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

I promised the House yesterday that I would respond to points of order raised following my statement that I had initiated discussions with the Commissioner of Police on police access to the parliamentary precincts.

It has been suggested that there may be some advantage in having the Privileges Committee examine any proposed rules or protocol. While I emphasise that, as Speaker and the statutory occupier of the precincts, I will make the final decision on the procedures, I think that there is merit in this suggestion. I intend, therefore, to present draft procedures to the House when it resumes after the adjournment. The House can then, if it wishes, refer the draft to the Privileges Committee for its consideration.

I was asked to elaborate on my office’s contact with the police prior to the police’s decision to lay charges against Mr Ardern. The police did speak to my office on the day after the incident occurred, seeking to meet with me to discuss possible action. In accordance with my previous direction, which I had communicated to Mr Ardern when I met him immediately after the incident, the police were informed that the Speaker did not wish to be involved in discussions about police action. That was a matter for them. The police accepted that, and indicated that in those circumstances they would probably seek to interview Mr Ardern and another person who had ridden a scooter on the steps.

I was informed at the time that the police had sought to meet with me, but not of the details of the conversation. However, as I indicated to the House yesterday, I became aware of the police’s announced intention to interview Mr Ardern shortly before delivering the ruling on Thursday, when the staff member involved specifically drew my attention to it. That this aspect of the conversation was not emphasised to me earlier was consistent with my express wish not to be involved with the police’s decision on the matter, and I do not see it as at all significant. It is clear, however, that members, the police, and Parliamentary Service staff need clearer guidance as to police conduct in Parliament Buildings. It is such guidance that I intend to give my attention to as a result of the devising of the procedures that I have already mentioned.

Mr Peters made a number of allegations about my involvement in decisions resulting from an incident that occurred in the grounds in May. When he raised the matter I was at first unable to recall it at all, until reminded of the details by Mr Franks, who had rung me about it at the time. I have since met with Mr Franks to refresh my recollection of the incident.

I have to say that I think that it is most unfortunate that this matter has been brought up at all. It concerned an individual whose close relative was the victim of an appalling crime, and who was acting under intense personal strain as a consequence. The individual, who caused some damage to the lawns, presented himself to the police. The police contacted the Parliamentary Service security staff and asked if they could meet with me to explain the background to the incident. This they subsequently did with me, along with Parliamentary Service management. At that meeting the police indicated that they preferred to take no action in the case. I agreed that this was an appropriate and a humane decision, while emphasising that the matter was entirely at their discretion.

Mr Franks, who also knew the history of the matter, rang me before the police called on me to ask that the matter be treated sympathetically. After the meeting with the police, I called him back to tell him that I thought that matters had been resolved satisfactorily.

In response to Mr Peters, I did not direct that the person not be charged. Indeed, I have no power to do so. I did indicate that, for the reasons given, I agreed with the police’s preference not to prosecute. What the police conveyed to the person concerned I have, of course, no way of knowing.

There is one further thing I want to say to the House. Last week I acknowledged that I had been in error in speaking to the news media about Mr Ardern, especially when inquiries into his conduct by the police were still under way. I apologised to the member for that, and do so again. But that does not mean that as Speaker I intend to submit myself to allegations and wholesale cross-questioning of my actions. If members wish to express criticism of the Speaker, as is their right, the appropriate way to do so is to put down a notice of motion, not to do so by way of a point of order or in the course of debate. My door is always open to members who wish to express their opinions to me frankly and freely. Indeed, if there is one charge that I do plead guilty to, it is that I have operated an open-door policy. I do not intend to change that. I do intend, however, to uphold the dignity of the Speakership of the House.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Thank you for your rulings and your comments. That leaves at least one matter outstanding in respect of Mr Ardern. A notice of motion has been lodged around the issue of the evidence that the police took from Mr Ardern, potentially in breach of the privileges of this House. Mr Ardern is now scheduled to appear in court, I think, on Friday week, and the question of privilege, of course, raises the issue of whether the police obtained that evidence in a proper way. The matter is now left just hanging loose, and we are keen to see it clarified. I note that that may involve some degree of retrospectivity, if you are to institute procedures from a date in the future that clarify or restate what has long been the tradition of the House. I would not want that suggestion of retrospectivity to cut across the need for a determination of the circumstances around Shane Ardern’s case and the role of the police in collecting that evidence.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I thank the member for his contribution. As far as that is concerned, I am advised that that is a matter for the courts to decide.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I have had a chance to examine your ruling briefly, and I have to say with the greatest respect that I do not appreciate being told it is unfortunate that I have raised a serious issue with this Parliament. That is the first thing I want to say. Secondly, the proper course is not always to put down a notice of motion, because, frankly, members are seeking information before deciding whether such a decision may be the correct course of action. I say that with the greatest of gravity, because we in this Parliament needed to know the facts. For example—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Would the member please be seated. I will not have debate on my ruling entered into in this way. If the member wants to put down a motion he can do so, and that is proper. He is invited to do so. As far as I am concerned I have made a ruling, and at this time I do not want to have that ruling challenged.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. When I asked you yesterday whether you thought it was appropriate, proper, and fitting that you judge the situation, you said: “No, I will not. The House will judge it, and that is where it should be.” That is precisely my argument—that is, that this House will judge it. One cannot determine at this point in time that a notice of motion is the appropriate course of action. For example, I asked for the police report. I want to know why it does not square with your explanation today.

