Little Andrew: Privilege — Consideration of Report of Privileges Committee Question of Privilege Concerning the Defamation Action Attorney-General and Gow v Leigh Consideration of Interim Report of Privileges Committee Question of Privilege Concerning the Agreements for Policing Execution of Search Warrants and Collection and Retention of Information by the NZSISText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeLittle Andrew: Privilege — Consideration of Report of Privileges Committee Question of Privilege Concerning the Defamation Action Attorney-General and Gow v Leigh Consideration of Interim Report of Privileges Committee Question of Privilege Concerning the Agreements for Policing Execution of Search Warrants and Collection and Retention of Information by the NZSIS[Sitting date: 12 June 2013. Volume:691;Page:11074. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]ANDREW LITTLE (Labour):I want to take a call on this very important Privileges Committee report and I would like to acknowledge the work of both the Attorney-General and the Privileges Committee itself for producing I think a very good discussion of the background to it and bringing perhaps to a head years of concern about a lack of clarity and understanding about the nature of both parliamentary privilege and parliamentary proceedings. This as the Rt Hon Winston Peters said is not just a constitutional issue; it is one of the most important constitutional issues and I might say that in the context of what is meant to be apparently a time of national debate about our constitution and whether we should have a written one or not this at least is a matter of real constitutionality. It is about how power is distributed and how it is represented and it is about the relationship between the different branches of government. These are questions that go to the core of what makes up a constitution and it is good that we are having an open discussion at least in this House this afternoon on this important issue.As has been clear from previous speakers the heart of this debate is about what constitutes the proceedings of Parliament. The case that went to the Supreme Court and has led to the Privileges Committee considering the matter and writing this report was a defamation case. The Defamation Act itself—a piece of legislation with which I have recently become familiar along with a colleague of mine—uses the term “privilege”.Hon Trevor Mallard: That will put both these cases in common.ANDREW LITTLE: There is not a great deal in common with theLeigh case because in that case of course there was a Minister being advised and it was the Minister’s adviser who was really in the gun because of what he said or is alleged to have said in advising the Minister. In the more recent case involving Mallard and Little it was a Minister who took umbrage at comments made the veracity of which have never been tested and indeed the case has been pulled and we will never know what the result would have been.But the Defamation Act itself uses the term “privilege” in terms of absolute privilege qualified privilege and parliamentary privilege notwithstanding that those terms have different meanings in each case or at least qualified privilege and absolutely privilege on one hand and parliamentary privilege on the other. As the Attorney-General said parliamentary privilege is about protection—protecting members of this House who having been elected to come here must be allowed to do so to fulfil their obligations and duties without fear of being harassed and harangued by thepowerful the mighty and the wealthy as they do so. So it is accepted that MPs must be able to prosecute their role. We must be able to fulfil our duties and obligations without fear from others in the community who would seek to prevent us from doing so.It is also important that there are safeguards for citizens because as the Attorney-General correctly pointed out parliamentary privilege is about protecting members but it is not about elevating members to an unnatural status within the community so that they are beyond reach or cannot be touched if they transcend or transgress either the law or other accepted rules and principles. So there must be safeguards for citizens as well. Although I am new to this House and I have not been here during the development of the existing Standing Orders there are Standing Orders that do go to the extent of protecting citizens so that if a citizen who would not have otherwise had a voice here is referred to particularly if they are referred to in disparaging terms there is a process by which they can have their reputation protected or at least have a version represented. Likewise when it comes to the relationship between this House and the other branches of government principally the judiciary there are Standing Orders that seek to preserve and protect the relationship between them.Sitting behind this report and the recommendation of it which is to provide a statutory clarification of parliamentary privilege we have the case ofAttorney-General and Gow v Leigh  which focused on the necessity principle—what is needed to make the absolute privilege of Parliament functional and workable. That was the focus of the Supreme Court as opposed to what I think with great respect was really at the heart of that case which was more about what inquiry was needed to ensure that the Minister could fulfil in that case his obligation to answer fully and properly to the House and what was needed to protect the citizen. So a Minister must be free in taking advice to pose questions and to obtain advice both orally and written from officials on whom they are dependent and reliant to get advice. That must be able to be conducted in a “free and frank way” as the expression is given and indeed reflected in the Official Information Act. The free and frank expression of officials must be preserved and protected to enable the role or the function of the Government to be carried out.It appears in my humble view and respectful opinion that the Supreme Court conflated the test needed to protect the right of the citizen who in this case is Ms Leigh with the manner in which Parliament must conduct it business. So I think that the Privileges Committee has correctly struck the balance and concluded that it is right for this House to enable it to conduct itself properly and its members to conduct themselves without fear of harassment from others in the community to legislate for a definition of parliamentary privilege and parliamentary proceedings. That need not cut across citizens’ rights and the ability of citizens to stand up to preserve and protect their reputation. That can be accommodated in the Standing Orders of the House as in my view it already is. But we do need to be aware at least in the public debate that will happen about legislation that there will be a tension between citizens and their representatives in this House as we seek to protect our ability to do our job.It is interesting that the origin of the Bill of Rights 1688 was more about the relationship between the Crown or the monarch and Parliament and that was a Bill of Rights that was about preserving and protecting the role of Parliament as against the monarch of the day and ensuring that the Crown could not unduly interfere in the conduct of Parliament as it went about raising taxes and passing laws and that it could not be gainsaid by the monarch of the day making their own dictates and passing their own laws unilaterally without the proper involvement and consent of Parliament and likewise levying taxes. That is what the Bill of Rights 1688 was about and that is what it was referring to when it talked about the proceedings of Parliament in article 9 where it sought to preserve and protect those. It is clear from a reading of that 1688 documentthat the reference to the proceedings of Parliament was intended to be broad and was intended to give effect to Parliament in all its dimensions conducting itself and fulfilling its business.So I want to once again acknowledge what is I think a very good piece of work in the document that has been reproduced and that we are discussing now and I look forward to the legislation as it is drafted and as it comes before this House for more considered and detailed debate.Motion agreed to.