Parliament Bill

I present a legislative statement on the Parliament Bill.

SPEAKER: The legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the parliamentary website.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: I move, That the Parliament Bill be now read a first time.

The Parliament Bill has had a long gestation, as has been adverted to by members in their contributions on the precursor motion. It brings together four different Acts to provide a modern legislative framework for Parliament and the agencies that support it. The Acts are the Parliamentary Privilege Act, which was passed in 2014; the Members of Parliament (Remuneration and Services) Act 2013; the Clerk of the House of Representatives Act 1988; and the Parliamentary Service Act 2000. The first two Acts are relatively recent, but the last two Acts, the Clerk of the House of Representatives Act and the Parliamentary Service Act, are now quite out of date, and it is fair to say that the legislation that affects this place is scattered across a variety of different Acts. The purpose of the Parliament Bill is to consolidate it, clarify the independence of Parliament from the executive, protect the privileges of Parliament, and specify the funding arrangements and set out the relationships between the parliamentary agencies.

The legislative statement sets out the main policy changes in the bill, and I want to highlight a few of them for the House, but before I do that, I want to just acknowledge the very professional and collaborative way that other parties have worked on this. Clearly, this was a bill that started life under the previous Government, with Cabinet decisions around the policy instructions for the bill and then the drafting instructions. I acknowledge that we have inherited this as a Government from the previous Government, but I also acknowledge that the previous Government had reached out to the then Opposition to discuss the bill. This is genuinely something that has carried forward in a collaborative and professional and collegial way between the parliaments, and I think that’s entirely right, because getting this legislation right is extremely important, and that’s exactly why we set up a special select committee.

I wasn’t going to mention it in my contribution, because it’s actually ultimately over to the committee, but Dr Duncan Webb did mention, so I will repeat it, that the Government will be nominating the Rt Hon Adrian Rurawhe, former Speaker, to chair the committee, and I think that’s very appropriate and look forward to his erstwhile chairmanship of the committee. I also want to acknowledge the Hon Chirstopher Finlayson KC, who is a member who has been a long-time advocate for the Parliament Bill, and, hopefully, in time, the Parliament Act. This does go back quite a long way.

I want to draw the House’s attention to parliamentary security, which has been a topic of discussion in recent weeks and months, and I want to acknowledge the dedicated team of parliamentary security officers—or PSOs—who are here around the clock safeguarding the precincts and the people who go and work in these buildings and visit people here. They’re expected to intervene to protect people and assets on the parliamentary precinct until the police arrive, but they don’t have specific statutory powers to carry out their duties. We are now giving them some legislative authority. The bill sets out the statutory basis for security arrangements on the precinct, including introducing limited search and seizure powers—most of the relevant provisions are in Part 7 of the bill. It gives the PSOs powers of consent search, denial of entry, temporary seizure of specified items, and temporary detention. It also provides immunity for good-faith execution by PSOs of their functions and powers. These provisions are based on the legislation that empowers court security officers, so we picked up the legislative framework there and are repeating it here.

It’s very important, I believe, that we uphold Parliament’s level of openness and accessibility to the public as far as practicable, in light of the threat assessment at any given time. The bill’s been developed in consultation with the police, who will continue to attend where necessary. One of the great things about this Parliament is how accessible and open it is to the public—it’s free to enter, it’s free to attend. Every day, I’m astonished at the number of people who come and watch the bunfight that is question time, but speaking as someone who did that when I was a wee 18-year-old myself, I acknowledge how wonderful it is that this parliamentary democracy enables that. I won’t speak any more about parliamentary security, but I’m sure that that is an issue that the committee will want to be examining.