The member will please be seated. I refer him to Speaker’s ruling 14/7, which goes back to 1891, and there have been numerous similar rulings since then. It states: “The Speaker’s ruling may be challenged only by a direct motion with notice.” That is where that matter ends.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You might go back centuries to a ruling, but I say to you that that would be a very unfortunate position for you to take, because you now leave me with no option whatsoever but to seek such a motion. I have simply asked for information, to ensure that the matter sits on all fours with what we have been told, and you have said—contrary to what you said yesterday, when you said this matter would be judged by the House—that that is not to happen.

I am not bringing the case of Mr Ardern as an example. I am raising the issue in respect of an incident on 21 May. How many trail bikes could have been vandalising the lawns of Parliament?

The member will please be seated. Of course he has a perfect right to move that motion, and that is provided for in that Speaker’s ruling. I am bound by the Speakers’ rulings of this House, and when they go back over 112 years, then I think that that indicates that there was good reason for them then, and good reason for them to be continued now. That is where the matter must rest.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. This is an important issue, and I would like you to take a minute to be a bit clearer about the answer you gave to the Hon Bill English, when he raised the point of order relating to, essentially, the status that may now be placed upon the evidence collected by the police from Mr Ardern when they did visit these premises.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Yes I will do that now.

If I can, I will just ask a simple question. Have you said that the matter of privilege in this case is to be, at least in part, determined by the court? It would seem that in normal cases evidence that is illegally gathered is not admissible. In this case, if the evidence was gathered by illegal means, surely that does have a material effect on Mr Ardern’s case.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. There are two issues here. I think the second issue is whether an issue of privilege is involved, and that is the one that should concern the House. If the Leader of the Opposition wishes to raise that as a matter of privilege, then the way to do so is not by way of a point of order. He should have raised it as an issue of privilege with you in the appropriate fashion, and if it is your determination that an issue of privilege is not involved that is the end of the matter. Again, that is not a matter to be raised by way of point of order in the House. That is dealing with a Speaker’s ruling, and again such a ruling may be challenged only by a direct motion with notice. Clearly you have either made a decision that an issue of privilege is not involved, which is the end of the matter in the House, or you have yet to make a decision on that matter, in which case when you have made a decision you will report it to the House and the Privileges Committee will deal with it.

I just want to say to members, and I make this point because a member asked me to clarify it, that I think that is a fair question. The member is assuming that the evidence was illegally gathered—

💬 Gerry Brownlee: No, no.

No, if he is assuming that, it is not the same as a breach of privilege. Illegality is a matter for the court. The admissibility of evidence in court is a matter for the court, and I have no discretion to rule evidence admissible or inadmissible. I have no discretion to do that.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think I may be able to help Mr Peters. I am not quite sure what his questions are, but I think it is helpful for you to remind the House that under Standing Order 364(2) questions can be put to the Speaker, but they have to be put in writing. If the member has some questions, that is the procedure by which to raise them.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: That is absolutely right.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Yesterday the Office of the Clerk returned four questions submitted by me for written answer, with the notation that the questions were out of order because the matter was sub judice. Two of those questions were addressed to you as Speaker, and two to the Minister of Police. The question as to whether matters are sub judice is, under Standing Order 112, a matter for the Speaker. I want to raise two questions, not to criticise a ruling you have made but to seek your further consideration on both counts.

Firstly, I want to raise the question of whether Standing Order 112 should have been applied in the case of those four questions. The Standing Order, as you know, refers to matters awaiting judicial decision. I lodged four questions that related to details of communications between yourself and your office, the Minister of Police and his office, and officers of the New Zealand police force. Those communications, I submit to you, are not matters before the court. The matter before the court relates to some allegations about the member for Taranaki - King Country in relation to disorderly behaviour, not whether the Speaker or the Minister of Police have discharged their obligations to the House in an appropriate manner. So I first ask whether, in fact, that was a matter in respect of which you should properly have considered the exercise of a discretion under Standing Order 112.

Secondly, I ask that you give consideration to whether such discretion was exercised appropriately, even if there were grounds to exercise it. The Standing Order makes it clear that the purpose of that discretion is to enable the Speaker to rule out of order a matter where, in his judgment, that course is necessary to avoid—and I quote from the Standing Order—“a real and substantial danger of prejudice to the trial of the case.” In this case, the purpose of the Standing Order is to ensure that Mr Ardern gets a fair hearing. But that, with respect, is not the effect of your ruling. The effect of your ruling is to shield the Minister of Police and Mr Speaker from questions that, I suggest, members are perfectly entitled to ask of you. That is not the purpose for which I understand the discretion to exist in the Standing Orders.

