Speaker’s Rulings — Privileges of the House and Speaker’s Actions

Honourable members, on Thursday I indicated to the House that I intended to meet with the Commissioner of Police to discuss procedures for police conduct in Parliament House. I wish to inform the House that I did meet with the commissioner yesterday, and we agreed to work together on devising such procedures. It is my intention to present the procedures to the House as a parliamentary paper as soon as possible after the forthcoming adjournment.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I thank you for that, because I certainly was going to ask whether that meeting had taken place.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I wanted to tell Parliament first.

I have had the opportunity to read the ruling you made on Thursday, and I thank you for circulating it. It does open up two areas I want to ask you about. The first one relates to when the police indicated to your office that they intended to interview Mr Ardern. The issue I have is: why would the police indicate that to your office if in fact they knew they were not meant to be on the premises; or did they indicate that to your office because of your own public comments on the issue? The second issue is: were the police advised, by you or by your office, that they could not interview Mr Ardern within the precincts of Parliament; if not, why not? On that issue, you will appreciate that parliamentarians do have a right to the protection of the Chair and of your office. They also have a reasonable right to have confidence in your staff and to know that you will be advising the police of the appropriate rules regarding the precincts.

I have been giving some thought to your statement on Thursday, and, reinforced by your statement to the House today, it seems to me that this is a matter that goes to the privileges of the House. I suggest to you that the proper course of action for you to take is not to put out a parliamentary paper but to refer the issue and the matters that surround it to the Privileges Committee. I remind you that you were quite willing earlier to seek the advice of the Privileges Committee on Mr Harry Duynhoven. I think this matter affects the privileges of the whole House. While your ruling as Speaker will probably be the ruling that should ultimately be made, I do suggest that you seek the guidance of the Privileges Committee. That is something you can do—you can rise and ask that the matter be referred to the Privileges Committee—and I am sure the House will accommodate you.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I thank the member for that suggestion. Could I give it some thought and come back to the House on it later this afternoon. As far as the Hon Roger Sowry is concerned, there is not necessarily a rule against interviewing persons within the precincts. That is a matter that I want to clarify in the discussions I have with the police. I was not aware of the fact that there had been any call to my office.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. This issue is, I think, the most serious of any I have heard in the House. In recent days, you will remember, I have defended the office of the Speaker in relation to the handling of the Shane Ardern and Harry Duynhoven cases, but since then I have learnt, to my grave disquiet, of another case in which the evidence points to the office of the Speaker being seriously compromised. It is an allegation that the Speaker’s office directed the police not to prosecute a young man for serious and deliberate vandalism in the grounds of Parliament because a prosecution would embarrass the Government. This young man rode a trail bike on to the grounds of Parliament—to protest, he says, about the Government’s soft law and order policies and its total lack of concern for the victims of crime. That incident happened on 21 May this year. The young man is emphatic the police told him that charges would not be laid because the Speaker did not want him charged. Further, whilst he was being interviewed by police officers, another police officer was on the telephone to Parliament. Serious constitutional issues now arise because of that information.

An Opposition MP is being charged with disorderly behaviour for a stunt with a tractor on the steps of Parliament a few days after the Prime Minister, at a press conference, accused him of being disorderly. You yourself said his act was “morally reprehensible”. We can contrast this situation with that of the young protester, who deliberately committed vandalism and who wanted to be arrested and charged—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Will the member please be seated for a moment. Could he come to what the point of order is; this is a recital of some facts. What is the point of order?

I would have thought it was patently apparent to everyone here, including the Clerk and yourself, what my point of order is. You have said that you have never involved yourself in police matters and police prosecutions.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: And I haven’t.

Oh yes, you have, Mr Speaker. That was the clear statement made last week. I have been through the Hansard records, and the clear differential between your office and that of the police, we all know. But this is the case of a young protester, committing vandalism, who wanted to be arrested—who wanted to be charged—yet, having been photographed at the police station, and the process having commenced, was told to go home because the Speaker did not want him to be prosecuted. All of the evidence points to this case being dropped for political reasons. Last week, some women shed their clothes in this Parliament. They are not being charged with disorderly behaviour, despite the fact that it would be difficult to deny such a charge—the evidence having been on television.

This Parliament is owed an explanation. The case I am referring to was swept under the carpet to avoid embarrassing the Prime Minister and her Government. If the House does not understand what my point of order is, then this Parliament has reached a very parlous state. This was a case of deliberate, serious vandalism in the grounds of Parliament. It was also a protest, and the offender gave himself up to the police. The case did not go to court; it was shut down for political reasons. The man’s allegation is that whilst he was being processed, the Speaker told the police he should not be charged—that you, in fact, shut down this case.