In terms of funding, another important theme in the bill is the funding of the two parliamentary agencies—the Office of the Clerk and the Parliamentary Service—and, of course, they support all of us here in this Parliament and the people who work in the building. The agencies are independent, and that’s entirely appropriate, but under current law, their funding’s, effectively, determined by the Government, and from a constitutional point of view that is suboptimal, as it weakens the separation of powers. The bill strengthens the autonomy of Parliament by establishing a model for the House itself to put forward the funding for the parliamentary agencies. This is in Part 8 of the bill, and it, basically, is the pre-Budget process used for the Officers of Parliament—so the Auditor-General, the Ombudsman, and the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment. Under the bill, the agencies will consult the Treasury and submit proposed funding to the House. This will involve providing the proposals for a select committee to consider seeking advice as they see fit. The committee will then recommend funding to the parliamentary agencies for the House to commend to the Crown as appropriations for inclusion in the Estimates.

The objective is for Parliament’s funding to be determined in a way that upholds the House’s right to control its own affairs while being fiscally responsible. In due course, the House will need to consider amendments to the Standing Orders to implement this funding process and to ensure that agencies continue to be covered by the House’s financial scrutiny procedures.

The bill incorporates the Members of Parliament (Remuneration and Services) Act 2013, which ensures that the House and its members are properly supported in a way that maintains the confidence and integrity of Parliament. Arrangements for the Remuneration Authority to determine members’ salaries are carried over into the bill. There are some policy changes relating to expenses and services. The bill carries over the guiding principles for the Remuneration Authority, the Speaker, and the Minister Responsible for Ministerial Services when determining expenses and services. There’s a variety of other changes around the definition of “dependent child”, there’s expansion of the definition of “family member” to enable a caregiver to accompany a member’s dependent family to members in Wellington. The objective is to make members’ travel and accommodation services more accessible by having a single decision maker who issues all determinations on members’ travel, accommodation, and communication services. At the moment, I think it’s fair to say it’s a bit of a dog’s breakfast how all this stuff is worked out. I’m not sure that many members of Parliament in the House would be able to explain to the public how the various different salaries and allowances and travel allowances are worked out, and this will bring a degree of clarity around it all and a single decision maker.

There’s a variety of other changes, some of which are a bit rats and mice, but, none the less, important: consistent arrangements for when functions, powers, and the duties of the Speaker may be carried out by the Deputy Speaker; adjusting the mechanism for appointing the members of Parliamentary Service Commission, a little known but important body; and—this is one that I found particularly intriguing—transferring to the Electoral Commission the Clerk’s functions under the Citizens Initiated Referenda Act 1993. People listening with long memories will know that we’ve had a variety of citizens initiated referenda—from memory, you need 10 percent of registered electors to trigger it in the country, which, of course, is a number that varies, and we’ve had some over the years; the last one was the asset sales referendum, but we’ve also had the anti-smacking referendum and that somewhat confusing question back in, I think it was, 1999, which was a four-part question around tougher sentences and different things like that. We’ve had a few over the years, and, somewhat weirdly, the function of determining whether or not the threshold has been met is currently a function of the Clerk of the House of Representatives, whereas, in reality, it should be the function of the Electoral Commission—that’s their job—and so it’s just a hangover from the legislation back in 1993, so we’re tidying that up, and that’s sensible.

There’s some modernisation of the statutory functions; there’s making the Parliamentary Library a standard business unit in the Parliamentary Service. So there’s a variety of different things which are all in the legislative statement.

I would like to commend the bill to the House, and, no doubt, the special select committee will want to get into some of the detail, and I fully expect Sir Geoffrey Palmer to make a submission on the bill. I’m not going to be on the committee, but I’m looking forward to reading his, no doubt, long and august contribution. I suspect the Law Society will make a submission. I’m counting on Graeme Edgeler to make a submission, so that’s three I know we will get, and the question is whether or not we’ll get to 10, and I hope that we do, because too few people in New Zealand take an interest in our constitutional arrangements, and this is one of those rare occasions when Parliament is considering constitutional legislation, and it’s important that we get it right. I commend the bill to the House and look forward to its passage later on. Thank you.

SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Kia ora, Mr Speaker. I endorse the comments of the Leader of the House on this bill, especially those which point out how constitutionally important it is. In some ways, it’s strange that one of the most important bills we have and that we’ll see arguably in this term of Parliament and one that will, I hope, be enduring is one which in this House at least will spark the least debate—or at least the least vociferous debate. However, I’m sure that, in select committee, things will go otherwise. I’m confident and I would take odds that there’ll be more than 10 submissions to select committee on this.

