our system. I think it is important to note that this bill and this report of the select committee are an example of where some of the personalities that Dr Graham mentioned actually were able to come together in a way that is I think what he would like to see as the ideal operation of our system—we sat down and we talked through the issues and came up with a solution that was one we could all agree on. We did that on the basis of the fact that this was a debate about the principles of how we run our system. There is no need in my mind for that to be done in an adversarial manner.What we can never do in my view is take the politics out of politics. That is actually a debate about ideas and different ideas for how to achieve the things we believe in. I believe we should be respectful when we are doing that—I will put my hand up from time to time under strong provocation from the Attorney-General—which occasionally perhaps may not be evident when people are watching us in the House but that is not to undermine our agreement on the importance of the principles of our democracy and our ability to be here.Hon Christopher Finlayson: He’s fixated on me.GRANT ROBERTSON: I think it might be the other way round. I have just got a feeling that it is the other way round—from the Attorney-General. But this is a serious point.Kennedy Graham mentions the issue of climate change and it is an issue where I would like to be able to say there is a core set of agreements within this House but actually in a question that the member himself asked yesterday there is still a debate about the legitimacy of the scientific evidence around climate change. I find it utterly ridiculous that there would be a member of Parliament who might think that but they do. The debate about that will become passionate it will become strong but that is part of what we do here. I do not think we should be unnecessarily adversarial but the notion that there is a consensus out there on most things is one that I find challenging by the empirical evidence of what I see in the community. But in terms of the processes and the systems that we set up to manage that yes I think there is a lot of scope for us to find ways that we can work together. This bill is an example of that.Our system is not static. I think that is very important. Kennedy Graham used the phrase of “using some carpentry” on the system. I think that is absolutely valid. If you look at the New Zealand system we have constantly done that. You can walk out the back doors of this debating chamber and see the empty Legislative Council Chamber. We can stand in here today and know that there is a multiplicity of parties represented in this Parliament as a result of a fundamental change that we made to our system. So of course the Westminster system evolves and of course the model of it that we practise is unfamiliar to those who actually sit in Westminster because of the changes we have made. It is not to say that we remain static. What I think is important certainly to me and I think to my colleague David Parker is that the core principles of our system have served us well. We must make them the best they can be when they are operationalised.The point that David Parker was making that is relevant to this bill is around the relationship between the judiciary and this Parliament and the push and pull that we see within that. I think there is something within the New Zealand psyche that is not too keen on making hard and fast rules and that likes the idea of there being a little bit of give and take and challenge based on a respectful set of principles and that is what I believe this bill does today. It provides us with the clearest possible explanation of those principles. As the commentary to the bill says “the bill seeks to restore and reaffirm understandings of the scope of aspects of parliamentary privilege and to consolidate and modernise existing legislation.” and it does do that. Underpinning it is the principle of comity which is the mutual respect of the legislature and judiciary which is what I have just been discussing. I think it is very important that that respect is noted and that we note that it is the core of this bill.The fact is that parliamentary privilege is a vital part of our democracy and not for us as individual members—a point made by others and also made in the report of the committee. We have it on behalf of Parliament and on behalf of the people whom we serve. Otherwise we cannot debate issues freely and frankly. Although from time to time there may be members of Parliament who misuse the parliamentary privilege process that we have that is rare. The reality is that it is incredibly important to us to stand up on behalf of our constituents and to be able to use this place knowing that we can speak freely and that we have freedom of speech and that there is not a sense of coercion or punishment—to go back to the history lesson that Anne Tolley gave us before. We need to stand up for those principles. The Labour Party and I believe that we have done that in this bill. We will ensure as the bill passes through this reading that we make some substantive comments on one or two of the aspects where I think the bill needs explanation.In my remaining time on this reading I want to do two things. The first of those is to go back to Attorney-General and Gow v Leigh which is the case that started this particular process off. There is no doubt that the business of Parliament is beyond what is necessary for the operation of and speaking in this Chamber. We all know that in preparing material to come to this House it is a proceeding of Parliament and that it is part of what we do. In another life I was one of those people who prepared material for Ministers to answer questions. That is a proceeding of Parliament. It is very much part of the process. Ministers in performing their role as part of this parliamentary democracy need free and frank and fearless advice and when it is used they need to know that they are using it as part of parliamentary business. So we have righted a wrong here in my view in terms of what was decided in Attorney-General and Gow v Leigh. That is important. This is not disrespectful of the courts; it is merely reasserting the fact that the business of Parliament is larger than the necessity of what takes place in this Chamber. It involves the people who work here and the business that is transacted in and around this building. I will come back to some details of that in the Committee stage.The other point is the one that has been raised already which is the other case Buchanan v Jennings around “effective repetition”. I think we have made that very clear in this bill—much clearer than it has been before—and I think that both members of Parliament and those outside will be able to see that simply saying that you stand by a statement that you have made in here is not repeating that statement. It is ridiculous. We are asked every single day by journalists whether we stand by statements. We cannot avoid that. If a member of Parliament having exercised their privilege to say something in this House that they know could cause them difficulties then goes outside of the House and expands on it they will bear the responsibilities of doing so. What we have done in this bill is ensure that we now have a clear definition of effective repetition and have put to bed that case as well.I commend the work of the select committee. I particularly appreciate the support that we have had from all of the officials. Mary Harris Debra Angus and Meipara Poata have been mentioned. I want to particularly mention Ross Carter and John Pike who gave us excellent advice on both the drafting and content of this bill. This is a very important piece of legislation and I commend it to the House.