Parker David: 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 VolumeParker David: 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:19341. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon DAVID PARKER (Deputy Leader—Labour):I agree with the comments of the Attorney-General who I think has expressed the issues well. I am not going to take the full allocation of time for my call but I will make a couple of points. This is another report in a series that the Privileges Committee has brought forward in respect of properly delineating the line of what is a parliamentary proceeding and being very clear that we are standing for the rights of Parliament not in respect of our own personal interests as members of Parliament but because we are trying to protect the essential privileges of Parliament in order that Parliament can properly go about its business and protect democracy. That is at the heart of the changes that have been made to the agreement with the SIS to make it absolutely clear that proceedings of Parliament are absolutely privileged and that even the SIS cannot overrule that. That is the first point I would emphasise.The second and final point that I want to address is the one that the Attorney-General ended on. Can I add my thanks to Dr Kennedy Graham in respect of raising this issue with the select committee which is that where there are outside agencies that come into contact with Parliament they do so through the Speaker. The Speaker of course has able assistance from the Office of the Clerk but the person whom they liaise with in a titular sense is the Speaker. The Speaker is relied upon by this Parliament to act absolutely impartially. Kennedy Graham raised the suggestion that in respect of some of these very very sensitive issues where it is possible that an outside agency might be doing something that is wrong or is political rather than be interested in purely security issues there was a need to bolster the efforts of the Speaker by introducing someone else whether it be the Leader of the Opposition or some other person. I am sure Kennedy Graham will address this more ably than I am.In the end the committee concluded that we have to rely upon and trust the Speaker. It was quite instructive for me because it reminded me of how important the independence of the Speaker is. I think it was the Attorney-General who said to the committee—and I did not know this until he said it—that in Great Britain for example once the Speaker is appointed the Speaker becomes a lot less political than the Speaker is in New Zealand. The Speaker generally exists beyond Parliaments in Great Britain—and the Attorney-General can tell me whether I have got this wrong—and indeed the tradition is that with regard to the seat from which the Speaker comes the other party does not stand a candidate against the Speaker. All of this emphasises the independence of the Speaker and the duty that the Speaker has to Parliament rather than to their own political party.One of the reflections I have as we come out of this report is I wonder whether as a country we can actually do a little bit better in the future in encouraging that independence of Speaker. This is not a criticism of the current Speaker or Speakers past but actually the independence of the Speaker in New Zealand is not quite as entrenched as it obviously is in England. For example some Speakers do and some do not—and this has happened on both sides of the House—attend caucus meetings after they have become Speaker. I suspect that in the UK they never do. We still stand candidates from opposing parties against Speakers and Speakers do not exist beyond the term of a Parliament in New Zealand. They generally leave with the governing party. If the governing party changes so does the Speaker. So it would be interesting for us to reflect I think as members of Parliament as to whether we would be a better institution whether we would run better and whether there would be more trust in things like question time if the Speaker really was imbued with these other attributes of independence. That is the only thing I would contribute to the debate. I recommend the report of the Privileges Committee which is unanimous to the House.