Points of Order — Stranger in the Lobbies

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I wish to raise with you an issue regarding Standing Order 42. I raised this matter at the conclusion of the Committee of the whole House last night, and I understood that the Chair of the Committee was going to bring this matter to your attention. It concerns the presence of Mr Ross Wilson, President of the Council of Trade Unions, within the lobbies of Parliament. Standing Order 42 determines that you have a right to control who is admitted to the meeting rooms and lobbies of Parliament. I am just wondering whether you have given Mr Ross Wilson some form of official status; if so, whether the House should be informed of that official status being given to Mr Ross Wilson. If not, as the House is discussing employment relations legislation at this time, could you rule on whether it is appropriate for the president of the Council of Trade Unions to be in the lobby, meeting with officials and the Minister during a part of the Committee of the whole House.

I thank the member for raising that matter, which was a point of order. I refer members to my Rules for Admission to the Chamber, Lobbies and Galleries of the House of Representatives During Sittings of the House, which state that while the House is sitting the following strangers may be admitted to it: staff servicing members of Parliament, in order to leave messages or papers for a member or to receive instructions from a member; and personnel required to carry out technical functions, etc. I will have a look at the particular issue the member raised and report back to him.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I listened to your list, and it seems to me that this issue falls into the category in the British House of Commons of: “I Spy Strangers.” If this Government is bringing in people who are not civil servants, who are not entitled to be here, and who in this case are representing the largest trade union group, then my only objection to this point of order is that it appears that if the Government went along with this, then the matter has to be a breach of privilege, and a very serious one. The Committee of the whole House was debating industrial law and the person who has the greatest self-interest in the issue was within the lobby directing the Government. That has to be very close to a breach of privilege. It is not a matter just for you, Mr Speaker, to look into. If it happened, I think you should invite the member to lay a breach of privilege case against the Government.

If the member wants to do that, then of course he can do so. I refer members further to my rules for admission to the Chamber, under the section headed “Admittance of strangers to the Ayes or Noes lobbies”: “When the House is sitting … the following strangers may enter the Ayes or Noes lobbies as far as strictly necessary, through the lobby behind the Speaker’s Chair: (3) Ministers’ advisers, departmental officials and research unit officers—for access to meeting rooms:”. I will consult the Minister on this matter.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Is this a new point of order?

It is certainly a new point of order. It seems to me that the list you have read out does not in any way incorporate the president of the Council of Trade Unions. The reason why I think we need this matter resolved urgently is that I understand that at the end of question time we are to move back into a debate around employment relations. We now no longer know whether the Government, and perhaps the Speaker, is giving Mr Ross Wilson special status requiring him to be in constant contact with officials and Ministers during the Committee of the whole House on the employment legislation.

A brief glance at the Order Paper will tell the member that following question time we will have a general debate, this being Wednesday, and following that we will have the third reading of the electricity and gas legislation. So we are some hours away from getting to the Employment Relations Law Reform Bill, giving Mr Speaker considerable time to consider the matter.

Ministers are entitled to have advisers on their bills. It depends on whether he is the Minister’s adviser. I have said that I will consult with the Minister. [Interruption] I will not have that nonsense, at all. I now warn members that the next member who goes on like that will go out. That is out of order and grossly disorderly. Mr Prebble has called a point of order. He will be heard.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am not sure what you are indicating to the House. Are you indicating that if the Government indicates to you that it is taking advice from the Council of Trade Unions on this matter, it can invite the Council of Trade Unions in? At that point we will have the whole of the trade union movement out there in the lobby.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I raise the issue because I was in the House last night when it was reported that Mr Ross Wilson was in the room with Department of Labour officials. When you look at this case, I ask you to consider how he had gained access to the room, given that we have parliamentary messengers and security people who watch the access. In thinking about it, and in noticing that when Mr Wilson walks around the building he has a parliamentary ID card the same as that worn by staff members, it appears that that card—which, I understand, has to be issued on your authority—may well have confused people outside the room, who have effectively allowed a stranger to come in because he was wearing a parliamentary ID card. I ask that you examine that issue. It may be opportune for you to look either at the issuing of those cards or at the rules regarding access for people who have them.

I will certainly do that, but it is up to Ministers as to who are their advisers on a bill.

It may be up to Ministers as to who are their advisers on a bill, but it is up to Parliament to decide who has access to the lobbies. The process that goes on in here is rather different from the process that goes on for Ministers in the Beehive. Voting is done here and amendments are put up. That is why access is controlled—so that the process of Parliament can continue unimpeded and without threatening external influence.

If I take your comment at face value, you are saying that if a Minister decides someone is his or her adviser, then that person has free access to any part of the precincts of this Chamber. That cannot be the case if the Minister decides who is allowed to be in the lobbies of this Parliament. It is up to Parliament to decide that, because the lobbies are part of the precincts of this Chamber. Even you, Mr Speaker, do not have the capacity to change the rules so that Ministers can decide. So I recommend that you give this matter much further consideration than the somewhat intemperate comments that have just been made.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I have not made intemperate comments. I said to the member that I would look at this matter further, and I will do so, and I will report back to the House.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Can I conclude that the member just referred to comments you made as being intemperate? If that is so, I think he should be required to withdraw and apologise.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I thought that the comment made by Mr English was not very wise. I do not think I made an intemperate comment, and I invite him to withdraw that comment.

💬 Hon Bill English: I withdraw.