This information, if factual—if true—is a case of direct, improper, and inexcusable political interference, which goes to the heart of our form of constitutional Government. That is the point of order. That covers the issue I am referring to, and you, Mr Speaker, have to accept that you owe Parliament an explanation about what part you played in this matter, and what part the offices of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Police played in it. There have been allegations here of double standards, of political interference, and of using the police as political pawns. That is the Standing Order and point of order I am seeking to make very clear, on the facts here—[Interruption]

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I do not need any assistance—

I am not going to be deterred from this, Mr Speaker, because this is the most serious allegation—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I want to ask the member to come to the point, tersely.

My point is that it is in Zimbabwe where political interference sees the police prosecuting Opposition politicians—not in New Zealand. It is in Third World countries with dictatorships that we see politicians being prosecuted at political behest, not in New Zealand or in the First World. These facts suggest an ability of the Prime Minister to get an Opposition MP prosecuted for taking part in a protest, while at the same time your office is involved in stopping another prosecution where guilt was admitted. This information points to the traditions of this House and the office of the Speaker being bulldozed aside in the interests of the Prime Minister’s spin machine. You want to know what I am asking for—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Please be seated. I have given the member a long time to make a point of order. If members wish to make allegations against the Speaker, they must, of course, give notice of motion. I want to say to the member that I do not have any idea at all of the incident he is referring to—none whatsoever. I invite him, if he has anything, to give it to me in writing and I will most certainly consider it, but I do not know what the member is referring to.

I am sorry, but, with respect, this matter is far too important now. When, by some coincidence, we have Inspector Marty Grenfell, formerly of the police office, in the room with this young man, and when it is said in the inspector’s presence that the Speaker does not want this matter prosecuted or progressed any further, the matter is far too important for me to leave it to an in-house inquiry, conducted by the person against whom, sadly, these allegations are being made.

I want to know whether we will see before this House that police report of 21 May so we can see whether Mr Grenfell was involved, because all the evidence points to that being so. I do not want a Privileges Committee inquiry into this matter. I do not want a Privileges Committee hearing, stacked, as it is, against the view that I am putting up in front of this House, stacked with Government MPs. This matter should be thrashed out on the floor of this House, and now. The incident occurred during the afternoon of 21 May. There are people in the media who know full well about this case, because it was referred to them, but, because there was no prosecution, they dropped it. If Mr Grenfell and other police officers are abusing your office by saying that you are involved, then let us have the matter thrashed out now. However, if they are not, then something dramatically more serious, in terms of our form of constitutional Government, is at stake now.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Clearly the member, having made an extraordinarily long speech, should have raised that matter either with the Speaker directly or in the proper manner through a complaint to the Privileges Committee. The Standing Orders of this House lay a very clear path for the member to follow. The member is in breach of at least two Speakers’ rulings. I refer him to Speakers’ rulings 15/1 and 15/3. It is increasingly becoming a habit of members of this House to attack through the misuse of points of order rather than to use the proper procedures laid down in the Standing Orders. It is appropriate for that member, rather than to sling innuendo through a 10-minute speech—in which he still has not put out any real facts—to do it properly, by way of a complaint to the Privileges Committee, and stop wasting the time of this House.

I think I can help. It may have escaped your memory, but the young man concerned was a near relative of Kate Alkema, who was murdered on the banks of the Hutt River. He was very distraught at the appeal and at the comments made by the judge. He had it in mind to do himself an injury, or the court, and he decided to come to this place where his action would be more constructively directed towards those who make the law. You might recall that I spoke to you in your office about the matter. I do not believe that the Rt Hon Winston Peters’ point of order is to endeavour to criticise the decision you made then, or your involvement then; I believe it is simply to contrast that willingness to be involved with the more recent event. So that may assist you, to bear in mind the contrast. Mr Peters may want to correct me if I am wrong, but I think that is the incident.

