Finlayson Christopher: Privilege — Consideration of Report of Privileges Committee Social Media—Reporting on Parliamentary ProceedingsText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeFinlayson Christopher: Privilege — Consideration of Report of Privileges Committee Social Media—Reporting on Parliamentary Proceedings[Sitting date: 16 September 2015. Volume:708;Page:6693. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General): I move That the House take note of the report of the Privileges Committee on the question of privilege regarding the use of social media to report on parliamentary proceedings. Let me first outline to the House how this issue arose. Last year a very senior member of the House as I recall it was tweeting certain comments about the Speaker. They did not give rise to a particular reference to the Privileges Committee but the Speaker referred to the Privileges Committee as a general matter of privilege the implications for Parliament of MPs and other people using social media to report on parliamentary proceedings and to reflect on members of Parliament including the Speaker.The Privileges Committee looked at this most interesting issue over a number of months and so that we could look at it in a careful and methodical way we set ourselves some terms of reference. Essentially there were three issues that we wanted to look at: first whether there should be some restrictions or guidelines applying to members’ use of handheld electronic devices in the Chamber and committees—and I will come back to the committees in a minute—and that included obviously accessing social media to comment on the proceedings; secondly whether Parliament’s rules require modernising to reflect the reality the challenges and the opportunities provided by social media especially where the House and committees are using social media to disseminate information and to facilitate participation; and thirdly whether in this new era of social media the current rules relating to reflections on the Speaker or other presiding officers or members could amount to a contempt.Can I immediately acknowledge all the assistance that we received from the various witnesses. Both the former and the present Clerk of the House were extremely helpful in the information they provided to the committee. As is our practice we wrote to as it were brother and sister jurisdictions in the Commonwealth to gain some guidance from them and I acknowledge the reports that we received from Westminster and Canada. I also want to acknowledge that this is not a novel issue in parliaments around the Commonwealth. The Victorian Parliament has been looking at this very issue.As one would expect from a report of the Privileges Committee it is short it is concise and it makes a number of very practical comments and recommendations. The first one which will be of great relief to everyone here is that members of the Privileges Committee are not Luddites. We recognise the reality of social media and that to stand King Canute - like and try to stop the tide coming in would be an exercise in uselessness. I am pleased to see Dr Kennedy Graham in the House this afternoon. Even he agreed with that proposition. Even Mr Peters agreed with it and I do acknowledge Mr Peters’ profound contribution to the discussion.We actually see the use of social media as a very positive development and the committee had no intention of questioning whether members and others could use it to report on parliamentary procedures. We recognise that the use of social media has facilitated much more diverse communication and much better conversations about Parliament and that is all very much for the betterment of our democracy.But it is important to note that the committee has taken the time to remind members of a couple of very important points. First all members of Parliament should be aware that anything said on social media may not—not “will not”; may not—be protected by parliamentary privilege and could be potentially actionable in the court. I refer honourable members to section 7 of the Parliamentary Privilege Act 2014 which sets out the purpose of parliamentary privilege and I also refer honourable members to section 10 of the same Act which defines what exactly a proceeding in Parliament is. It is “all words spoken and acts done in the course of or for purposes of or incidental to the transacting of the business of the House or of a committee.” If one is sitting in the House merrily tweeting away it will not necessarily be part of the proceedings of the House and so the best advice that can be offered is: “Watch it.”The second thing is that members need to be careful not to disclose confidential select committee proceedings or reports through social media. Perish the thought! I am sure it would never happen but members need to be advised that Standing Order 410(q) could get them into hot water if they go about tweeting the contents of a report. It is potentially a contempt to divulge the proceedings or the report of a select committee or subcommittee contrary to the Standing Orders.The committee has proposed a particular approach to members using electronic devices to film or take photographs from the floor and it is a matter on which there are currently no rules. So there was concern about improper use of photography and filming by members especially where a member has taken a photo of another member in the House without permission and used it for political advantage. A number of examples were given to us. I regret to say that I thought it reflected very poorly on those who had taken those photographs. I am thinking of a photograph taken of the Green co-leader at about 10 to 10 at night when she was busily studying some report. It was offensive it should not have happened and it was a very poor reflection on the member who did it—who has now left the House—but I hope that sort of thing is not going to happen in the future. I am not going to name names because—Chris Hipkins: Because he’s on your side.Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: —he was on our side. Ha ha! Anyway he has gone now.At the same time the committee recognised that special events in the House including swearings-in maiden and valedictory speeches and waiata after Treaty settlement bills are appropriate occasions for members to photograph or to film from the floor of the House. There was a very interesting question which I am sure Mr Parker is going to address—the issue of selfies and whether or not selfies are appropriate. So I will leave the whole issue of selfies to the MP for Rimutaka or to Mr Parker. Suffice it to say on balance I think we thought that selfies were inappropriate.To assist members the committee has recommended that Mr Speaker issue guidance based on existing rules of the House to all MPs and the press gallery on the appropriate use of social media to report on parliamentary proceedings and there are some very useful guidelines set out as Appendix C to the report.Finally there are some comments made on reflections on MPs. Let us take this example—and I am sure it is a purely hypothetical example. If a member of the House yelled out in the House—and this is hypothetical—that the Speaker was a jerk or did not know what he was doing or was useless clearly that would be a contempt and the person would be hauled before the Privileges Committee quicker than one could say “contempt of the House”.But the issue that can arise is what happens when someone tweets those kinds of comments? All I can say is that the best advice I can give is to be very careful because that same tweeting could result in a member being called before the committee and the deputy leader of New Zealand First—I can see from his nodding—would utterly endorse such a reference.Can I also say something finally about official television coverage. Both the Clerk and the chair of the press gallery propose removing the prohibition on the use of official television coverage to satire ridicule or denigrate and there has been a bit of comment on that in the paper in the last few days. I think the overwhelming majority of the committee thought that it was time for that rule to go. In fact itis itself fatuous and makes us look a bit silly. It seems that we are out of touch and wary of criticism. I do not think it has ever been used before. That is the sort of rule that might apply in North Korea or Stalinist Russia but not in New Zealand. We have to be big enough and tough enough to take a bit of satire from time to time.So that is the report. I want to thank the officials. I want to thank my colleagues on the committee especially the deputy chair. I want to thank the witnesses. As I say it is a concise report. It tries to cut to the chase and provide you Mr Speaker with some guidance on the guidelines as to how one can deal with tweeters and people who bring your great office and you yourself into disrepute.