Parker David: Privilege — Consideration of Report of Privileges Committee Social Media—Reporting on Parliamentary ProceedingsText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeParker David: Privilege — Consideration of Report of Privileges Committee Social Media—Reporting on Parliamentary Proceedings[Sitting date: 16 September 2015. Volume:708;Page:6700. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour): I will try not to jerk any members from their slumber—[Interruption]—and I think that is in order.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Absolutely.Hon DAVID PARKER: Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. The only other observation that I would make in respect of the cameras is that the older I am the more I wish the cameras would take shots from a lower angle so that the follicly challenged amongst us are not so exposed.I concur with the comments that have been made by the Attorney-General and other speakers after him. I think that this reportis practical. It is true that in the age of the internet and modern methods of communication some of the more traditional methods of communication between members of Parliament and the public have dwindled. It is absolutely clear that the circulation of newspapers is down. The number of people who get information about what happens in Parliament from the traditional news media has decreased; the number of people who get it from new forms of communication via the internet has increased. Telecommunications platforms such as Twitter Facebook and other forms of social media are on the increase and that is a good thing.The Privileges Committee has recognised this and has said that we ought not to try to unduly control it in Parliament. We should try to encourage it but we should do so cognisant of a couple of facts. One we should not be so insulting or contemptuous in the language that we use that we bring each other and this institution into disrepute. There are a number of reasons for this. In the end as Anne Tolley has said this is a place where we do serious business and I think it is incumbent upon us to try to maintain public confidence in this institution by not denigrating others unduly or by bringing this House into disrepute. This is a balance that I think we should strive to get right and that requires us to maintain some minimum standards of conduct. If we do not do that I fear that we will bring this institution into disrepute which in turn will undermine public confidence in democracy. And given that we are all here in pursuit of democracy because we believe in it that would be a step too far. So we are trying to get that balance right through this report by allowing social media but not by allowing it to be used from the floor of this House in a way that crosses a boundary that would not be permitted if we were saying these things in a presentation as I am doing now.In terms of the point that was made about whether this is protected by parliamentary privilege the comments that we make in social media are most clearly not protected by parliamentary privilege. They might be protected because they are fair comment on what has been said in Parliament in a way that is protected by parliamentary privilege but they are not of themselves comments that are protected by parliamentary privilege. So members should not think that just because they are sitting in Parliament when they are tweeting they are protected in the same way I would be protected if for example I was to say something at the moment that was defamatory of someone inside or outside this House. I would be absolutely protected against defamation risks because the comments that I make in this Parliament are protected by the doctrine of parliamentary privilege. It is not for my protection; it is actually to protect democracy so that if I want to make an allegation against someone who is wealthy or influential in society and whom I believe has done wrong I can do so without fear that I will be sued for defamation. That is one of the ways that democracy keeps itself clean and free from corruption and how society improves itself and maintains its standards. That is the reason for this privilege as I have articulated but that reason does not need to be extended to social media or tweets by members in this House and neither should it be.Just before I sit down I want to deal with a couple of matters relating to photographs. The decision of a prior Parliament through the Standing Orders to restrict the use by the press gallery of photographic images for satirical purposeswas I think born of its time but it was wrong. We do need to be thick-skinned as parliamentarians and satire is an appropriate way in which we can have stupid decisions ridiculed and brought to the public’s attention. Indeed humour is actually a really good way of doing that such as the Spitting Image programmes that so pilloried some of our forebears in this place. I think that they were absolutely appropriate. I do not care whether comedians use footage from cameras rather than puppets. They do take a risk if they misrepresent what has happened in Parliament because satire can go beyond satire and the Privileges Committee could hold in contempt a publication that misrepresents what has happened in Parliament as opposed to being satirical of it. But those are things that have to be resolved on the day. The general prohibition on the use of images for satirical purposes was wrong and so the committee recommends to the Speaker that that prohibition be lifted and I think that is a good change.In respect of the use of social media to publish photographs taken of one member by another I am one of those who favoured the majority decision in the report. I know that Clare Curran expressed a contrary view and I am sure that she will express that view when she speaks. I recognise that there is room for both sides of that argument to be expressed. The reason that I do not think it is appropriate is that I think we could diminish each other in a way that is unnecessary. Like most formal places of debate we have rules in order to depersonalise slightly the contests that we have so that we can maintain a degree of civility and friendship across the sides of this House and so that we can maintain some humanity and kindness towards each other. I quite like these formal rules that we have be they in courts or be they the traditions maintained by our media who are guardians of some of these standards themselves through the rules that they adopt. We have a responsibility to do this for ourselves and to respect the rules that we apply here.I did not like the fact that we had unrestricted rights—or no rules really—around what we could or could not do to each other using photographs that might be taken when someone is tired. Sometimes it could be taken at 2 o’clock in the morning when we are here in this place and we could all be caught with a poor facial expression or yawning and have those things mischaracterised in a way that is pretty much irrelevant to the business that we do here and that is not representative of how hard people herework. I think that if we allow ourselves to go to that point we would have to be on our guard the whole time. Because of that you would find that we would have fewer people sitting in the Chamber when they actually do not have to be there on duty and I think this place is better when it has more people here participating in debates. I do not want fewer people to be here when we are here late at night and I do not want the people who are here working hard to be denigrated unnecessarily.Of course if we say stupid things or we do outrageous things those things are going to be reported anyway but I think that we have got the balance right by saying that we should not be able to take photographs of each other. We are effectively applying the same rules to each other as apply to the media. There is no double standard there. The media are restricted in the images they can use that are from these cameras and I do not see why we should have privileges over and above the media when it comes to reporting on what happens on the floor of this House. With those comments I endorse the recommendations of the Privileges Committee.