Points of Order — Privileges of the House and Speaker’s Actions

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I want to raise two matters with you, related to events of recent days. The first is the question of whether, over matters of order, you regard it as appropriate to address the House first, before you address the media. I refer to the press conference given yesterday by you, as the Speaker of the House, and also to the public comments made towards the end of last week regarding the actions of my colleague Shane Ardern MP. On a number of occasions in recent weeks, I, as Leader of the Opposition and as a parliamentarian, have asked you to explain various decisions you have made related to the order of the House. On a number of occasions you have simply decided not to give an explanation—for instance, in the matter of Harry Duynhoven MP and his disqualification from Parliament.

Yet it seems that, when there is media interest in a matter as opposed to parliamentary interest, you are willing to comment on matters of order, publicly, before they are dealt with in the House. That happened in the case of your public comments on Shane Ardern last week, then again yesterday when a matter of order arose when GE protesters came into the House and disrupted its proceedings. In my view, you could have given an explanation today. But the matter of order was communicated by you through the media in what would have to be regarded as a very unusual process—that is, by the Speaker calling a press conference regarding something that had happened in the Chamber.

I have to say that that is leaving the Opposition perplexed. When we have asked for legitimate explanations of matters of privilege and order in this House, you have, at the very least, given us brief and unsatisfactory explanations and, on occasion, offered us no explanation at all, yet on other matters you have decided that it is fine to go out and make a range of public statements about matters of order, even before bringing them to the House. I ask you to outline for us whether your taking these matters up with the media rather than with Parliament amounts to a change in procedure for the Speaker, or whether we can regard the recent events as aberrations, and that legitimate matters of order will be dealt with by you in the House, where they are directly relevant to the processes of Parliament. That is the first matter.

The second one is the subject matter of the press conference yesterday. As you will know, the Opposition has expressed concern about the charge of disorderly behaviour being brought against a member of Parliament, Shane Ardern. We understand that that decision was made by the police and there has been debate about the circumstances in which the police decision was made. Yesterday, there were actions in this Chamber that, by any definition, fit disorderly behaviour. In addition to the fact that that behaviour disrupted the proceedings of the House in a way that is really quite unusual, you saw fit to make public comments about the nature of that behaviour. We understand that the result of whatever processes occurred is that those people will not be charged with disorderly behaviour, but that they have been issued with trespass notices. I believe that in light of different treatment for two sorts of protest actions—one by an MP and the other by members of the public—you owe this House an explanation about your role in the decisions that have been made. You have brought that requirement on yourself by making public statements yesterday about the nature of the protests and what actions you believe should flow from them. That is the second matter I want dealt with.

I was quite disturbed when I listened to the Leader of the Opposition’s comments, because I am a member of this House and I was not even aware that you had made press statements about order to the press gallery and the public, but not to us as members of Parliament. I would have thought that on a matter of order in this House, if you thought it important enough, as a minimum you would give those comments to us first. Even if you do not decide that MPs should get an account before the media—if that is how things now are—perhaps we could have an accounting from you afterwards. I am finding your conduct quite difficult to follow.

In the case of Mr Harry Duynhoven, we find that you knew about the matter and that you decided to refer it to the Privileges Committee. You tell us that no MP would like the Speaker to make an instant judgment about whether a matter ought to be referred to the Privileges Committee, but when it comes to Mr Shane Ardern, you are prepared to give an instant judgment to the media. Perhaps it was not instant, because you gave it a number of times to the media. We need to have the Speaker reporting to us first, not to the press gallery, and the Speaker should certainly not be influencing others to come here.

As this matter has been raised, I remind you that I asked you a number of questions yesterday. I do not know whether you have got around to thinking about them, but I would like to know whether the police did have your permission to come into this House and interview a member of Parliament. I am advised that the police are not allowed to come into the precincts of the Australian House of Representatives. So it is quite a serious matter. I would like to know whether they contacted you. If they did not, will you make an instant ruling on that matter? When we go back to our rooms, are we all to expect that police will be waiting, at the permission of the Speaker, to interview us?

I want to thank the members who have raised the point of order. I will give it consideration and I will rule accordingly when I am ready to do so. There have been two points made, and I want to consider them.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. In reflecting on both those submissions to you, could I also ask your assurance that you, as Speaker, had no part in the decision back in 1999 when a member had been admitted to this House with charges outstanding—she was, I understand, facing charges of trespass on parliamentary property—which were subsequently withdrawn by the police and not pursued. I would like an absolute assurance that that decision was made by the Minister of Police, the Commissioner of Police, or whoever was in charge—and that you in no way had any bearing at all on the withdrawing of those charges Sue Bradford was facing as a result of her conduct here in Parliament.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I can give you that absolute assurance now. The other matters I will reflect on and I will give a ruling to the House, shortly.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. This is a similar point of order, but not exactly the same as the point of order raised by the Hon Richard Prebble. The proposition in respect of which National seeks a considered ruling is based on this: that the police breached parliamentary practice by entering Parliament to interrogate Shane Ardern on 9 September without the express authority obtained in advance from you. Further, the proposition is that in Parliament House the police are subject to your authority, and their powers are limited by the powers and privileges of the House. Those limitations are not based on any presumed sanctity attached to the building, but on the principle that Parliament should be able to conduct its business without interference or pressure from any outside source.

As Mr Prebble has said, it has been parliamentary practice in Australia, for more than 35 years, for the police not to have the power to enter Parliament to interrogate MPs without the express permission of the Speaker secured in advance. That issue is discussed—I just give a reference to the Clerk—in the Australian House of Representatives Practice at page 146. I am advancing the proposition that that should be the practice of this House, that there has been a clear breach of it if you did not give approval to the police to enter the premises to interrogate Mr Ardern, that the police are in breach of their obligations, and that you should take action.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: As I said, I will look at that matter.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. One thing I think that is being overlooked here—and I would have hoped that it was made clear from the start—is whether Mr Ardern agreed to it. There have been members of Parliament before who have been the subject of questions by the New Zealand Police within this precinct. But on every occasion that I can recall, it has been with the agreement of that member of Parliament.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Yes, I am aware of that fact, and that is why I want to take advisement on this matter.

I want to say this. It is really not just over to what the Speaker thinks; if a member of Parliament wishes to assert his or her privileges, the member need only do that, where the police are concerned, within the precincts of this place.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I will take that under advisement. I will come back to the House.