Privilege — Social Media—Reporting on Parliamentary Proceedings

I move, That the House take note of the report of the Privileges Committee on the question of privilege regarding the use of social media to report on parliamentary proceedings. Let me first outline to the House how this issue arose. Last year a very senior member of the House, as I recall it, was tweeting certain comments about the Speaker. They did not give rise to a particular reference to the Privileges Committee, but the Speaker referred to the Privileges Committee as a general matter of privilege the implications for Parliament of MPs and other people using social media to report on parliamentary proceedings and to reflect on members of Parliament, including the Speaker.

The Privileges Committee looked at this most interesting issue over a number of months, and so that we could look at it in a careful and methodical way we set ourselves some terms of reference. Essentially, there were three issues that we wanted to look at: first, whether there should be some restrictions or guidelines applying to members’ use of handheld electronic devices in the Chamber and committees—and I will come back to the committees in a minute—and that included, obviously, accessing social media to comment on the proceedings; secondly, whether Parliament’s rules require modernising to reflect the reality, the challenges, and the opportunities provided by social media, especially where the House and committees are using social media to disseminate information and to facilitate participation; and, thirdly, whether in this new era of social media the current rules relating to reflections on the Speaker or other presiding officers or members could amount to a contempt.

Can I immediately acknowledge all the assistance that we received from the various witnesses. Both the former and the present Clerk of the House were extremely helpful in the information they provided to the committee. As is our practice, we wrote to, as it were, brother and sister jurisdictions in the Commonwealth to gain some guidance from them, and I acknowledge the reports that we received from Westminster and Canada. I also want to acknowledge that this is not a novel issue in parliaments around the Commonwealth. The Victorian Parliament has been looking at this very issue.

As one would expect from a report of the Privileges Committee, it is short, it is concise, and it makes a number of very practical comments and recommendations. The first one, which will be of great relief to everyone here, is that members of the Privileges Committee are not Luddites. We recognise the reality of social media and that to stand King Canute - like and try to stop the tide coming in would be an exercise in uselessness. I am pleased to see Dr Kennedy Graham in the House this afternoon. Even he agreed with that proposition. Even Mr Peters agreed with it, and I do acknowledge Mr Peters’ profound contribution to the discussion.

We actually see the use of social media as a very positive development, and the committee had no intention of questioning whether members and others could use it to report on parliamentary procedures. We recognise that the use of social media has facilitated much more diverse communication and much better conversations about Parliament, and that is all very much for the betterment of our democracy.

But it is important to note that the committee has taken the time to remind members of a couple of very important points. First, all members of Parliament should be aware that anything said on social media may not—not “will not”; may not—be protected by parliamentary privilege and could be potentially actionable in the court. I refer honourable members to section 7 of the Parliamentary Privilege Act 2014, which sets out the purpose of parliamentary privilege, and I also refer honourable members to section 10 of the same Act, which defines what exactly a proceeding in Parliament is. It is “all words spoken and acts done in the course of, or for purposes of or incidental to, the transacting of the business of the House or of a committee.” If one is sitting in the House merrily tweeting away, it will not necessarily be part of the proceedings of the House, and so the best advice that can be offered is: “Watch it.”

The second thing is that members need to be careful not to disclose confidential select committee proceedings or reports through social media. Perish the thought! I am sure it would never happen, but members need to be advised that Standing Order 410(q) could get them into hot water if they go about tweeting the contents of a report. It is potentially a contempt to divulge the proceedings or the report of a select committee or subcommittee contrary to the Standing Orders.

The committee has proposed a particular approach to members using electronic devices to film or take photographs from the floor, and it is a matter on which there are currently no rules. So there was concern about improper use of photography and filming by members, especially where a member has taken a photo of another member in the House without permission and used it for political advantage. A number of examples were given to us. I regret to say that I thought it reflected very poorly on those who had taken those photographs. I am thinking of a photograph taken of the Green co-leader at about 10 to 10 at night, when she was busily studying some report. It was offensive, it should not have happened, and it was a very poor reflection on the member who did it—who has now left the House—but I hope that sort of thing is not going to happen in the future. I am not going to name names because—

💬 Chris Hipkins: Because he’s on your side.

—he was on our side. Ha, ha! Anyway, he has gone now.

At the same time, the committee recognised that special events in the House including swearings-in, maiden and valedictory speeches, and waiata after Treaty settlement bills are appropriate occasions for members to photograph or to film from the floor of the House. There was a very interesting question, which I am sure Mr Parker is going to address—the issue of selfies, and whether or not selfies are appropriate. So I will leave the whole issue of selfies to the MP for Rimutaka or to Mr Parker. Suffice it to say, on balance, I think we thought that selfies were inappropriate.