I will give this matter consideration, and I will report back to the House. I want to think about it. I can recall the point that the member made. I certainly can recall that point. It was some months ago, and the member did make some very helpful comments to me about it at the time. I will, however, give this matter consideration and report back.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I want to respond to Mr Burton’s allegations that somehow I am behaving irresponsibly in this matter. You know, and the House knows full well, that I did not take the side of others in respect of Harry Duynhoven, or for that matter, of Mr Ardern. I defended the Speaker’s office. But this sort of information is something totally different, and last week when Mr English and Mr Prebble raised this matter, no such spurious contentious arguments were put up about their right to do so. Why is it being raised today? That is my evidence about the precedent for this matter. But I come back to my point: if the police said that and if they have behaved thus, as I have set out in the facts, then this Parliament and your office have been massively abused. But if in fact they were reciting the facts, then the very nature of this constitutional Government, the institution of the Speaker and Parliament, and the separation of powers have been totally breached. That is why it is a severe and important matter.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I said I would consider the matter and come back to the House on it.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I have one matter following on from that point, and a second one concerning the statement you made at 2 o’clock. Concerning your undertaking to come back to the Parliament on this matter, you made two comments on the issue raised by Mr Peters. Your first comment was that you had no recollection of the event, and your second comment, following Mr Franks’ intervention, was that you did recall a conversation with Mr Franks on this very event in the Parliament. We need to be satisfied about how that difference occurred.

The other point relates to the same issue, with regard to your memory. You said you had no knowledge of the police speaking to your office about Mr Ardern’s case, but in your statement to the House on Thursday you said: “The police indicated to my office that they intended to interview Mr Ardern.” I ask you to clarify when you knew the police had spoken to your office, because if you did not know about it at the time and the police were speaking to your office and your office was not telling you that, then that goes exactly to the point I made—about members needing to have confidence in the Speakership and the office that surrounds the Speaker.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I thank the member for that point of order. As I recollect—and I have sought clarity on that—I heard about it just as I was about to rule. I certainly did not know about it at the time.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I cannot let this matter slide away like that. Do you not recall the vandalism out there, which can still be seen? Do you not recall the incident being raised with yourself? You said you could not; now you can. We cannot slide by that, but that is not what I am putting into contention. It is that the police said that you had been in contact with them, and vice versa, and that the case was not going to proceed because your office, in the form of yourself, did not want it to. But the evidence is out there now for anyone to see, and you surely must now recall the incident.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: As I said, I will give this matter consideration. I certainly recall the incident the member refers to, but I also recall a conversation with Mr Franks. I will take advice on it, and come back to the House.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I hope that that consideration will include advising the Parliament just what action you will take in respect of your office. According to the statements you have just made, the Parliament is now expected to believe that in the context of the high level of publicity around Mr Ardern’s actions the police rang your office to advise somebody—I presume it was you—that they were going to come to Parliament to interview Mr Ardern, and that no one from your office told you of that until Thursday last week, when you were just about to rule. Of course, prior to that I assume there would have been discussions and investigations into what did happen, but that information was kept from you, up until just prior to the time when you ruled in this Parliament—late on Thursday afternoon. That is extraordinary. That does undermine the confidence of this Parliament in your office. If this is a matter that everyone who operates in this place knows to be a matter of privilege—that is, the access of the police to parliamentarians—then you certainly owe the Parliament an explanation. If this Parliament cannot rely on your staff, then everyone in the country will need to be given your personal mobile phone number, because that information should have been transmitted to you. That raises fundamental questions about the confidence we can have in the operation of the Speakership.

I will say it again: this is an outrageous abuse of parliamentary process. You have made—[Interruption]

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Points of order will be heard in silence, or members will leave. Every point of order, I have insisted, will be heard in silence.

You have listened to the concerns of members. You have given a ruling that included an assurance to the House that you will come back with a considered response. The further revisiting of the matter is a direct challenge to your ruling, and is in breach of the Standing Orders of this House.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I want to say, again, I will come back to the House on this matter.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Who is to be the judge in this matter? That is my point. This is a very serious allegation that has been made by someone, and it involves the Speaker’s office and the police. Am I to take it that you will be the judge of this matter?

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I beg your pardon.

Am I to take it that you think it is an appropriate, a proper, and a fitting situation that you judge it?

💬 Mr SPEAKER: No, I will not. The House will judge it, and that is where it should be.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek clarification from you on a point that Mr Prebble raised. Mr Prebble asked you to consider the reference to the police coming to the Parliament Buildings to interview and depose Mr Ardern, which may be a matter of privilege. The point I raise as a matter of urgency for your consideration is that the evidence the police took from Mr Ardern, which, no doubt, will be presented to the court this Friday week, could have been obtained as a result of a breach of the privileges of this House. That will have implications for that evidence in another place. I seek your indication that you will give this matter the highest urgency, because action will have to be taken if this documentation was taken as a result of a breach of this House’s privileges.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I will give this matter the highest urgency possible and report back to the House.