O'Rourke Denis: Parliamentary Privilege Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeO'Rourke Denis: Parliamentary Privilege Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 22 July 2014. Volume:700;Page:19356. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First):People listening to this debate need to understand that the Parliamentary Privilege Bill is not just about protecting MPs from legal action in respect of statements they make nor just about protecting their support staff and it is not a self-serving measure for MPs or their staff. It is about protecting the right of representatives’ freedom of speech and it is about ensuring that advice given by their support staff cannot be used in legal proceedings brought by others. Nothing could be more important for our democracy. It is also important that it be noted that there is no real change here. The bill really just clarifies and partly codifies the operation of parliamentary privilege.The bill seeks to restore and reaffirm understanding of the scope of aspects of parliamentary privilege and to consolidate and modernise existing legislation following the judgment of the court in the defamation action Attorney-General and Gow v Leigh. Underpinning this is the principle of comity—the mutual respect that the legislature and the judiciary must have for each other. It is about reciprocal courtesy and respect between the courts and Parliament.The bill does not set out to limit article 9 of the UK Bill of Rights 1688 the first formal instrument from a Parliament protecting the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament. Nor does the bill seek to codify comprehensively or replace entirely with legislation every aspect of parliamentary privilege. It is particularly concerned with one aspect—Parliament’s freedom of speech and the associated matter of communicating proceedings in Parliament to the public.New clause 3A emphasises the importance of understanding context when dealing with questions relating to parliamentary privilege or proceedings in Parliament. It would provide clear direction that the Act must be interpreted so as to promote the purposes of the bill and the purpose of parliamentary privilege. The Privileges Committee has revised clause 6 which sets out the purpose of parliamentary privilege to make clear the underlying justifications for parliamentary privilege. The privileges immunities and powers of the bill exist to uphold the integrity of the House as a democratic legislative assembly and to secure the independence of the House its committees and its members in the performance of their functions. Without that protection it has been suggested that Parliament would probably degenerate into polite but ineffectual debating societies and that puts the matter in a nutshell.Concerning the statements made outside Parliament the approach taken in the amended bill is an evidential prohibition approach regarding liabilities from statements that effectively repeat statements made in proceedings in Parliament commonly known as effective repetition and relies on reinforced provisions for stays of court or tribunal proceedings in respect of specified authorised communications of proceedings in Parliament. I agree that this traditional approach together with retaining the pertinent provisions of the Defamation Act should provide sufficient protection.New clauses 8A to 8H reaffirm and clarify article 9 of the Bill of Rights 1688 in accordance with the main purpose of the bill. They also would make clear what “proceedings in Parliament” as used in article 9 means and in particular seek to alter the law in the decision in Attorney-General and Gow v Leigh and would stop evidence being offered or received questions being asked or statements submissions or comments being made about proceedings in Parliament to inform or support effective repetition claims and liabilities in court or tribunal proceedings.The main purpose of this bill is to reaffirm and clarify the nature scope and extent of the privileges immunities and powers of the House. Article 9 of the Bill of Rights 1688which is part of the law of New Zealand says: “That the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any … place out of Parliament:”. The approach taken continues to reflect directly some of the wording of article 9 particularly those words that “proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament:”.New clauses 8C to 8F would make clearer what is covered or excluded from the term “impeaching or questioning” in respect of proceedings in Parliament. I think that is the right approach. Although article 9 excludes evidence where the reason the evidence is offered or admitted is to impeach or question it does not prevent evidence from being used with no impeaching or questioning to establish that something was said or done in Parliament as a matter of fact.New Part 1B deals with communication of proceedings in Parliament. It would simplify the framework for protecting the publishing and broadcasting of parliamentary proceedings. New clause 15 provides for a stay of court or tribunal proceedings that are commenced on the basis of a proceeding in Parliament or a document related to a proceeding in Parliament communicated under the authority of the House such as broadcasts made under the authority of the House. This clause would also provide for a stay of court or tribunal proceedings for which a copy of such a document was the basis. Subpart 2 deals with qualified immunity. Qualified immunity would be available as a defence for fair and accurate reports of proceedings in Parliament or extracts or summaries of documents published under the authority of the House.The bill strikes a harmonious balance in the area where the privileges necessary to protect the independence of Parliament and the important role of the courts intersect. It is of the utmost importance that conflict is avoided by careful and respectful consideration of each other’s constitutional roles. This bill strikes the right balance and reverses the decision in Attorney-General and Gow v Leigh and partly codifies the law of parliamentary privilege.New Zealand First wholeheartedly supports the amended bill and commends the committee for the very good work it has done on it.