To assist members the committee has recommended that Mr Speaker issue guidance based on existing rules of the House to all MPs and the press gallery on the appropriate use of social media to report on parliamentary proceedings, and there are some very useful guidelines set out as Appendix C to the report.

Finally, there are some comments made on reflections on MPs. Let us take this example—and I am sure it is a purely hypothetical example. If a member of the House yelled out in the House—and this is hypothetical—that the Speaker was a jerk or did not know what he was doing or was useless, clearly that would be a contempt and the person would be hauled before the Privileges Committee quicker than one could say “contempt of the House”.

But the issue that can arise is, what happens when someone tweets those kinds of comments? All I can say is that the best advice I can give is to be very careful because that same tweeting could result in a member being called before the committee, and the deputy leader of New Zealand First—I can see from his nodding—would utterly endorse such a reference.

Can I also say something, finally, about official television coverage. Both the Clerk and the chair of the press gallery propose removing the prohibition on the use of official television coverage to satire, ridicule, or denigrate, and there has been a bit of comment on that in the paper in the last few days. I think the overwhelming majority of the committee thought that it was time for that rule to go. In fact, it is itself fatuous and makes us look a bit silly. It seems that we are out of touch and wary of criticism. I do not think it has ever been used before. That is the sort of rule that might apply in North Korea or Stalinist Russia, but not in New Zealand. We have to be big enough and tough enough to take a bit of satire from time to time.

So that is the report. I want to thank the officials. I want to thank my colleagues on the committee, especially the deputy chair. I want to thank the witnesses. As I say, it is a concise report. It tries to cut to the chase and provide you, Mr Speaker, with some guidance on the guidelines as to how one can deal with tweeters and people who bring your great office and you yourself into disrepute.

I am happy to speak in support of the recommendations in this report. I think it is very important that Parliament moves with the times and that we modernise our practices. But it is also important that in doing so we uphold the standards of the House, and the dignity of this place as well. Social media certainly provides some fantastic opportunities for wider public engagement and understanding of the business of the House and the topics of debate in the House, but it also creates some interesting challenges for us as well. I think that we have worked very hard as a committee to try to get the balance right. There are three real issues that I want to talk about.

The first is that I see social media as a fantastic opportunity to actually open up the House to greater public involvement. There is opportunity to involve the public more in having their say on debates in the House through social media. For example, we are using social media more to get select committee feedback, to invite submissions, to promote submissions, and those sorts of things, and I think those are welcome developments.

I also think, and some people will not always agree with me, that opening up through social media some of the interchange that we have across the Chamber and allowing others to take part in that can also be quite good for the Parliament. We can do so in a way that respects all of the things that the Attorney-General has just mentioned. We do need to be mindful that comments we make in this House are covered by privilege, but comments that we make outside the House are not necessarily covered by privilege, and therefore the comments that we make in the House that appear on social media fit more into the latter category rather than the former category. There are, of course, the odd exemptions here and there, so the hard and fast rules do not necessarily apply. But I guess that caution should always prevail would be the main message that would come out of the report of the Privileges Committee, and that is certainly one that I agree with.

When it came to reflections on members and reflections on the Speaker, there was significant debate around that particular topic. I think there are a couple of points that I want to make here, the first of which is that there is a need to draw a distinction between conduct that is disorderly and comments that are disorderly, and comments that are contemptuous. They are not necessarily one and the same. There is a severity test here, and it is that members will say things across the Chamber to one another that are certainly disorderly and may result in the Speaker saying, you know, “I require the member to withdraw and apologise.” That does not necessarily mean they are contemptuous. It does not mean that the member is suddenly in contempt of Parliament, but it does mean that they have been disorderly. I think that we need to adopt a similar kind of an approach to comments on social media. Members will make comments about one another and to one another on social media that sometimes, if they were made in the House, would be disorderly. That does not necessarily mean that they are in contempt, and I think we need to be mindful of that.

We looked very carefully at the rules that currently exist around contempt and reflections on the Speaker, for example. The committee, I think, was relatively satisfied that those rules have not been abused. There have been very few cases in recent history where someone has found themselves before the Privileges Committee for making such comments. I think that that suggests there is, in fact, a severity test already in place. That is appropriate because the Parliament is a place of robust debate and should continue to be so.