I guess the main point of this bill, to my mind, is making very clear the independence of the legislature of this House of Parliament from the executive. The most obvious kind of tie is the financial tie that it is conceivable under the current—unlikely but conceivable—framework that the Government of the day could make Parliament’s functioning and make the Opposition’s functioning more difficult by limiting the funds or not increasing the funds appropriately to support members of Parliament—the work that goes on in this House. This makes a small step away from that in the sense that it will take the funding of this House away from the normal appropriations process and make it a question for this House itself.

In one of those quirks, perhaps, of the constitution, this House and the Government—the will of this House and the will of the Government—are pretty closely aligned because the Government has the majority here. So, in fact, in practical terms, the Government could still exercise it, but it would have to do so in the full light of day and under a great deal more scrutiny than might otherwise be the case. I do think that’s an important part of this. I would also say that although for those who might be looking on from the galleries or on telly it appears a very arcane bill—one that is kind of lost in dusty law books—in fact, this is a really important constitutional bill. It’s a really good example of us needing to approach these questions carefully and diligently, given the fact that it is just this unicameral system, this unicameral Parliament that we have, where we can make changes which fundamentally shift how lawmaking and Government is done. Those shifts that might look small—such as how Parliament is funded, such as the powers of our security staff, such as how citizens initiated referenda are managed—actually do go to the heart of how we operate as a democracy.

I’m sure the members of the committee will take their role seriously, and I’m quite confident that there will be some very thoughtful submissions coming in. I know a lot of work—as the Leader of the House acknowledged—has gone into this bill already. Having said that, I’m pretty sure that the select committee process will again refine and improve this bill. On this side of the House, the Labour Party absolutely supports this reading of the bill and look forward to working constructively on improving it where possible. Kia ora, Mr Speaker.

The honourable—sorry, I call Ricardo Menéndez March.

Happy to get the upgrade. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: Just do your time.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH: Look, we’re in support of this bill and we’ll be voting in favour of it. We want to acknowledge the contribution from other people, who have acknowledged how this has been a long time in the making, started by the previous Government, and that overall, the process to getting here has been quite constructive.

The bill, in and of itself, will modernise four existing Acts that relate to the operations of Parliament. I think most of this modernisation will enable our democracy to be more accessible and it will also, hopefully, better support the entities that allow Parliament—and, therefore, actually, the democratic system that we have—to be better resourced and for its resourcing to be better scrutinised as well. It will also make other changes around citizen initiated referendums, etc., which I think will also pass some of those responsibilities to better and more adequate entities.

I want to begin by making some reflections initially on some of the changes that will make Parliament more family friendly, enabling more flexible travel arrangements, particularly for caregivers of dependents. I think this is an important proposal because, basically, one of the things that we’ve got still in this parliamentary system is that, actually, if you don’t come from a place of wealth or privilege, there’s a massive sacrifice that sometimes people have to make to even consider standing for Parliament, let alone imagining themselves being in Parliament. People who have caregiving responsibilities, who may have disabled children or may be disabled themselves, face additional barriers to performing their duties as an MP. Having greater flexibility when it comes to, for example, travel arrangements, will break down those barriers so that you don’t have to imagine coming into Parliament from a position of privilege and wealth to then be able to make your caregiving and family arrangements work. Those proposals, in and of themselves—what they will do is they will broaden the ability for people to be able to see themselves in this place, and it is absolutely a really positive thing.

