Hipkins Chris: 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 VolumeHipkins Chris: 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:19336. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka):It is impossible to consider this report into the use of intrusive powers within the parliamentary precinct without considering the context of how this all came about and why we are here having this debate. We are here having this debate effectively because a Minister of the Crown was accused of releasing a report and in the process of investigating that accusation a whole lot of files were accessed including phone logs email logs and so on. The question arises as to whether or not that was appropriate. It related to a journalist within the parliamentary complex and it related to a Minister and that raised the wider issue of members of Parliament and the information held by members of Parliament.I want to make a clear distinction at this point though between a Minister and a member of Parliament and I think we should never forget that there is a clear distinction there. A Minister is covered by the Official Information Act and the information that they hold in their ministerial capacity is public information covered by the Official Information Act with all of the rules that govern that. There are very clear processes around that. Members of Parliament are not covered by the Official Information Act nor are journalists who work in the parliamentary complex or many of the other staff who work in the parliamentary complex. The reason that I make that distinction is very important. Peter Dunne who was the Minister accused of leaking the report tried to make a distinction during the Privileges Committee inquiry between his personal email account—I do not know whether it was a Gmail account or whatever—his parliamentary email account and his ministerial email account. He argued that when he was sending any emails using his Parliament email account he was doing so in his capacity as a member of Parliament and that when sending any emails using his ministerial email account he was doing so in his capacity as a Minister.The reality is that the distinction is not that clear. It is not the means of the transmission of the communication that matters; it is the communication itself. So if it is ministerial information—i.e. it is public information—it does not matter whether it is communicated using a ministerial account a parliamentary account a private Gmail account an MSN Hotmail account or whatever other account you want to use. It is still official information and it is still covered by the Official Information Act because it relates to a Minister’s ministerial responsibilities. For example Ministers have parliamentary responsibilities too. They often deal with constituency matters. So if it is a constituent communicating with a Minister in their parliamentary not ministerial capacity that is a grey area quite frankly and that does become a lot more difficult because often it is difficult to establish whether this is a ministerial issue or an MP issue. That can be a grey area and Ministers need to have pretty clear protocols within their own offices about how they deal with that.But the critical thing with regard to this inquiry was that it could easily be argued that the information that the inquiry was seeking with regard to Peter Dunne could be obtained in an official capacity outside this protocol because he is a Minister. Because he is a Minister he is covered by the Official Information Act. What was interesting as the inquiry progressed was that it became clear that the inquiry never asked for that information using the channels available to it. It could have requested that information under the Official Information Act but it chose not to do that. So we got into quite a lengthy discussion with the inquiry about why that came to be but it became very clear that there were some significant issues with the way the Inquiries Act could be applied in the future. It became clear that there was a real need to clarify all of the issues and responsibilities here and to make sure that sufficient safeguards were put in place to protect all those working in the parliamentary complex including the fourth estate—the journalists—so that they could be protected from the potential abuse of power.I am not in any way suggesting that this could happen now but without these kinds of protocols in place there is a possibility that someone in a future Government whatever the shape of the Government may be could misuse the powers of Government under the Inquiries Act to effectively delve into the affairs of another political party a member of Parliament from another political party or a journalist and that they could do that inappropriately. The protocol that we are putting in place here which we are asking the Speaker to adopt makes sure that that cannot happen. It makes sure that there are safeguards in place so that the incumbent Government whoever it may be cannot abuse its position and cannot gain access to information that it could not otherwise gain access to. There is further to come in the next report. We are going to talk about the execution of search warrants within the parliamentary complex and so on because it actually all fits under I guess an umbrella of issues that governs what happens within the parliamentary complex.There are some important principles at stake here. Members of the public need to be able to communicate with members of Parliament and know that that communication is going to be protected. We deal with those issues all of the time. That is very important. Members of the fourth estate need to know that they can function within the parliamentary complex and do their role as a watchdog—a check and balance on the use and abuse or otherwise of power within the parliamentary complex—and know that they are going to be protected. What became apparent is that up until the point of this protocol journalists had greater protection when it came to court proceedings legal proceedings and so on than they had here in Parliament. I think this protocol goes some way to addressing that deficiency and making sure that all the rules are clear and that that power cannot be abused. I think this is a good report. I want to congratulate the chair of the Privileges Committee Chris Finlayson.Grant Robertson: Don’t go over the top.CHRIS HIPKINS: I am being warned by my colleagues not to go over the top but I think that the inquiry and the deliberations around the report were conducted in a fairly collegial manner by all sides of the House. We had some very interesting discussions. I think that the report that we have produced is a quality one. I think the next one that we are going to be debating is a quality one too and I think that we have also done quite a good job of deliberating on the Parliamentary Privilege Bill which we are also going to be debating.I also want to congratulate the Government in terms of the timing of when it is putting this legislation through. I think it is good to do it before an election so that it applies to the new Parliament. If anything it kind of follows the protocol that we have with the Standing Orders—that you make changes to the Standing Orders at the end of a term of Parliament so that it applies to the future Parliament and therefore avoid any accusations that any current Parliament is changing the rules to suit itself. I think the idea of having these reports go through so that they take effect from the beginning of the next Parliament—given that we have only 1 week and half of this one left—is an important principle and it is a good one.I will leave my remarks on this particular report at that. I think it is a good report I think it is good that the protocol is going to be adopted and I think it will provide that safeguard in the future that has been lacking.