O'Rourke Denis: Parliamentary Privilege Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeO'Rourke Denis: Parliamentary Privilege Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 11 December 2013. Volume:695;Page:15494. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First): New Zealand First welcomes and endorses the Parliamentary Privilege Bill without reservation. As we know the bill seeks to implement the recommendations of the Privileges Committee concerning the defamation action inAttorney-General andGow v Leigh. The committee—correctly we think—concluded that the court’s decision in that defamation action represents a significant shift in the interpretation of the scope of privilege which moves New Zealand away from the position in comparable Commonwealth jurisdictions. The committee’s recommendation in this legislation to restore privilege’s scope to Parliament’s previous understanding is the correct approach to take.This is a very important issue so that Parliament can carry out its duties without fear of defamation and the value of that accrues not just to MPs and Ministers but to the people of New Zealand as a whole. Freedom of speech in Parliament is the essence of a robust parliamentary democracy and of course there is a correlative responsibility for MPs and Ministers to ensure that what they say in Parliament is accurate and reasonable. But it is not for the courts to test that. This is a matter for Parliament and for Parliament alone. Without such immunity which must extend to advisers and to broadcasters it will be our democracy that suffers.The bill clarifies the definition of the term “proceedings in Parliament” to include where an official provides material for a Minister to respond to an oral question. That is of course an extremely important matter because such material is really the Minister’s material and Parliament’s material. So it is very appropriate and necessary that the immunity should extend to that advice as well.Something else the bill does as I have already mentioned is clarify the protections afforded to broadcasts and reports of proceedings in Parliament. The bill ensures appropriate protection from civil or criminal liability for broadcasting reports of parliamentary proceedings and recognises of course that that is a very important medium in today’s society. The bill applies absolute privilege to the live broadcast of the proceedings in Parliament including now select committee hearings and to delayed broadcasts or therebroadcasting of Parliament’s proceedings including select committee hearings that are made under the authority of the House of Representatives. The extension of parliamentary privilege in those ways is clearly necessary to enable such broadcasts to take place without any limitations.The third thing that the bill does is ensure that no person will incur criminal or civil liability for making an oral or written statement that affirms adopts or endorses words spoken in proceedings in Parliament where that statement would but for the proceedings of Parliament give rise to criminal or civil liability. This is known as we know as the effective repetition rule. The bill clarifies the effect of a person adopting or endorsing a statement made in the House in later comments made outside the House and it clarifies the extent to which something said by a person during proceedings in Parliament may be used to ascertain any content effect or meaning of the statement made outside the House. In other words the rule allows affirmation but not repetitionof a comment outside Parliament and that seems to me to be a fair and appropriate balance.Overall New Zealand First is very happy with the bill as it is and welcomes and endorses it as I have said. Without it the proceedings in Parliament would be severely constrained. It is clearly needed. The conclusion of the court in theLeigh case was obviously wrong and must be reversed so New Zealand First will support the bill and vote for it.