Hipkins Chris: Privilege — Consideration of Report of Privileges Committee Social Media—Reporting on Parliamentary ProceedingsText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeHipkins Chris: Privilege — Consideration of Report of Privileges Committee Social Media—Reporting on Parliamentary Proceedings[Sitting date: 16 September 2015. Volume:708;Page:6695. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka): I am happy to speak in support of the recommendations in this report. I think it is very important that Parliament moves with the times and that we modernise our practices. But it is also important that in doing so we uphold the standards of the House and the dignity of this place as well. Social media certainly provides some fantastic opportunities for wider public engagement and understanding of the business of the House and the topics of debate in the House but it also creates some interesting challenges for us as well. I think that we have worked very hard as a committee to try to get the balance right. There are three real issues that I want to talk about.The first is that I see social media as a fantastic opportunity to actually open up the House to greater public involvement. There is opportunity to involve the public more in having their say on debates in the House through social media. For example we are using social media more to get select committee feedback to invite submissions to promote submissions and those sorts of things and I think those are welcome developments.I also think and some people will not always agree with me that opening up through social media some of the interchange that we have across the Chamber and allowing others to take part in that can also be quite good for the Parliament. We can do so in a way that respects all of the things that the Attorney-General has just mentioned. We do need to be mindful that comments we make in this House are covered by privilege but comments that we make outside the House are not necessarily covered by privilege and therefore the comments that we make in the House that appear on social media fit more into the latter category rather than the former category. There are of course the odd exemptions here and there so the hard and fast rules do not necessarily apply. But I guess that caution should always prevail would be the main message that would come out of the report of the Privileges Committee and that is certainly one that I agree with.When it came to reflections on members and reflections on the Speaker there was significant debate around that particular topic. I think there are a couple of points that I want to make here the first of which is that there is a need to draw a distinction between conduct that is disorderly and comments that are disorderly and comments that are contemptuous. They are not necessarily one and the same. There is a severity test here and it is that members will say things across the Chamber to one another that are certainly disorderly and may result in the Speaker saying you know “I require the member to withdraw and apologise.” That does not necessarily mean they are contemptuous. It does not mean that the member is suddenly in contempt of Parliament but it does mean that they have been disorderly. I think that we need to adopt a similar kind of an approach to comments on social media. Members will make comments about one another and to one another on social media that sometimes if they were made in the House would be disorderly. That does not necessarily mean that they are in contempt and I think we need to be mindful of that.We looked very carefully at the rules that currently exist around contempt and reflections on the Speaker for example. The committee I think was relatively satisfied that those rules have not been abused. There have been very few cases in recent history where someone has found themselves before the Privileges Committee for making such comments. I think that that suggests there is in fact a severity test already in place. That is appropriate because the Parliament is a place of robust debate and should continue to be so.The Attorney-General raised the issue of selfies. This was also something that there was significant debate about in the committee. I would make a couple of points on that. The first is that I think social media can humanise the political process and humanise parliamentarians and that is something that I think should be welcomed. But it can also be abused as the Attorney-General mentioned. We have seen examples of members taking photos in the Chamber in inappropriate circumstances and using them to denigrate other members and that is very regrettable. I would point out that social media and the emergence of new technologies means that members of Parliament—and in fact any member of the public; any high-profile figure—are much more open to denigration and so on in any number of settings than they would have been previously. Whether it be sitting on a train or in a plane or even in a taxi—in any kind of public space—members of Parliament are much more open to criticism and ridicule than they would have been in the past. That is simply a modern reality now and we all face that on a day-to-day basis.So should a different standard apply to the House? I would contend that yes it should but with some reservations. The reason it should is that I think the House should hold itself to a higher standard than simply any other public place. I think that the committee has worked very carefully to ensure that we have maintained that balance and got that balance right. As I said there should be a higher standard. Therefore reserving the selfie if you like for special occasions I think is appropriate.There is probably one area where I do not necessarily agree with the majority and that is something that is simply a selfie—simply a member taking a photograph of themselves. I am not necessarily sure that they should be restricted in their ability to do that. I certainly think there should be restrictions around their ability to take photographs of other members but I am not convinced about the restriction on their taking photographs of themselves.Hon David Parker: Great loss of liberty.CHRIS HIPKINS: I am sure that my colleague David Parker who has a different view from me on these matters will also raise those.Hon Anne Tolley: He doesn’t want to see photos of you.CHRIS HIPKINS: Well one of the reasons why I do not take very many selfies is that it does not allow sufficient time for the photoshopping that is required so I am not a huge fan of them. But I do think that they are a reality that they are happening more and more and that they can as I say humanise parliamentarians. I think that is actually a welcome thing because I think members of the public sometimes lose track of the fact that MPs are human beings as well.David Shearer: Toughen up!CHRIS HIPKINS: Toughen up—David Shearer is telling me to toughen up. But I think the fact that we open ourselves out a little bit more is a good thing and that should be encouraged. By and large I think this report gets the balance about right. There will still be debate ongoing about some of the issues in it but I think the recommendations are very sound ones.