See how well we are getting along.
We just explained a bit of history as to why privilege is so important. Based on the fact that it is so important, based on the fact that I think we all agree it is important, and based on the fact that the House does need to see the legislation before it is leaked, that leak prevents us from doing our jobs properly or carrying out our responsibility as members of Parliament.
I ask rhetorically—but if the other side would like to answer, I am happy—why would they shut that down? You never know, the shoe could be on the other foot. We could be switching places at some point. Why would you not like to get through this now, start a precedent, maybe put in mechanisms so that this doesn't happen again, and maybe work towards something where we don't have this again, whether it be this Parliament, the next Parliament, or any future Parliaments? Let's work to fix this and get to the bottom of it.
I will continue and hopefully convince the other members that I am on the right track here:
In the midst of their occasional [duties], the House of Lords and the House of Commons both acknowledged that a balance had to be maintained between the need to protect the essential privileges of Parliament and, at the same time, to avoid any risk that would undermine the interests of the nation. In this connection, it was agreed in 1704 that neither House of Parliament had any power, by any vote or declaration, to create for themselves any new privileges not warranted by the known laws and customs of Parliament. Since then, neither House alone has ever sought to lay claim to any new privilege beyond those petitioned for by Speakers or already established by precedent and law. The nineteenth century witnessed numerous cases of privilege, which helped to determine the bounds between the rights of Parliament and the responsibility of the courts. Perhaps the most famous of the court cases was Stockdale v. Hansard. In 1836, a publisher—