The other thing that I want to comment on is around the proposed changes to the funding model for parliamentary agencies. If we look at the legislative statement, I think it’s really well summarised that the Parliamentary Service and the Office of the Clerk are not part of the executive Government but are the agencies that directly support the operations of Parliament. When we talk about the operations of Parliament—I go back to my earlier comments about how they’re the operations of our democratic system—they enable, for example, the members of the public to submit on important pieces of legislation. A lot of the time, they’re the conduit between ourselves and the public when it comes to pieces of laws that we are passing. Having a better funding model that has more scrutiny, that is more removed from the executive, can only be a good thing, because, actually, we are really strong believers that the Parliamentary Service and the Office of the Clerk need to be better resourced to adapt to what are more complex needs and demands from constituents, and also to be resourced to be as accessible as possible to the public, particularly as we strive to make sure that a wide range of constituents are able to have their voices heard. I think this is really important. I think it’s also in the interest of the public, not just us MPs, to make sure that we have a well-functioning Parliamentary Service and Office of the Clerk and that they’re really, really well-resourced.

One area that I do hope we get a chance to unpack more in full at the select committee stage, and it’s one of the few points of tensions that we have, is around how parliamentary security will operate, and particularly the additional powers that parliamentary security officers will be granted. I think there does need to be some scrutiny at the select committee stage to make sure that increased security powers—you know, when it comes to the extent of these search, seizures, and detention powers—are appropriate and that there’s necessary safeguards. Once again, we want to make sure that we create a safe place for people to participate in our democratic systems, but also that we don’t, in the pursuit of safety, make our parliamentary spaces feel unwelcoming or accidentally target specific groups. That is one area that I do think deserves a bit more scrutiny and that I would welcome members of the public who have had engagement with our parliamentary institutions to give fulsome submissions so that we can consider those properly. If we need to make changes, then we will just go ahead and do so.

I want to mihi to the workers in this Parliament that make this place run, who provide us with the labour to ensure that we have a relatively functioning democratic system. I look forward to debating this bill in full at select committee. Kia ora.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am proud to rise on behalf of the ACT Party to speak in favour of this bill, which is the Parliament Bill, which is seeking to consolidate and modernise the way our Parliament works. The bill provides for stronger powers for our parliamentary security officers to keep us safe, and it is doing much-needed improvements to the way that the Parliamentary Service and the Office of the Clerk receive funding. It also includes an update to the provisions of members’ work-related expenses.

The bill proposes giving the parliamentary security officers statutory powers to carry out a consented search, a denial of entry, a temporary seizure of specified items, and a temporary detention. These are all very important powers, and they’re going to require a lot of scrutiny. These powers will apply to the parliamentary precinct and in respect of any other parliamentary meetings, including select committee meetings, that take place off the precinct. These powers may also apply to electorate and community offices in certain circumstances, which in the modern world, unfortunately, is becoming more required.

Another major change that is being made in this bill is to the funding available to the parliamentary agencies. It’s going to allow a lot more clarity when it comes to the separation of power between the executive and the legislature.

The bill also provides greater parliamentary control over parliamentary funding arrangements, and the review which took place in 2020 includes a few changes that would make Parliament more family friendly, such as expanding the definition of a “family member” so that a caregiver can be funded in certain situations, and expanding the definition of “dependent child”. Now, that is going to include a child over the age of 18 as long as they are still attending a secondary school. We hope and I hope that this provides a much more transparent process for MPs and their families, as well as clarity for the taxpayer.

I’m looking forward to the select committee process of this bill. In ensuring that our Parliament is running as effectively and transparently as possible, constitutional change is important, and when it moves us closer to a stronger democratic process, that can only be a good thing. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Thank you. I call on—

Andy Foster: Mr Speaker—oh, are you going to do it?

SPEAKER: —the Hon Casey Costello.

Andy Foster: I thought I was going to do it—OK, away you go.

We’re just fighting for it, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: That’s all right. It’s very good of Mr Foster to call you!

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: I’ve very sure he couldn’t see me. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak in support of the Parliament Bill and to commend the process of establishing a separate select committee, which, I think, will be very important moving forward to ensure we continue with this clear bipartisan approach. There are some important aspects of this constitutional arrangement that the Parliament Bill will achieve, and I think that, in the long term, this is about improving our democratic processes and systems, and the independence around the financial funding will be highly well received and simplify a lot of the complexity that currently exists.

