Graham Kennedy: Privilege — Consideration of Report of Privileges Committee Social Media—Reporting on Parliamentary ProceedingsText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeGraham Kennedy: Privilege — Consideration of Report of Privileges Committee Social Media—Reporting on Parliamentary Proceedings[Sitting date: 16 September 2015. Volume:708;Page:6698. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green): This is arguably the most updated or at least the most technologically updated issue that the New Zealand Privileges Committee has ever had to deal with. The use of social media is not old; it is still in its formative years and it is changing at a rapid pace and in unpredictable ways. So when it bumps up against an august body such as this whose traditional ways stretch back a century and a half there are bound to be wobbles in the steering. Given all that the Privileges Committee did in my view a good job in getting apprised of the challenge posed to the New Zealand Parliament by the onset of social media.The essential task is to explore the implications for privilege of people reporting on Parliament through social media including reflections on members including the Speaker. Some MPs have tweeted reflections on the Speaker while others have surreptitiously taken—as has been pointed out—unflattering photographs of colleagues and have used them for what they took to be political advantage. Setting aside the personal ethics of these actions the questions that arise are whether they bring disorder to the House or might even constitute a contempt. These are serious issues so the Privileges Committee was bound to have to address them at some stage and that became sooner rather than later.The fact is that no rules are in place governing photography by members inside the Chamber so there is clearly a need for some. In short the committee developed the view that photographs should be confined to special occasions such as a swearing-in a maiden speech a valedictory or a waiata. There was an argument advanced that there should be complete freedom of photography for members but the general view was that there is a need to minimise the potential for disorder and that view prevailed. But the main issue was whether the use of social media from inside the Chamber would enjoy parliamentary immunity. On this we were entirely clear. Any such commentary is neither part of parliamentary proceedings nor published under the authority of the House. Therefore it may not be covered by parliamentary privilege and is potentially actionable in court.These were the main issues that needed clarification and the committee has clarified them. That clarification will take the form of a set of guidelines issued by the Speaker if he so chooses. Those guidelines were advanced in the context of a general welcoming of the rise of social media as a new form of communication between the public and their parliamentary representatives. There are 105 MPs using social media—I am one and I suspect that the Attorney-General is another. So no doubt that number will grow to 120 there being one member who is unlikely to move as long as he remains in this House. There is no presumption that members should not use social media in their work; it is quite the reverse. It is just that it needs to be made compatible with the normal functioning of our Parliament. This I think the committee has done and has done well and I commend the report to the House.