The Attorney-General raised the issue of selfies. This was also something that there was significant debate about in the committee. I would make a couple of points on that. The first is that I think social media can humanise the political process and humanise parliamentarians, and that is something that I think should be welcomed. But it can also be abused, as the Attorney-General mentioned. We have seen examples of members taking photos in the Chamber in inappropriate circumstances and using them to denigrate other members, and that is very regrettable. I would point out that social media and the emergence of new technologies means that members of Parliament—and, in fact, any member of the public; any high-profile figure—are much more open to denigration and so on in any number of settings than they would have been previously. Whether it be sitting on a train or in a plane or even in a taxi—in any kind of public space—members of Parliament are much more open to criticism and ridicule than they would have been in the past. That is simply a modern reality now, and we all face that on a day-to-day basis.

So should a different standard apply to the House? I would contend that, yes, it should, but with some reservations. The reason it should is that I think the House should hold itself to a higher standard than simply any other public place. I think that the committee has worked very carefully to ensure that we have maintained that balance and got that balance right. As I said, there should be a higher standard. Therefore, reserving the selfie, if you like, for special occasions I think is appropriate.

There is probably one area where I do not necessarily agree with the majority and that is something that is simply a selfie—simply a member taking a photograph of themselves. I am not necessarily sure that they should be restricted in their ability to do that. I certainly think there should be restrictions around their ability to take photographs of other members, but I am not convinced about the restriction on their taking photographs of themselves.

💬 Hon David Parker: Great loss of liberty.

I am sure that my colleague David Parker, who has a different view from me on these matters, will also raise those.

💬 Hon Anne Tolley: He doesn’t want to see photos of you.

Well, one of the reasons why I do not take very many selfies is that it does not allow sufficient time for the photoshopping that is required, so I am not a huge fan of them. But I do think that they are a reality, that they are happening more and more, and that they can, as I say, humanise parliamentarians. I think that is actually a welcome thing because I think members of the public sometimes lose track of the fact that MPs are human beings as well.

💬 David Shearer: Toughen up!

Toughen up—David Shearer is telling me to toughen up. But I think the fact that we open ourselves out a little bit more is a good thing and that should be encouraged. By and large I think this report gets the balance about right. There will still be debate ongoing about some of the issues in it, but I think the recommendations are very sound ones.

It is a pleasure to stand today and take a call on the report of the Privileges Committee on the question of privilege regarding the use of social media to report parliamentary proceedings. I want to start by referring to an article in the newspaper this morning about Shona Robb. She has worked here in Parliament for the Labour Party for 39 years. She is finally calling it quits and is retiring, and we wish her all the best. She represents a large number of people who give enormous duty here. I was very interested in some of what she said in her farewell speech. She started work in the Opposition’s typing pool in September 1976. She said: “Faxes weren’t invented and MPs didn’t have computers.” She said: “Technology, for a start, has changed things hugely. [Then it was] typewriters and carbon paper. You ran round the building with a duplicate copy to give to MPs. Now it’s done by the press of a button.” She said: “The House runs exactly as it has always run. It’s how we do things that’s changed.” That resonated with me in relation to the discussion we are having today. It was part of the discussions that we had at the committee.

The House does run as it has done. We do serious work here. We are elected here to represent New Zealanders. We are here to pass legislation. We are here to build a healthy, safe, and prosperous community for all those people whom we represent. We might disagree at times about how we do that, but it is serious business that takes place in this House. But over the years the way that that is done has changed dramatically. I remember, not too long ago, a Young Nat talking to me about carbon paper. You know, he said: “What is carbon paper? I’ve never seen carbon paper.”

I think that where the committee got to was, as the Attorney-General said, that we are not Luddites. Technology is changing the way that we work and we should acknowledge that and accept that. We should have rules for the way that we comport ourselves that actually allows for that. But at the heart of it, what we do in this House is serious business, and, therefore, there have to be some rules that allow us to do that serious business.

I remember making the point that this is a place of work. We work long hours. We work long into the night, and there have been occasions when people have yawned. Some people have even fallen asleep in the House, and it is not right then that there should be the ability to make political capital out of that. We are, as Chris Hipkins has said, human beings and we have the same frailties as people out in the communities. We might have slightly bigger egos than people out in the communities, but we do have those same frailties.

The other thing that we discussed that has come through in our recommendations is that, actually, we do need to maintain the public’s confidence in this place. Question time is robust and some of the general debates are robust. We do disagree with one another and sometimes we do say things to one another across the House that maybe we might regret later when we see it on the television. It is a House of robust debate, and so it should be—if we all agreed, there would be something dramatically wrong—but we do need to maintain the public’s confidence in the way that this House works. So it is a balance, then, between allowing the use of technology and bringing the public into the work that we do, on a far greater scale than it was done in the days before television and when carbon paper was the norm. That is to be supported and that is to be welcomed. At the same time, we need to maintain the gravitas of this place, in order to keep that confidence of the public. That is a balance, and I think that the report that we have presented produces that. It does well to maintain that balance.

