O'Rourke Denis: Privilege — Consideration of Report of Privileges Committee Question of Privilege Regarding Use of Intrusive Powers Within the Parliamentary Precinct Consideration of Report of Privileges Committee Question of Privilege Concerning the Agreements for Policing Execution of Search Warrants and Collection and Retention of Information by the New Zealand Security Intelligence ServiceText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeO'Rourke Denis: Privilege — Consideration of Report of Privileges Committee Question of Privilege Regarding Use of Intrusive Powers Within the Parliamentary Precinct Consideration of Report of Privileges Committee Question of Privilege Concerning the Agreements for Policing Execution of Search Warrants and Collection and Retention of Information by the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service[Sitting date: 22 July 2014. Volume:700;Page:19335. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First):New Zealand First considers the Privileges Committee report in this case to be of the highest importance. The recommendations are significant and go to the heart of our democracy. The recommendations are that the House adopt the protocol for release of information from parliamentary information and security systems; that the Cabinet Manual be updated to reflect that where an inquiry is established under the Inquiries Act 2013 the exercise of powers in relation to members of Parliament and the parliamentary agencies will require recognition of parliamentary privilege; and that standard terms of reference be developed for use in any inquiry where it appears that the powers may be exercised in relation to members and the parliamentary agencies. So those are the three recommendations we are here to consider.As we know the report stems from the letter Russel Norman sent to the Speaker on 11 July 2013 which was later ruled by the Speaker to raise serious issues surrounding privilege. The letter was in relation to the release of information that was held on parliamentary information systems for the inquiry into the unauthorised release of information relating to the Review of Compliance at the Government Communications Security Bureau report. That leak was of the Kitteridge report.The committee was not asked to determine who was responsible for the leak or treat the matter as a contempt of privilege. Actually it was hardly necessary to do so. There is no doubt in my mind that the person who leaked the report was Peter Dunne. I take no pleasure in saying so but it needs to be said. He has never really denied it. He has equivocated and obfuscated. In my opinion he has never really been very honest about it. That is a sad way to end a distinguished parliamentary career. Of course that will be up to the people of Ōhariu. Let us hope that they see their responsibility to do the right thing.The Privileges Committee presented an interim report in December 2013 which highlighted important issues about protecting the privileges and immunities of the House freedom of speech of members and Parliaments ability to maintain control within its precinct. The main consideration was firstly the issue of who should have access to parliamentary information and security systems and when which goes to the heart of parliamentary privileges. The role of the media as an essential part of an open and transparent democracy was also of course involved. Secondly the other issue raised was that information from the systems was more easily accessed through a request from the executive than it would have been had the New Zealand Police been investigating a criminal act. The need for a comprehensive protocol was pretty obvious.New Zealand First fully supports the principles to guide the release of information especially the presumption that any information held on parliamentary information and security systems should not be released. We think it is fundamental that individual members should retain complete control over information that relates directly to them unless they give clear and specific written consent. How on earth could members of Parliament operate effectively otherwise? They must never be in a position of having to worry about what might be released when they should have complete control and permit release only with specific consideration and consent. I think that is extremely basic and very important as otherwise the work of MPs would become almost impossible.The media who work in the precinct should also retain complete control over information that relates to them and it should be released only with their specific authorisation. Any information that does not relate to a specific member will be dealt with by the Speaker of the House of Representatives as the ultimate decision maker. That seems to be perfectly appropriate. We agree that the two underlying and overarching protocols and principles regarding the release of information are the requirement for written consent from the affected individual or party prior to the release of information in any circumstances or the disclosure of information being required by the operation of law but not in respect of requests under the Official Information Act or Privacy Act. In conclusion New Zealand First fully supports the committee’s recommendations which I outlined at the beginning of this speech and in particular that the House adopt the protocol for release of information from parliamentary information and security systems.