Hughes Gareth: Privilege — Consideration of Report of Privileges Committee Social Media—Reporting on Parliamentary ProceedingsText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeHughes Gareth: Privilege — Consideration of Report of Privileges Committee Social Media—Reporting on Parliamentary Proceedings[Sitting date: 16 September 2015. Volume:708;Page:6704. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]GARETH HUGHES (Green): Kia ora Mr Assistant Speaker. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou. Kia ora. I would like to rise to touch on the last point raised by the last speaker Simon Bridges which was on those satire provisions in Appendix D of the Standing Orders.I think that when an MP comes to this House and confesses to burning music on to CDs during the middle of a copyright debate and they do not get the irony and when a member comes to this House and likens the internet to the evil computer from the movie The Terminator they deserve to be satirised. Whenever a politician in this House holds up a snapper minces down a catwalk planks live on TV or says that the French love their coq—rooster—we deserve to be satirised. When I asked an adviser live on television—the now-infamous “Hey Clint”—for media advice in front of a TV camera I deserved to be satirised.Hon Member: Ha ha!GARETH HUGHES: I did not run those lines past Clint. But we deserve to be satirised. The public deserves the right to do that and for 8 years this House has hidden behind a ridiculous rule to try to stop it. It was Juvenal who nearly 2000 years ago said: “In times like these it’s difficult not to write satire.” For anyone who thinks that satire is dead or that it can be banned I would also like to quote someone else. Robin Williams said—to paraphrase—satire is alive and well; it is kicking in our Parliament.I rise to support this report which urges a review of the ridiculous rule that is Appendix D of the Standing Orders which prohibits people from using the publicly available Parliament TV footage for satire ridicule and denigration. This was something both the former Clerk and the head of the parliamentary press gallery proposed and it is good that we are finally making this step.It is important to not forget that this is not some ancient relic of the dawn of the television age in New Zealand in the late 1960s. This is something that is only 8 years old in the middle of the internet age. This rule was implemented back in 2007 and Vernon Small said at the time: “It seemed to be aimed to protect MPs from themselves.” The Green Party tried to vote down this provision. We lost the vote by a tally of 111 to 6. Although this Appendix D has never actually been formally invoked—no one has been pulled in front the Speaker for contempt—the media has reported that two people have been invited into the Speaker’s office for a chat about it. I can testify that it has had a chilling impact in terms of political parties using the footage in this House to make a political point to contribute to robust political debate. I believe that we should be accountable for what we say and what we do in this House. We are here on behalf of the taxpayer.But on the other hand although it has not been used we have also seen the public still uploading their videos making their memes and promoting messages about MPs. Although I believe they should be protected by robust parliamentary rules and a proper bill of rights Act all those people who have taken the mickey out of us satirised us ridiculed us denigrated us—all they have had to defend themselves with is what is known as the Barbara Streisand effect. We have got to remember that we are not just talking about taking the piss or making a joke; we are talking about something that has an honourable tradition. From Aesop to Aristophanes from Ovid to Orwell and from Voltaire to Vonnegut it has played an important role in our culture in our democracy and in our history—particularly in this place in this Parliament where our decisions impact on real people. It is crucial that people can comment on those decisions and that they can use our own words and our actions in this House. So it is a good step that Parliament is making this recommendation.I would also point out that the report states that the reasoning for the recommendation is “the current rule risks making Parliament seem out of touch and wary of criticism.” I absolutely agree. I believe this rule in particular does make Parliament seem out of touch and wary of criticism. My longstanding opposition to this provision is not because of how it makes us look; my opposition is because it is not the right thing to do. I believe in freedom of expression. I believe in the public’s right to satirise us in a position of power. I believe they have that right. As the Clerk of the House told us perhaps we just need to grow up.Secondly I note that the report recommends the Standing Orders Committee to only review the rule but I challenge all parties in this House on that committee to commit to removing this ridiculous rule. Although Parliament has an opportunity to fix our internal rules and to lead when it comes to the freedom of expression and information we also need to reflect that the public in New Zealand do not have this right as well. What we have seen is the lack of satire protections actually being used by the rich and powerful to stifle dissidents and stifle criticism. We have seen it from the former Telecom chief executive officer Theresa Gattung who got the Telecon video removed. We saw it at the last election with the Darren Watson “Planet Key” video. We saw it with politicians tabling legal papers when it came to the Civilian website. It highlights the lack of satire or parody protection we have in New Zealand law. It is something that the Green Party has drafted legislation to amend.Something we should also reflect on is that this is what we talked about earlier this year when we saw the tragic consequences of the Charlie Hebdo massacre when we saw some noble and fine words said in this House around the importance of freedom of speech and expression. Let us not just make them words. Let us act to clean up our own House and to clean up our own rules but let us also give those same protections to the citizens of New Zealand. After all this is what citizens in Australia have and what citizens in America have and if the Government is going to sign us up to copyright term extensions under the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement then surely we can have some of the same protections and exemptions that are the norm amongst those other countries which is fair use.So I would like to congratulate and acknowledge the members of the committee. I think this is a very positive step. We have not got there yet. We need to make sure the Standing Orders Committee actually removes the ridiculous rule—Appendix D of the Standing Orders—because ultimately this is not about how it makes us look; it is about the public and their rights and their freedoms. Kia ora.