Then, finally, I would say that we do need to make sure that we protect one another. So there are warnings in here that you need to think very carefully about what is parliamentary business when you are using that modern technology that is instant. Once it is gone, once you press that button, it is actually out there and you cannot take it back. Members these days, with a much more litigious public, need to be aware that they could put themselves at serious risk of being sued for defamation and also could get themselves into serious trouble within this House for issues of contempt. It is a sensible report, as the Attorney-General said. It is a short and concise report. It has been a very interesting process to work on it and I commend it to the House.

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.

I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to take a call, acknowledging that it was the Rt Hon Winston Peters who represented New Zealand First throughout these hearings and deliberations by the Privileges Committee on the question of privilege regarding the use of social media to report parliamentary proceedings. Going through the report, as I have been doing over the last few moments, it is hard to find any reason why the Privileges Committee members would not have come to the conclusions that they came to and the recommendations, which we support.

I guess there are some realities about life today. If I cast my mind back with regard to the use of social media—in fact, if we consider, just briefly, where information and communications technology was when I left the House in 2008 and where it is at in Parliament today, parliamentary staff need to be applauded for the amount of work that they have done. I guess that you would, as the Hon Chris Finlayson said, look something like King Canute if you were to try to ignore what has happened and the transformation that has occurred within communications, not just within New Zealand but throughout the world. That clearly brings us to the point where we are now, where we are considering whether or not social media and the use of it requires further constraints around it, or whether we just need to accept the reality that it is there and just simply review our rules of privilege in order to ascertain whether or not we need to make any changes to them.

Reading from page 7 of the report of the Privileges Committee, the statement in the first paragraph says: “We consider the growth in the use of social media to communicate about Parliament in recent years to be a positive development.” New Zealand First agrees 100 percent. In fact, it is interesting because we would argue that social media in many, many ways is levelling up a very unbalanced political environment, or communications environment. In fact, I will probably remember for a very long, long time the victory speech given by the Rt Hon Winston Peters up in Northland, when he stormed to victory and humiliated the National Party. He did say that New Zealand First is a movement that is on the march and that rural, provincial New Zealand had taken that opportunity to send a message. Much of that victory came down to the use of social media and the ability to get one’s message out, despite the fact that the mainstream media had a particular way of portraying the messages that one tried to get out.

So what the Rt Hon Winston Peters said at that time was that, going forward, New Zealand First had a message to deliver—this is in brief, not word for word—and that we would do that with or without mainstream media. He said that we will go around them, over them, under them, and straight through them, and we will be able to do that—and what he was talking about was the use of social media and the use of the ability for people to, within the constraints, use that alternative means of communication. So it is only natural that that alternative means of communication should emerge within the House and within the parliamentary precinct and that there should be questions about the appropriateness of it and, particularly around contempt, and particularly when comments are made that may be interpreted as being contemptuous of the Speaker when, in fact, they may well have been guidance to the Speaker or guidance to someone else in the House as to what not to be, as opposed to what to be. I guess that is why it is going to be a useful exercise to rewrite a part of the Standing Orders so that it fits more appropriately.

I think there is another point that was raised by the Rt Hon Winston Peters, and I guess New Zealand First has to take the opportunity to give this message right now. Despite the fact that we have heard speeches saying that out there on the hustings we are well used to the fact and we need to accept that we will come under close scrutiny—that is a given—and that things may be said that we do not particularly like or enjoy, and that media or other people like entertainers may use satire, ridicule, or denigration, New Zealand First would say: “Yeah, that’s a given. Get used to it.” Someone over here used the words “harden up”.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: I think it was over here.

Get used to it—that is part of the job. But the question is—oh, that was over there. That was the ACT Party. Thank you, Mr Simon Bridges, for the guidance there. It was the ACT MP who said that. But the question that New Zealand First would like to put on the floor now and the concern we have is best summed up in this saying “We reap what we sow”. The question is whether the House really wants to reduce itself to satire, ridicule, and denigration in the House by allowing the film clips to be used in that way.

I can say that we have moved and we have transitioned from a time when there were very tight rules around the use of media. In fact, I can remember when this House first proposed this, and the Parliamentary Service Commission and the Standing Orders Committee looked at the issue of installing cameras in this House to cover the proceedings. I was here at that time when the media were up in arms, and delegations from the media in the gallery stormed on the Speaker to stop what they considered to be an appalling abuse of Parliament’s rules and the Speaker’s office to constrain and contain how the House was portrayed.

