Finlayson Christopher: Parliamentary Privilege Bill — In Committee Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeFinlayson Christopher: Parliamentary Privilege Bill — In Committee Third Reading[Sitting date: 30 July 2014. Volume:700;Page:19747. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General):In conclusion can I endorse what other members have generously said and thank the officials particularly the Clerk Debra Angus and Ross Carter for their wonderful work. As Mr Grant Robertson said it may look as though there has been a complete redraft because we were dissatisfied with the earlier version. Far from it—we wanted to make this very important area of the law as clear as possible.Can I simply say that the Committee stage of the debate has really emphasised the importance of what is now clause 8B and particularly subclauses (4) and (5). Clause 8B(4) states for the avoidance of doubt: “In determining … whether words are spoken or acts are done for purposes of or incidental to the transacting of the business of the House or of a committee no necessity test is required or permitted to be used.” and clause 8B(5) very importantly spells out what that test is. It is very very important that all those who read this legislation understand the fundamental point that there is no necessity test which can read down what members of Parliament say or do.The final point that I would make and it is picking up on something Dr Graham said about our constitutional legislation—and this is important constitutional legislation and no one should be under any illusion as to that—is that today we are going to finally remove the last vestiges of the Legislature Act 1908. Anyone listening to this debate may say: “Well gee that’s a big change to repeal the Legislature Act 1908.” but the reality of the matter is that all but section 242 of the Legislature Act was repealed years ago. So we are removing the last remaining section of the Legislature Act but it does give rise to a more general principle and that is whether the time has come at some stage for Parliament to look at consolidating all the legislation relating to Parliament in one coherent piece of legislation. I see Dr Graham nodding. I think that that could be quite an interesting bipartisan or multipartisan project in the next Parliament because it is in the public interest that all provisions relating to our constitutional arrangements are there and are clear and easily accessible for people and you should not have to go darting and diving for section 242 of the Legislature Act.Under the Legislation Act the Attorney-General has the power to set forward a programme for revision of statutes and I have sent to my opposite number Mr Parker a proposed revision programme regardless of who might be here after the election. But I think it could be a worthwhile project to bring all the legislation together just as Ms Collins has done with the courts modernisation legislation. The Judicature Act 1908 was hopelessly out of date. Most of that had been repealed. So what she has done—and it is a very good piece of work—has brought together all the relevant court legislation into what will become known as the Senior Courts Act and then there will be the District Courts Act. So I think that it is in the public interest that there be a consolidation of all the parliamentary legislation and that could be something that all parties could work sensibly on. As Dr Graham said it is in in the public interest that all our constitutional legislation be readily accessible and available set out in clear terms for the benefit of the public.So this has been a very interesting debate. I echo what Mr Hipkins said. We looked at this word “privilege” because at first sight it looks as though we are on the final day of the 50th Parliament ramming through legislation in urgency to protect ourselves. Well actually let us be clear about one thing. When we talk about parliamentary privilege it is not the privilege of individual members of Parliament; it is the privilege of Parliament.Chris Hipkins: The collective privilege.Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: It is the collective privilege and it is there for very clear purposes. They have been very eloquently set out by Mr Hipkins in his previous contribution and I do not need to repeat them. But when one looks at legal professional privilege or parliamentary privilege it does have connotations of lawyers looking after themselves and parliamentarians looking after themselves. Get beyond the terminology. Drill down to what we have been trying to do in this debate—that is ensuring that in the public interest important issues can be transacted in this Chamber and that the important rights of parliamentarians to raise important matters is not curtailed or circumscribed in any way.So putting it bluntly it was the unanimous view of the Privileges Committee and I take it of this Parliament that in two very important cases the courts got it wrong. That is why with the greatest of respect Parliament has needed to put it right.The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 482 in the name of the Hon Gerry Brownlee be agreed to.Amendments agreed to.Parts 1 and 2 and clauses 1 and 2 as amended agreed to.Bill reported with amendment.Report adopted.