The implications of social media for parliamentary privilege and procedure.

AuthorMcNair, Joanne

Does social media present a substantive challenge to parliamentary procedure? And, if so, can existing parliamentary conventions and practice adequately respond to the challenges of the digital age? In this article, the author explores incidents where social media was used to violate or circumvent a standing order or parliamentary convention, or to challenge parliamentary privilege in order to answer these questions. She concludes that while social media is simply another form of communication which can conflict with and challenge parliamentary conventions and rules in the same way as more traditional forms of communication, parliamentarians should be aware that its "instantness" can set it apart and expand their audience.

**********

In a 2009 interview, UK Conservative Party leader David Cameron was asked if he was on Twitter. Cameron replied he was not, adding: "I think that politicians do have to think about what we say and that the trouble with Twitter--the instantness of it" (1) might result in too many tweets making a twit--to paraphrase the continuation of Cameron's own infamous quote.

Social media has been around for several years now, and its use by elected officials--still a relatively new phenomenon--has led to a number of incidents in various jurisdictions in Canada (and elsewhere) that have challenged age-old parliamentary conventions and rules. While there is a growing body of research focusing on how politicians use social media, particularly during election campaigns, little attention has been paid to the procedural side of this trend. A sufficient number of incidents raised in various parliamentary jurisdictions over the past few years allow us to classify them into two main categories:

  1. Social media used to violate or circumvent a standing order or parliamentary convention;

  2. Social media used to challenge parliamentary privilege.

    This paper will look at both categories of social media-related incidents and how Speakers and legislatures have sought to address the issues raised by them. The question we hope to answer is if social media presents a unique challenge to parliamentary procedure, can existing parliamentary conventions and practice adequately respond to the challenges of the digital age?

    Use of Social Media to Violate or Circumvent a Standing Order or Parliamentary Convention

    Within this category, we can distinguish between two types of occurrence, one where the use of social media is incidental to the rule violation, and the other where the use of social media is deliberate.

    Incidents which fall under the first type are quite straightforward; what is at issue is the violation of a clear rule or long-standing convention. However, in these instances, the fact that Twitter, or other social media, was involved is not the main focus of the incident; indeed, what occurred would be considered a breach of the standing orders or parliamentary conventions regardless. An example would be an MP tweeting about in camera proceedings during a committee meeting.

    Revealing what was discussed during the in camera portion of a committee meeting is a clear breach of parliamentary rules, and possibly constitutes a contempt of parliament. The means by which the MP makes the privileged information public--whether this is done by tweeting proceedings, by speaking to journalists after the meeting, by emailing the information to other parties, or by making comments on the floor of the House--is secondary. The issue is making public the information discussed in camera. The fact that the violation involved Twitter (or other social media) is incidental.

    In other instances, however, social media has been used to deliberately circumvent certain standing orders or parliamentary conventions. These incidents, which would include casting aspersions on the Speaker; making references to certain members being absent; accusing another member of lying or misleading the House, etc., are somewhat more complicated; they are further complicated by the issue of where the Member happened to be when the offending comment was made on social media--inside or outside of the Chamber, and when the comment was made--while the House was sitting, or after it had adjourned.

    Most of the rulings made in respect to such incidents revolve around the convention that MPs cannot do indirectly what they cannot say or do directly. In other words, if what they said on social media would have been ruled out of order (or perhaps worse) in the Chamber during proceedings in Parliament, then the comments probably should not have been posted to social media. There are only a handful of recorded incidents of this nature, but the associated rulings have raised a number of issues which need to be considered:

  3. Is a comment on social media sent from the floor of the House part of proceedings in Parliament?

  4. Is a comment on social media sent from outside the Chamber, but while the House is sitting, part of proceedings in Parliament?

  5. Should presiding officers treat comments made on social media, from inside or outside the Chamber, differently from comments made by MPs to journalists outside the chamber?

  6. Should a Member be disciplined for comments made on social media which were clearly made outside of House sitting hours?

    Defining "Proceedings in Parliament"

    "Proceedings in Parliament" has never been defined in Canadian or UK statute law. Section 16(2) of Australia's Parliamentary Privileges Act, 1987 defines it as:

    all words spoken and acts done in the course of, or for purposes of or incidental to, the transacting of the business of a House or of a Committee, and, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, includes-- a) the giving of evidence before a House or a Committee, and evidence so given;

    1. the presentation of submission of a document to a House or a Committee;

    2. the preparation of a document for purposes of or incidental to the transacting of any such business; and

    3. the formulation, making or publication of a document, including a report, by or pursuant to an order of a House or a committee and the document so formulated, made or published. (2)

    This definition, which predates not only the advent of social media, but of the internet in general, makes no specific reference to the location where the business of a House or Committee takes place. Deborah Palumbo and Charles Robert explain: "Generally, the phrase "proceeding in Parliament" has been considered a somewhat flexible concept, not strictly limited to proceedings that take place within the precincts of Parliament or to debates on the floor of the...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT