Tolley Anne: Parliamentary Privilege Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeTolley Anne: Parliamentary Privilege Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 22 July 2014. Volume:700;Page:19353. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Police):I rise to speak briefly to the Parliamentary Privilege Bill. I think from listening to the debate so far the collegiality that we see in the House even in the order of speakers is proof that it actually was an extraordinary privilege to come together in the Privileges Committee and talk about issues that have nothing to do with the day-to-day politics that we are all consumed with on a daily basis here but to be able to delve into quite critical issues for democracy. At times I have to admit as a non-lawyer it was a very esoteric discussion. But there were two very clear issues that we were addressing. One was the relationship between Parliament and justice—the courts—and that is of course defined as “comity”. That was actually around a decision made in the courts about how Ministers and MPs can get advice from officials and what protections there are for the performance of politicians to be able to rely on free and frank advice from their officials. The second issue again related to the ability of Ministers and MPs to speak freely in this House. Both issues need to be protected under parliamentary privilege and have a long history.Of course as a lover of history that fascinated me. Even though we think we are modern in the 21st century actually much of what we discussed goes right back to the 1600s and the Glorious Revolution which was to overthrow the Stuarts. Of course that is all tied up in religion but politics is at the heart of it. So we went right back to that Bill of Rights that was passed on 16 December 1689. That restated in statutory form the Declaration of Rights that was presented by the Convention Parliament to William and Mary inviting them to become the joint sovereigns of England. It laid down the limits of the powers of the Crown and set out the rights of Parliament and the rules then for freedom of speech. When you dig right down into what was a very simple matter that went to court about the ability of an official to give a Minister free and frank advice without fear of being taken to court for that advice it goes right back to William and Mary and the Bill of Rights.When you look at the Bill of Rights it laid out certain basic rights. The first was that there could be no royal interference with the law. Although the sovereign remained at the head of justice they could not unilaterally establish new courts or act as a judge. There were two other provisions that were of note for us. One was that there was to be no royal interference in the election of members of Parliament and secondly that the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament. That went to the heart of the second issue that we were dealing with. So MPs are able to stand in the House and ask questions to hold the Government to account and make statements and they are able to do so without fear of court action against them so that they have the right under parliamentary privilege—always taking into account that we have a huge responsibility not to abuse that privilege—to be able to stand by those statements that are made in Parliament without the fear of being taken to court.So those two particular issues—firstly being able to get free and frank advice from officials and secondly protecting that right to stand in the House and ask questions and make comments and statements without fear of the courts—were about the balance between the rights and privileges of parliamentarians versus the rights and privileges of the courts. In the end we felt that the balance was wrong and this bill attempts then to put back in place those privileges that we deem to have been granted to parliamentarians dating right back to 1689 in the new dating.It was a long and interesting discussion. I agree with the previous speakers that we were well led by the Attorney-General and David Parker but in the end all members were able to contribute to what turned out to be a most interesting parliamentary bill. It had a number of changes. We were extremely well served by the staff and the recommendations that we have made I think are of importance for all parliamentarians because they do restore the rights that we all assumed that we had and better protect the privileges that we hold dear in our New Zealand democracy. So it is a privilege to stand in the House and speak to the second reading of this bill and I recommend the bill to the House.