Now we stand here and there is something like—what is it—eight cameras in the Chamber itself, and more above. I look up into the gallery, and there is not one mainstream camera present, quite unlike the old days when Television One, TV3, Prime Television, and Sky television would all have their cameras up there through question time. Now they have come to understand that what Parliament did and the Speaker of the day approved and the Parliamentary Service Commission and the Standing Orders Committee approved has actually advantaged them. It has given them the wonderful ability to download, free, all the footage they want to use as they want, within the constraints laid down in the Standing Orders and according to privilege. That was a positive step forward. Do I hear one of those journalists standing up and saying: “We were wrong.” and that, actually, members of Parliament were right and that the Speaker was right? Not one. But I will not hold my breath waiting for it either.

This report just reflects evolution in communications. It simply reflects the times that we are moving into. What has happened is there has been a timely review through the Privileges Committee as to where we stand today, where we may go in the future, and what rules, if any, need to be amended going forward. New Zealand First simply reiterates what we said with a view to opening up and broadening the way in which the video footage may be used “Be careful what you wish for”—

💬 Jono Naylor: Be careful what you say.

—be careful what one wishes for. Well, if I was to say to that member “Don’t be a jerk.”, that is not implying that he is a jerk, that is warning him that—

💬 Hon Members: Point of order.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! I was on my feet before the member, so that member will sit down and that member will sit down. I think that issue and the use of that word have been pretty well canvassed over the last 24 hours, and it will not be used in either a negative or a positive sense towards a member.

Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. Just to conclude, I would like to say that New Zealand First does support this report. Without being prissy, we just caution about the widening of the rules around the use of video footage because, in the long run, the question as to whether that enhances the reputation of the House or denigrates it will be something that will be learnt only after the fact. We would say walk cautiously in that area. In respect of the rest of the recommendation and summaries, we concur and we support them. Thank you.

I will try not to jerk any members from their slumber—[Interruption]—and I think that is in order.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Absolutely.

Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. The only other observation that I would make in respect of the cameras is that the older I am, the more I wish the cameras would take shots from a lower angle so that the follicly challenged amongst us are not so exposed.

I concur with the comments that have been made by the Attorney-General and other speakers after him. I think that this report is practical. It is true that in the age of the internet and modern methods of communication, some of the more traditional methods of communication between members of Parliament and the public have dwindled. It is absolutely clear that the circulation of newspapers is down. The number of people who get information about what happens in Parliament from the traditional news media has decreased; the number of people who get it from new forms of communication via the internet has increased. Telecommunications platforms such as Twitter, Facebook, and other forms of social media are on the increase, and that is a good thing.

The Privileges Committee has recognised this and has said that we ought not to try to unduly control it in Parliament. We should try to encourage it, but we should do so cognisant of a couple of facts. One, we should not be so insulting or contemptuous in the language that we use that we bring each other and this institution into disrepute. There are a number of reasons for this. In the end, as Anne Tolley has said, this is a place where we do serious business, and I think it is incumbent upon us to try to maintain public confidence in this institution by not denigrating others unduly or by bringing this House into disrepute. This is a balance that I think we should strive to get right and that requires us to maintain some minimum standards of conduct. If we do not do that, I fear that we will bring this institution into disrepute, which, in turn, will undermine public confidence in democracy. And given that we are all here in pursuit of democracy because we believe in it, that would be a step too far. So we are trying to get that balance right through this report by allowing social media, but not by allowing it to be used from the floor of this House in a way that crosses a boundary that would not be permitted if we were saying these things in a presentation, as I am doing now.

In terms of the point that was made about whether this is protected by parliamentary privilege, the comments that we make in social media are most clearly not protected by parliamentary privilege. They might be protected because they are fair comment on what has been said in Parliament in a way that is protected by parliamentary privilege, but they are not of themselves comments that are protected by parliamentary privilege. So members should not think that just because they are sitting in Parliament when they are tweeting, they are protected in the same way I would be protected if, for example, I was to say something at the moment that was defamatory of someone inside or outside this House. I would be absolutely protected against defamation risks because the comments that I make in this Parliament are protected by the doctrine of parliamentary privilege. It is not for my protection; it is actually to protect democracy, so that if I want to make an allegation against someone who is wealthy or influential in society and whom I believe has done wrong, I can do so without fear that I will be sued for defamation. That is one of the ways that democracy keeps itself clean and free from corruption and how society improves itself and maintains its standards. That is the reason for this privilege, as I have articulated, but that reason does not need to be extended to social media or tweets by members in this House, and neither should it be.