I would like to speak briefly around the protection of our open and accessible Parliament and the importance of our democratic process. It relies on our public having accessibility to this House, and I would commend, and I have a high degree of respect for, the security services that are provided in this precinct. Having had a previous role, many years ago, running security in this precinct, I was warmed by the fact that when I returned, some nearly 20 years later, I was greeted by familiar faces. That continuity of service and professionalism that is delivered by security services is important, but I think the key point which is needing to be emphasised is that, in order to protect our open and accessible democracy, we need to ensure that the public who enter this place and the people who work here are assured of a level of protection and assurance that they will be safe and that they will be able to be heard.

Unfortunately, the nature of our changing times is that we do need to step up the security presence, and we know we have a very commendable model that has been introduced in the courts and has been highly successful, and I think that model will continue to be a guide to this way forward. I know there will be a lot of important, complex discussions as we go through this debate, but, foundationally, this is an important piece of legislation with, of course, constitutional implications but, I think, to the benefit overall of our democracy, and I take pleasure in commending it to the House.

Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Tēnā tātou katoa. This institution—and in my time since entering this very building, I have learnt some of its inner workings, including the likes of what we are to discuss today. While we support the establishment of a select committee—we think that’s a very good idea and we should do that—we oppose the increase of power to Parliament security. You’ll appreciate what I mean as I go into my kōrero.

Māori experiences in Parliament are different to those who may get to walk these halls freely and without prejudice. This is just not good enough. For us as a party, it is always concerning when more power is afforded to those who may subconsciously or consciously seek to position themselves above. This is achieved in many ways, and certainly through job title. While I respect the efforts of the staff here, including my nephew who is a security staff member—our safety is paramount—I must, in the same breath, question what safety looks like and who the so-called safety is truly benefiting. When racial profiling is our reality, what does it really mean when we afford more power to security? These are discussions I look forward to having following the establishment of this select committee.

Another concern raised revolves around ensuring that Parliament is a family friendly environment and that’s an important piece of discussion and an important part and aspect of this bill. Māori settings are not the same. It is not “two parents and a single child”—the dynamics of being Māori and the way in which we have our whānau settings are quite different. Of course, more recently when Hana, who is one of our newest and youngest—there had to be some adjustments to the way in which that was considered because she is so young. That’s a good thing, but there were some adjustments that had to be made to enable her to have her whānau come with her.

I think that kind of discussion and debate—I’m looking forward to that happening because I think it’ll throw up more than just that particular situation, but others in the way in which we understand and appreciate what family actually looks like. For Māori particularly, whānau is so much more than just a mother and father. Government definitions of “whānau” don’t work for us; whānau stretches wider and is never restricted to only shared toto.

If this institution is committed to also being culturally safe, then we need more than the changes that are being discussed today. While we support the establishment of a select committee, which we do, we demand discussion on how those will truly impact our staff who have numerous accounts of racial profiling and continued experiences that limit our whānau and their ability to stand alongside us.

Mr Speaker, thank you very much. I rise to support colleagues from around the Chamber in support of the introduction and the first reading of this Parliament Bill. We, as New Zealanders, are fortunate to live in a stable democracy, one that has an unbroken democratic tradition going back more than 160 years. We’re one of only a handful of countries in the world that can say that with pride and with dignity. For that democracy to function as it does, it needs to have a Parliament that administers itself in a way that is relevant, that is modern, that is timely, and that is appropriate for the society and the evolving nature not only of Parliament and the administration of it but the evolving nature of society as well.

I’ve noted the comments that other members have made in this early stage of the Parliament Bill debate. I’m also looking forward to watching closely the special select committee that has been, or will be, established to guide this piece of legislation through our Parliament. I’m delighted—and I think it’s very appropriate and fitting—that it will be chaired by an Opposition member, a respected former Speaker of the House, the Rt Hon Adrian Rurawhe. I know that he and the committee will do a very thorough job.