Accordingly, I ask you to reconsider, firstly, whether Standing Order 112 should have been applied here, and, secondly, whether the discretion was exercised appropriately.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Yes, I will do that.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Having just said to Mr Peters that he should use the procedure of written questions and then been told that an honourable member has done so, but has had the questions rejected, I feel obliged to rise to make two comments to you.

The first is that Standing Order 112 is not a ban on asking questions. It is a ban only if the Speaker believes that there is a real and substantial danger of prejudice to the trial of a case. My understanding from the media is that Mr Ardern is facing a disorderly conduct offence, which is a minor matter. It will not be heard in front of a jury. It will be heard by a District Court judge, and it stretches credibility to believe that a District Court judge would be influenced by—I do not want to be insulting to the member—a written question put down by a member of Parliament. I find that very hard to believe.

My second point—and I completely accept the statements you made to this House—is that if you have not directed the police in any way, it would seem to me that it is extremely difficult to see how an answer you gave could in any way influence or prejudice the case. If the question was put down to the Minister of Police, the Minister of Police in New Zealand is statutorily barred from giving directions to the police in a prosecution. If he has given directions, then our Standing Orders should not be used to protect him from that matter. I am not saying that he has; I am assuming that he has not. In that case, it is very hard to see how those questions—and I know that I am speaking hypothetically, because I have not seen them—could be ruled out under Standing Order 112, especially when members look at Speakers’ Rulings on the matter. For example, I remind you of Speaker’s ruling 25/3 from Speaker Wall, who said that the only reason for that ruling was that the discussion could prejudice the case. I would be incredulous if a member of Parliament could think up a question that would influence a District Court judge.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I thank the member for his comments, and also the member who raised the matter. I appreciate the way he raised it. I shall give some thought to the matter, and I will have a ruling by the end of the afternoon.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I want to return to the matter that was raised by the Deputy Prime Minister, who stated that issues around Mr Ardern and whether the police evidence was gathered correctly could well be matters of privilege and should have been raised accordingly. Mr Speaker, you know that a letter has been sent to you, as a matter of privilege, on this issue and I am wondering whether we can expect a ruling from you before the adjournment. We have a problem in that tomorrow is the last sitting day of the House before the adjournment, and Mr Ardern is due to appear in court during the adjournment. You dealt with the matter relating to Mr Duynhoven very swiftly. We do not want this decision to take a long time. We would ask that you act with the same haste with this letter as you obviously did with the matter relating to Mr Duynhoven.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I can give the member an assurance that this matter will be replied to. Of course, I do not mention to anybody that I have received a letter. In fact, I am sure that nobody else knows of this, apart from the person who wrote the letter, whom I will not identify. However, I will have an answer for the member before the House rises.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The inference from the last sentence of the member’s point of order was that he was implying that in some way you might be treating Mr Ardern differently from Mr Duynhoven. I understand, from the little I have managed to listen to from the House over the last 2 or 3 weeks, that the main complaint from Opposition members was that you did not deal with Mr Duynhoven’s case quickly enough at the time. Now they seem to be claiming that you dealt with it extremely expeditiously.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: No, that is not a point of order.

I raise a point of order under Standing Order 364(2), which states: “Questions for written answer may be put to the Speaker relating to any matter of administration for which the Speaker is responsible.” The operative words here are “is responsible”. My complaint, Mr Speaker, is that you are not responsible for the matter that I raised, and that there should be no implication that any exercise of your powers was carried out in an irresponsible way. I want to know where that leaves me, in the sense that I cannot put a question to you on this issue because it is ruled out by that very significant Standing Order. If you have no responsibility then how can you possibly reply to me? I have asked for the police report. I want to see it. With the greatest of respect, it is at variance with what you told the House today and until I see it I will not rest on this matter.

To take the member’s last point first, he states that he wants to see the police report because he claims it is at variance with what you were saying, Mr Speaker. If he has seen the police report then I am not quite clear why he is asking to see it. If he has not seen it then I am not quite clear how he can claim it is at variance with things that you have said. I come back to what you are responsible for, Mr Speaker. Standing Order 33 states: “The control and administration of the whole of the parliamentary grounds and buildings is vested in the Speaker on behalf of the House, whether Parliament is in session or otherwise.” I understand that that relates also to the steps of the Parliament Buildings.

I have not seen the police report, but my witness claims that the phone call was made whilst he was being processed, which is at variance with the statement that you saw the police at a later date. One is an example of something happening coeval with the event, and the other is your claim to the House that you saw the police at a later date. Both statements cannot be true. I am not doubting your word, but I would like to see the police report nevertheless.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Asking for a police report is not a matter of order. It has nothing to do with my chairing of this House.