Just before I sit down, I want to deal with a couple of matters relating to photographs. The decision of a prior Parliament, through the Standing Orders, to restrict the use by the press gallery of photographic images for satirical purposes was, I think, born of its time, but it was wrong. We do need to be thick-skinned as parliamentarians, and satire is an appropriate way in which we can have stupid decisions ridiculed and brought to the public’s attention. Indeed, humour is actually a really good way of doing that, such as the Spitting Image programmes that so pilloried some of our forebears in this place. I think that they were absolutely appropriate. I do not care whether comedians use footage from cameras rather than puppets. They do take a risk if they misrepresent what has happened in Parliament, because satire can go beyond satire, and the Privileges Committee could hold in contempt a publication that misrepresents what has happened in Parliament, as opposed to being satirical of it. But those are things that have to be resolved on the day. The general prohibition on the use of images for satirical purposes was wrong, and so the committee recommends to the Speaker that that prohibition be lifted, and I think that is a good change.

In respect of the use of social media to publish photographs taken of one member by another, I am one of those who favoured the majority decision in the report. I know that Clare Curran expressed a contrary view, and I am sure that she will express that view when she speaks. I recognise that there is room for both sides of that argument to be expressed. The reason that I do not think it is appropriate is that I think we could diminish each other in a way that is unnecessary. Like most formal places of debate, we have rules in order to depersonalise slightly the contests that we have, so that we can maintain a degree of civility and friendship across the sides of this House and so that we can maintain some humanity and kindness towards each other. I quite like these formal rules that we have, be they in courts or be they the traditions maintained by our media, who are guardians of some of these standards themselves through the rules that they adopt. We have a responsibility to do this for ourselves and to respect the rules that we apply here.

I did not like the fact that we had unrestricted rights—or no rules, really—around what we could or could not do to each other using photographs that might be taken when someone is tired. Sometimes it could be taken at 2 o’clock in the morning when we are here in this place, and we could all be caught with a poor facial expression or yawning and have those things mischaracterised in a way that is pretty much irrelevant to the business that we do here and that is not representative of how hard people here work. I think that if we allow ourselves to go to that point, we would have to be on our guard the whole time. Because of that, you would find that we would have fewer people sitting in the Chamber when they actually do not have to be there on duty, and I think this place is better when it has more people here participating in debates. I do not want fewer people to be here when we are here late at night, and I do not want the people who are here working hard to be denigrated unnecessarily.

Of course, if we say stupid things or we do outrageous things, those things are going to be reported anyway, but I think that we have got the balance right by saying that we should not be able to take photographs of each other. We are, effectively, applying the same rules to each other as apply to the media. There is no double standard there. The media are restricted in the images they can use that are from these cameras, and I do not see why we should have privileges over and above the media when it comes to reporting on what happens on the floor of this House. With those comments, I endorse the recommendations of the Privileges Committee.

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.

—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.

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. Many members 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 actually take better photos than most, cameras—at least when you have got the skill set, or the lack of skills, that someone like myself has, that is true—and although you could have complete freedom, I, like 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 who in 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 us on 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.

Kia ora, Mr Assistant Speaker. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou. Kia ora. I would like to rise to touch on the last point raised by the last speaker, Simon Bridges, which was on those satire provisions in Appendix D of the Standing Orders.

I think that when an MP comes to this House and confesses to burning music on to CDs during the middle of a copyright debate and they do not get the irony, and when a member comes to this House and likens the internet to the evil computer from the movie The Terminator, they deserve to be satirised. Whenever a politician in this House holds up a snapper, minces down a catwalk, planks live on TV, or says that the French love their coq—rooster—we deserve to be satirised. When I asked an adviser, live on television—the now-infamous “Hey, Clint”—for media advice in front of a TV camera, I deserved to be satirised.

💬 Hon Member: Ha, ha!

I did not run those lines past Clint. But we deserve to be satirised. The public deserves the right to do that, and for 8 years this House has hidden behind a ridiculous rule to try to stop it. It was Juvenal who nearly 2,000 years ago said: “In times like these, it’s difficult not to write satire.” For anyone who thinks that satire is dead, or that it can be banned, I would also like to quote someone else. Robin Williams said—to paraphrase—satire is alive and well; it is kicking in our Parliament.