Like the Hon Chris Bishop, I’m looking forward to some of the, what I think may be, quite academic pieces of submission that are made from a range of people. I’m not going to go through the list that the Hon Chris Bishop went through, but those are people who, like many of us, take this place seriously. Sometimes, I think it’s too easy to sit on the sideline and say, “Well, what happens in Parliament doesn’t matter. It’s not important, it’s not relevant.” Well, actually, it is important and it is relevant. It is something that we, as New Zealanders—whether we are members of this Chamber for the time that we are here or whether we are not—should take seriously and we should take appropriately.

Ours is a small, intimate, and sometimes imperfect little democracy, but it’s our democracy. I think it’s something that we should cherish, something that we should honour, and something that we should respect, but that doesn’t mean that it has to always stay exactly the same. This piece of legislation seeks to modernise and update a number of pieces of existing legislation that govern and administer the operations of this place on behalf of all citizens in our country, and I think that’s appropriate. Modernisation is something that we all have to confront from time to time, and that old saying that “There is nothing more certain than change itself” is, I think, appropriate when it comes to thinking about how our Parliament operates.

We have a kind of almost unique unicameral system: we don’t have an Upper House, we don’t have a Senate. We make our own rules, but we do so considering those that will follow us in years to come. We hope, I think, that as we go through this process the Parliament and the operation of our Parliament will be made better for the benefit of those that are involved in this place today and those that will follow.

On that note, I’m looking forward to the process of the special select committee, and I’m looking forward to the progress of the legislation, and I know that there will be many people outside this place that will be following it as closely as we are here. Thank you.

Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. I first heard about the Parliament Bill in an email from the Hon Christopher Finlayson, and I had occasion to hear about it quite often while I was a Speaker of this House. Can I just join with colleagues around the House in supporting this in its first reading to go to a select committee. I think it is very important. Can I just touch on the security issues, as a former Speaker having to deal with the consequences of not having some of the powers that this piece of legislation will give. I can tell the House that it’s incredibly important that we consider that very carefully, because the consequences of not having those powers actually impact on everyone’s safety—MPs, staff and those who visit Parliament—and it should be a place where everyone should feel safe.

I note that the drafting of the legislation has been done, I consider, in a very careful way. I’ve read other commentary as well that states that this has been drafted in quite a particular way that, in my opinion, does not overstep a mark where police should take over. It’s to a point that our security here in Parliament should be able to act until police arrive, and I think that’s entirely appropriate. I support that.

I also support the proposed changes to the way that Parliament is funded. I think perception in politics is really everything, and if there’s a perception—and this is not an accusation—that the Government is interfering with the ability of Parliament to scrutinise the Government, then that will be the narrative.

I want to acknowledge both the Leader of the House for his leadership in getting this to first reading after a very long gestation. I want to acknowledge, as I said before, the Hon Christopher Finlayson—he was a strong advocate of this—and also the Rt Hon Trevor Mallard when he was Speaker as well. I think it’s important that we do the very best as a select committee to make sure that Parliament can scrutinise effectively the executive. I think, through this bill, that will happen. I won’t go into all the other parts of the bill, but I just want to let the House know I look forward to participating in that select committee. Kia ora.

I call on Dana Kirlpatrick—Kirkpatrick.

Thank you, Mr Speaker—“Kirkpatrick”, yes. I get called all sorts of different names. Look, I just rise to speak on this bill here, the Parliament Bill, and it’s an honour to do so. I’d like to just first acknowledge all the people who have worked so hard on this over a great deal of years and acknowledge the work that’s gone into it. You can see that there has been a huge amount of effort. I think it’s important because it relates to our constitution, and we need to evolve and we need to change as society moves along. Some of the changes in here are worthwhile.

Just to recap, of course, the Parliament Bill is designed to bring together those four different pieces of legislation in the desire to give greater clarity to rules around MP expenses, to give consistency to the duties, functions, and powers of the Speaker and the Deputy Speaker, and align provisions relating to appointments and conditions of the Clerk of the House and the Chief Executive of the Parliamentary Service.

