Bridges Simon: Privilege — Consideration of Report of Privileges Committee Social Media—Reporting on Parliamentary ProceedingsText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeBridges Simon: Privilege — Consideration of Report of Privileges Committee Social Media—Reporting on Parliamentary Proceedings[Sitting date: 16 September 2015. Volume:708;Page:6702. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Minister of Energy and Resources): As a new member I often used to rise and say: “It is a privilege to speak on this bill.” and in a sense it was just a filler to fill in time but I can say genuinely that it is a privilege this term to be on the Privileges Committee where we discuss and have I suppose the luxury really of looking at important matters that go to the heart of our democracy. In this case it is really a question as Kennedy Graham said of the role of technology in our democracy and how we treat that and deal with that as members of Parliament in this place—Parliament—and to a lesser extent how this affects the press gallery which is our fourth estate and watches us on behalf of the public.It seems to me that at the heart of this report and the helpful guidance that is in it—and I will come back to its recommendations of guidance for the Speaker—is a balance. It is a balance between on the one hand moving with the times and capturing all of the benefits and the positives that social media absolutely and undoubtedly has for the most part whilst also in a sense not diminishing—to use David Parker’s word—this place and not detracting from the gravitas of this place. Look let us be honest it does not always have it but at its best it does and we should be aiming for that. It should have that as the heart of our New Zealand democracy. But as I said we want to move with the times and we found that the parliamentary rules actually are fundamentally fit for purpose but some guidance will be helpful.As I said fundamentally social media is a very positive thing. I agree with Ron Mark’s comments in relation to what I think he said were the reported words of the Rt Hon Winston Peters in the Northland by-election. You know it allows you to get over—or was it under or straight through—Ron Mark: Around and straight through.Hon SIMON BRIDGES: —around and straight through. It is a bit like those bridges I am giving Northland Mr Mark but that is another topic.Ron Mark: And we’re waiting to see them.Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Well they are being delivered—do not worry about that. But it is true that when one as an MP perceives a slight or an injustice or a sense that his or her message is not getting out social media can become a very powerful platform. Manymembers here—not me so much but many members here—have very large followings through which they are able to get their message out and create news if you like. That is positive. It is a very good thing. But as I said we do not want to take away from the gravitas of this place.The way I put it to the committee was that we are not tourists on vacation in here and we should not be acting like it either.I think that it has come through in a number of the contributions but the question of taking photographs in the House on our mobile devices which now as we know can actuallytake better photos than most cameras—at least when you have got the skillset or the lack of skills that someone like myself has that is true—and althoughyou could have complete freedom Ilike David Parker and like the majority on that committee do not think that that would have been the right outcome.I do not think actually that anyone is served—as we have heard—by those late-night photos of the person yawning and the like.I was not able to attend all of the committee meetings but my contribution was to pose the question of whether we really should be filming or be allowed to take photos of other members or whether we should generally not be able to take photographs or be able to film on the floor of the Chamber. My question really was well do we allow selfies in this place? In a sense you could argue that well yes that is OK because what we are trying to get away from with the denigration and the mockery—and actually sometimes just the plainly vitriolic stuff about other members whoin urgency perhaps are tired and the like. But actually in the end I think we came down in the right place which is that we do not want this place being as I say a kind of a touristic place where you are taking photos and selfies when you are for the most part concentrating on your role as a member of Parliament. Photographs are reserved for those special occasions listed in the report: the swearing-in of members the maiden speeches the valedictory speeches waiata and the like.I think the second point here is that this is a very valuable report for the Speaker and for this Parliament in terms of clarifying and giving guidance to us as MPs. It does that in a couple of ways. There is the general guidance based on the existing rules of the House which are as I said fit for purpose but need a sense of overlay over them to be helpful. Then there is that issue of Appendix D of the Standing Orders and the recommendation to review the satire ridicule denigration part. I absolutely agree that that was in hindsight—I was not in Parliament at the time—not the right thing to do. We do not need it. We have got I think thicker skins as a Parliament individually and collectively than that. Of course there is the proviso—I forget the exact words—that the media in their reportage will of course have to have accuracy in how they report. I think that is a valuable thing and place that we have arrived at.I come back to that clarification and guidance point. It seems to me that it is very important. Some of us in this House are or have been lawyers—the Hon David Parker me Kennedy Graham and a number of others. A few of us—me included—are actually bush lawyers from time to time and that is there as well. But actually for the most part we are not lawyers and we are not expected to be legally trained or to look at these things through some sort of potential litigation lens. We are the House of Representatives. We should be representative of a cross-section of society and really all I am saying there is that we should come to this House without fear or favour.We should be able on occasion to courageously take a position without fear of being bankrupted or ruined or of going through the financial wringer.So although this report in a sense is not about the absolute parliamentary privilege that we have in the Parliament—I just want to reiterate that. Parliamentary privilege is it should be and it must be absolute not for irresponsible misuse but as I say to allow uson occasions without fear or favour to take on causes that ultimately as David Parker said keep us clean. But what is also true is that given that we are not all lawyers and given that we are not all going to rush out and hire a Queen’s Counsel before we do things we need that parliamentary privilege and we also need to know what the position is with regard to social media.So this report is I think incredibly helpful and very well put for members. Social media is not covered. Also with issues such as—again you might think it is obvious—confidential select committees those proceedings also are not covered. Were you to tweet on those you would potentially be in trouble and those proceedings are not covered.It is a balanced report. It moves with the times but also ensures that we do not diminish this place. It provides I think very helpful simple to read and simple to digest clarification and guidance for members of Parliament on social media and ultimately on technological use that should futureproof this place for some time to come.