I rise to support this report, which urges a review of the ridiculous rule that is Appendix D of the Standing Orders, which prohibits people from using the publicly available Parliament TV footage for satire, ridicule, and denigration. This was something both the former Clerk and the head of the parliamentary press gallery proposed, and it is good that we are finally making this step.

It is important to not forget that this is not some ancient relic of the dawn of the television age in New Zealand in the late 1960s. This is something that is only 8 years old, in the middle of the internet age. This rule was implemented back in 2007, and Vernon Small said at the time: “It seemed to be aimed to protect MPs from themselves.” The Green Party tried to vote down this provision. We lost the vote by a tally of 111 to 6. Although this Appendix D has never actually been formally invoked—no one has been pulled in front the Speaker for contempt—the media has reported that two people have been invited into the Speaker’s office for a chat about it. I can testify that it has had a chilling impact in terms of political parties using the footage in this House to make a political point, to contribute to robust political debate. I believe that we should be accountable for what we say and what we do in this House. We are here on behalf of the taxpayer.

But, on the other hand, although it has not been used, we have also seen the public still uploading their videos, making their memes, and promoting messages about MPs. Although I believe they should be protected by robust parliamentary rules and a proper bill of rights Act, all those people who have taken the mickey out of us, satirised us, ridiculed us, denigrated us—all they have had to defend themselves with is what is known as the Barbara Streisand effect. We have got to remember that we are not just talking about taking the piss or making a joke; we are talking about something that has an honourable tradition. From Aesop to Aristophanes, from Ovid to Orwell, and from Voltaire to Vonnegut it has played an important role in our culture, in our democracy, and in our history—particularly in this place, in this Parliament, where our decisions impact on real people. It is crucial that people can comment on those decisions and that they can use our own words and our actions in this House. So it is a good step that Parliament is making this recommendation.

I would also point out that the report states that the reasoning for the recommendation is “the current rule risks making Parliament seem out of touch and wary of criticism.” I absolutely agree. I believe this rule in particular does make Parliament seem out of touch and wary of criticism. My longstanding opposition to this provision is not because of how it makes us look; my opposition is because it is not the right thing to do. I believe in freedom of expression. I believe in the public’s right to satirise us in a position of power. I believe they have that right. As the Clerk of the House told us, perhaps we just need to grow up.

Secondly, I note that the report recommends the Standing Orders Committee to only review the rule, but I challenge all parties in this House on that committee to commit to removing this ridiculous rule. Although Parliament has an opportunity to fix our internal rules and to lead when it comes to the freedom of expression and information, we also need to reflect that the public in New Zealand do not have this right as well. What we have seen is the lack of satire protections actually being used by the rich and powerful to stifle dissidents and stifle criticism. We have seen it from the former Telecom chief executive officer Theresa Gattung, who got the Telecon video removed. We saw it at the last election with the Darren Watson “Planet Key” video. We saw it with politicians tabling legal papers when it came to the Civilian website. It highlights the lack of satire or parody protection we have in New Zealand law. It is something that the Green Party has drafted legislation to amend.

Something we should also reflect on is that this is what we talked about earlier this year when we saw the tragic consequences of the Charlie Hebdo massacre, when we saw some noble and fine words said in this House around the importance of freedom of speech and expression. Let us not just make them words. Let us act to clean up our own House and to clean up our own rules, but let us also give those same protections to the citizens of New Zealand. After all, this is what citizens in Australia have and what citizens in America have, and if the Government is going to sign us up to copyright term extensions under the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement, then surely we can have some of the same protections and exemptions that are the norm amongst those other countries, which is fair use.

So I would like to congratulate and acknowledge the members of the committee. I think this is a very positive step. We have not got there yet. We need to make sure the Standing Orders Committee actually removes the ridiculous rule—Appendix D of the Standing Orders—because ultimately this is not about how it makes us look; it is about the public and their rights and their freedoms. Kia ora.

It is a privilege to be the final speaker in this debate on the Privileges Committee report. I was part of what is now is being known as the Twitter debate. I was the interloper on the Privileges Committee, and I am very proud to have had the opportunity to do that. I probably would describe myself as being on the more radical end of the spectrum amongst my colleagues with my views around the use of social media, but certainly not radical when it comes to the wider public and the wider public’s use of social media. I will expound upon that a little bit during my contribution tonight.

I do not think there is too much point in going over too much of the detail, because that has been well canvassed by other erudite speakers. Basically, the conclusion of this report was that you should use your common sense when tweeting, facebooking, instagramming, or whatever else you are doing on social media, and you should not forget that you are an MP and can be held accountable. Also, it says that rights to free speech will be upheld, but just do not take pictures in the House unless you are in the gallery and you have permission, and use your good judgment. Thankfully, parody and satire are now OK again.

