Privilege — Referral to Privileges Committee Question of Privilege Regarding Use of Intrusive Powers Within the Parliamentary PrecinctText is incorporated into the Bound VolumePrivilege — Referral to Privileges Committee Question of Privilege Regarding Use of Intrusive Powers Within the Parliamentary Precinct[Sitting date: 11 July 2013. Volume:692;Page:11963. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]PrivilegeReferral to Privileges CommitteeQuestion of Privilege Regarding Use of Intrusive Powers Within the Parliamentary PrecinctMr SPEAKER: I have received a letter from Dr Russel Norman raising as a matter of privilege statements made by the Rt Hon John Key Prime Minister in the House in reply to supplementary questions to question No. 4 on 2 July 2013 concerning the release of information from parliamentary information and security systems. Standing Order 400 requires an allegation of contempt to be formulated as precisely as possible so as to give the member or person against whom it is made full opportunity to respond. An allegation of contempt against the Rt Hon John Key in regard to the statements made is not clearly made out.However the member’s letter raises serious issues. The exercise of intrusive powers against members threatens members’ freedom to carry out their functions as elected representatives and the House’s power to control its own proceedings and precincts without outside interference. The release of information from parliamentary information and security systems relating to the movements of journalists within the parliamentary precincts has also been questioned. Although the media do not necessarily participate directly in parliamentary proceedings they are critical to informing the public about what Parliament is doing and public confidence in Parliament. Actions that may put at risk journalists’ ability to report freely are a significant concern.The parliamentary precincts are also a workplace for both parliamentary employees and the employees of Government departments. Access to parliamentary information and security systems data of any sort must therefore also have regard to the respective rights of employers and employees and the role of the Speaker as a responsible Minister and the Prime Minister and his Ministers. I believe some sort of common understanding is required to ensure on the one hand that the functioning of the House and the discharge of members’ duties is not obstructed or impeded but on the other that the maintenance of law and order and the ability to investigate and prosecute offences committed within the parliamentary precincts is preserved.The concerns raised are ones that should be looked at by the Privileges Committee. It is the body the House has established to investigate such matters. It has the power to hear evidence and formulate recommendations for the House that will provide guidance for the future. Consequently I have determined that a general question of privilege does arise. The question therefore stands referred to the Privileges Committee.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First):I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I would like to ask whether when you made that decision you looked over all of the previous occasions when information of this type has been demanded by parliamentarians and that information has been made available and whether or not youhave regard to that precedent and that you find that something was wrong with that behaviour in the past or are we entering new grounds now that we did not consider to be relevant back then?My information is that in 2008 the Privileges Committee demanded the telephone records of a member of Parliament and a Minister who voluntarily and willingly gave them up because he believed amongst other things that they would prove him to be right. That is of the same information that you now find to be a matter of privilege. So why would that be a matter of privilege now when it was not deemed back then to be of any moment when such a demand was made by a member of Parliament across party lines—or one party’s set of lines for a start—and went as far as a Minister’s telephone records? Can you tell me what is new now?Mr SPEAKER: I can inform the member that I have not looked back as far as the incident the member is referring to. I have based the judgment on information made available over recent months and in particular with reference to a letter from Dr Russel Norman. I believe there is an issue here whereby there needs to be an absolute understanding by us as members of Parliament of what information may or may not legitimately be released in the event of an investigation into a security breach. We need an understanding of that.I am certainly concerned about the release of information regarding a journalist’s access to and from the parliamentary precincts and again in my opinion there needs to be some clear guidance for members of the press gallery who work around this place as to what is being determined. The appropriate body for that is the Privileges Committee which is already working on a protocol with regard to issues such as the actions of the Commissioner of Police and the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service with regard to their operations or potential operations within this building.