Robertson Grant: Privilege — Consideration of Report of Privileges Committee Question of Privilege Regarding Use of Intrusive Powers Within the Parliamentary Precinct Consideration of Report of Privileges Committee Question of Privilege Concerning the Agreements for Policing Execution of Search Warrants and Collection and Retention of Information by the New Zealand Security Intelligence ServiceText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeRobertson Grant: Privilege — Consideration of Report of Privileges Committee Question of Privilege Regarding Use of Intrusive Powers Within the Parliamentary Precinct Consideration of Report of Privileges Committee Question of Privilege Concerning the Agreements for Policing Execution of Search Warrants and Collection and Retention of Information by the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service[Sitting date: 22 July 2014. Volume:700;Page:19333. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central):Just to recap as I began briefly last night we are debating here a report that has arisen from one of the most shambolic episodes this current Government has been involved in: the leaking of a report into the activities of the Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB). As I said last night to this day New Zealanders do not know for sure who it is who leaked that confidential report despite being given assurances by the Prime Minister John Key that the Government would find that out and that he would get to the bottom of that. The reason New Zealanders do not know for sure is that the person who has been identified as the most likely source of that the Hon Peter Dunne refuses to admit it and the Prime Minister John Key has refused to follow up that matter in the way that he would have been expected to do by most New Zealanders. On this side of the House we find that greatly regrettable.What then followed was an investigation into the leaking of the report that in itself was an ongoing shambles. It involved the provision of information that should not have been given to the inquiry led by David Henry. It was an inquiry set up with terms of reference developed by the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet and the GCSB with John Key as Prime Minister. Perhaps somewhat unsurprisingly given that mandate the inquiry was able to get a lot of information that as the Privileges Committee has worked through these questions we have been deeply concerned that they were able to get. But we should not leave the matter of how this inquiry came about how the terms of reference were written and the exertion of power in this case by the executive. Those matters were ones that the Prime Minister and his chief of staff should have been considering. There is no doubt in my mind that the fact that this inquiry was set up by John Key is one of the factors that led to information being released that should not have been released because the power of the executive was being used in that way. I will come back to that point in a moment.So with that as the background what we have before us today is a thorough consideration of the outcome of this shambolic set of events and that has turned into something useful. I do want to acknowledge Mr Finlayson as the chair of the Privileges Committee. He briefly left the Chamber last night as I got up to speak. I am sure those two events were totally unrelated. I was not able at the time that I was giving thanks to the various staff members and other members of the Privileges Committee to acknowledge Mr Finlayson for his role in chairing the meeting. He occasionally allowed me to speak—only briefly and only on matters that were wholly relevant to the report—and I thank him for his chairing of the committee and his shepherding of this report through to the House.I think it is important when we look at the report that we acknowledge a couple of things. The first is that the committee expresses in the report our grave concern at the lack of regard of those involved in this situation for the separation of the executive from Parliament. That is a very important principle that we are protecting today in the protocol that will be passed as part of this report. It does not matter which party is in power in terms of the importance of that separation but what was drawn out was that the decisions about the release of information in this inquiry process drew out the fact that there was now a blurring of lines between the executive and Parliament. Although the question of who should have access to that information is not an easy one to resolve as the report says there is no doubt in the mind of this committee and in my mind that that cannot be the prerogative of the chief executive of the Parliamentary Service or indeed the chief executive of any other department. As the committee says in its report we are troubled that this incident arose as it did because there are protocols in place about the release of information particularly involving the SIS and we will come to that in the next item of business.It does seem peculiar to me and it did to the committee that this information was ultimately released as a result of the say-so of the executive branch of the Government. It was in fact ultimately John Key’s chief of staff Wayne Eagleson who was the person on whom reliance was placed for whether it was OK to release information. I do want to put on record that the then head of the Parliamentary Service Geoff Thorn actually refused to release information multiple times because he felt that that was not something he had the power to do and it was only from Mr Eagleson’s intervention that he then did release the information. This is relevant to this report because that is what lies at the heart and the Privileges Committee has said that in our report: the concern that we need to have much clearer protocols in place to ensure there is separation between the executive and Parliament on these matters.So the main substance of our report is the drafting and release of a protocol for the release of information. As Minister Finlayson said in his speech there are key principles that underlie that. The most important of those for me as a member of Parliament is that we as members of Parliament retain complete control over information that relates to us. It has been said by other speakers in this debate that we do a number of different jobs as members of Parliament relating to individuals in the community and relating to other people inside these precincts that are not and should not be released unless we say it is OK. There is an element of privacy. There is a question of the constitutional role that we play as members of Parliament and that can be compromised if we do not have the kind of protocol that is here.The second core element of the key principles is that journalists working in the parliamentary precincts should also have that level of control. It is true we share this environment as a working space but journalists have certain obligations and roles in our society that need to be protected and they were compromised in this incident. The fact that swipe card information relating to a journalist was released is wrong. It compromises the ability of the fourth estate to do its job and it should never have happened. Under this protocol in the future it will not happen.The key feature of the protocol is written consent from affected individuals and that is something that we are very pleased to see in there. I do want to make the point before I finish that of course disclosure of information can be compelled by law through the Official Information Act in particular and also through the Inquiries Act. That is as it should be particularly because official information relates to the work of Ministers of the executive and there are plenty of clauses within the Official Information Act that ensure that things can be withheld if they need to be but that is the role of Ministers exercising their executive function. What this protocol protects is the rights of members of Parliament and those working in this complex to be able to know that their information is held securely. This is a very good report I believe from the Privileges Committee. I welcome the fact that the protocol has widespread support across the House and I look forward to the Speaker signing up to the protocol as is envisaged here.