This inquiry came about because of this thing called Twitter. It is called an inquiry into social media, but, actually, in my contention, it is about Twitter because of the particular nature of that social media interface. I will just bring everyone back to the reason for this debate. The reason, actually, was that a tweet from my Labour colleague Trevor Mallard criticised a decision by the Speaker in May last year. I will not read out the tweet but the tweet was sufficient to draw the attention of the Leader of the House. It was not the first time, I think, that there had been a discussion about the character of particular tweets. I know that certain numbers of my own tweets have been called into question by members across the House.

There was a certain inevitability to the fact that there would eventually be some kind of inquiry. It is certainly not a precedent; there have been inquiries in other jurisdictions. The Privileges Committee took advantage of that and sought the advice from these other jurisdictions and ultimately came to the right conclusion in the main, in my contention.

I just want to touch on how important this social media thing is and just have a look at the use of social media amongst members of the House. I think that one of speakers in the debate actually referred to there being 105 members who use Twitter. I am reliably informed today by that recorder of political minutiae, Phil Lyth, that 106 have Twitter accounts, that in most months there would be around 90 members actually actively tweeting, and that there are 15 members who do not have accounts at all. In terms of Facebook, another watcher of political activity, Ashley Murchison, has recorded that 117 out of 121 of us are listed on Facebook.

I think that what that tells us is that social media, and the use of social media, is not a fad. If you look at the New Zealand statistics from last year, 89 percent of New Zealanders are online; 55 percent of us use Facebook, which is about 2.2 million; and more than 370,000 of us are on Twitter. So I think that this debate and this report have to be taken in that context—that New Zealanders use social media a lot, it is particular tool of communication, and it is important, therefore, that Parliament takes that seriously.

Just in relation to the report, I think that we were aided very admirably by the submissions—there were 14 submissions—and particularly by the submission made by the former Clerk of the House Mary Harris, who gave very good guidance to the committee. Very briefly, she said: “My submission is based on the view that the use of social media has not changed the essential nature of the issues that the rules of the House have evolved to deal with; and that advances in technology offer a huge opportunity to engage New Zealanders with Parliament as never before. For both these reasons, my general response to the questions that the committee has asked submitters to address is that restriction or regulation should be avoided. Transgressions of rules and conventions made via social media are no different to those made in any other way. They should be dealt with by recourse to the existing rules of the House.” She went on to say that “Parliaments that have persisted in a restrictive approach have placed themselves at risk of appearing to be out-of-touch with the modern world.” I absolutely concur with that view, and in my humble opinion we should have taken that to include the use of photographs as well. I will talk a little bit about that in a second.

Ultimately, the conclusion of the inquiry was—and it was the right conclusion—that we already have rules in the House. We have got Standing Order 410(o), which is the Standing Order that applies; it is just that the mediums we are using are different. So the rules are right and they have withstood the test of time, and they will continue to withstand the test of time. I think that shows the robustness of our parliamentary processes, our rules, and the thought that has gone into them. It does not matter what comes next in terms of technology, because those rules should be adhered to. So I think, basically, that the committee worked that out quite quickly.

Where we did have the debate was around the role of the media and their rights, and around relaxing that rule on satire. I agree with what Gareth Hughes said about that, which was that it was an out-of-date rule and that anything that actually penalises satire and parody is not the mark of a good democracy. I think that is pretty important.

Where I do differ is on the use of photographs. I believe that a sensible approach to this would have been to allow a more minimalist use of taking photographs where people give their permission, and I believe that, just as is demonstrated out there in the community, people do have the capacity to moderate their behaviour online when it is clearly not appropriate—there are rules that are in place—and I think that at some point we will revise the decision that has been made on that.

I am pleased that we have, as I said, relaxed the rules on satire. I think we have clarified the ability for the press gallery to take photos and to film, and, again, I would like to commend the submission that the chair of the press gallery, Claire Trevett, made, which was a very useful contribution. But, ultimately, saying that the use of photographs is not acceptable is, I think, to stick your finger in the dyke, and I believe that we will at some point come back and revise that decision if we are to be a truly modern Parliament and if we are to reflect the use of technology at its most beneficial and effective.

The public want to see MPs and they want to engage with them more directly. I refer to a group of parliamentarians called the Parliamentary Internet Forum—me, Gareth Hughes, Nikki Kaye, and Tracey Martin—which was kicked off in 2010 and really did try to provide a way of having more open government and more accessibility to Parliament by using social media and technology.

Motion agreed to.