One of the areas of change relates to our approach to parliamentary security, and there would be no one here in this building who doesn’t appreciate the efforts of our wonderful parliamentary security officers. They’re here all hours of the day and the night and they’re looking after the MPs, the staff, and the visitors, but the landscape has changed, as we know, and the way MPs, in particular, are now targeted has changed as well. I’m the co-chair with my colleague across the House Cushla Tangaere-Manuel for the Commonwealth Women Parliamentarians and we have a particular focus on security. Some of these changes are extremely interesting for us, and we are pleased to see that they’re in place because we have been discussing this very issue in our committee meetings.

The changes set out in the bill give the security officers the powers of search, the powers to deny entry and ability to seize items as specified, and temporarily detain people, if necessary, similar to those used by court officers. This also extends to them using those powers where select committees might be off site around the country. I have attended some of those in different parts of the country, which didn’t need security officers, I should say—but, you know, if they do—and at an electorate office, in case of appropriate threats or things that might not be going well. So we would support that. Those were some of the things that we have talked about as well.

In terms of members’ funding and services, there’s always scrutiny of these areas and rightly so, but it is time some changes were made. I in particular am pleased to see a couple of things happening in there along with all the other changes, but I’d just like to point out, members often have to be away from home in Wellington, and their dependent children, under these changes, would be able to travel with their parents as a key way to support members. I think that is to be commended. The definition of a “dependent” also will be amended to include any child over the age of 18 who’s still at secondary school, or anyone over the age of 18 for that family who is, due to a disability, dependent on the MP for their daily care or as a member of their family.

For me, it’s about balance, about MPs needing to be able to use these tools to maintain balance between the relentless nature of the job, the need to be present in their families, and ensuring that public funding is used appropriately. We on this side of the House are about efficiency and pragmatic solutions. I’m pleased that we have support across the House, largely, for this and we recognise that while there are updates required and the bill provides for those, this is a very welcome piece of legislation. Therefore, I commend the bill to the House.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is a pleasure to be able to take a call on this Parliament Bill at its first reading. This is a very important bill. Some members have said that the public is not going to necessarily find this very interesting, but I think, once they get into it, they’ll see that there are a number of elements there that I personally think are interesting. I’m probably maybe not the best barometer of what’s interesting in relation to legislation, but I find it interesting and I wanted to touch on a few things which I do think are particularly important.

I also want to acknowledge the concerns raised by Te Pāti Māori in relation to security guards. Labour supports this bill and we do support the powers as they are currently in this bill at the moment, but I don’t think that means we don’t recognise that giving significant powers of search and seizure and temporary detention—which is what this bill proposes—are significant, and we shouldn’t go into those types of discussion without making sure that they are proportionate to the need. I think we can all recognise, unfortunately, that we do need to have security in Parliament and also I support the provisions that allow that security to travel around the country as well, but we do need to make sure that we’re not overstepping the mark in relation to civil liberties, and those are proportionate too. I acknowledge those concerns and I hope that the special select committee chaired by the Rt Hon Adrian Rurawhe will be able to look into that and give that the consideration that I do consider it deserves, regardless of the submissions that may be made on this bill.

I wanted to also talk about the family friendly—as has been referred to—provisions in this Parliament Bill. Now, these might seem like minor changes, but they actually have arisen in the past in relation to members of Parliament. It’s only relatively recently that I think we can confidently say our Parliament is one of the more family friendly Parliaments in the world, but there are still barriers. For example, for those with young children who do not reside in Wellington, who do not have family in Wellington, it is a very difficult situation to know how they’re able to keep that proximity with their young children and also be able to perform their duties as a parliamentarian. I think these changes will help that. I still think it’s probably more difficult for those particular people to decide to become members of Parliament. I think it’s an ongoing conversation that we should be having around accessibility and the representative nature of this House to make sure that there aren’t barriers for people. I think we’ve done a lot of good work, and I think this continues on a lot of good work done by previous Parliaments as well.

Also the definition of “dependent child”, as well as the definition of “caregiver”, is also really important. Members in this House, there are a lot of diverse families, a lot of diverse personal situations which I don’t think the public are often aware of. I don’t think they necessarily need to be aware of those, but people who have different family situations need to be able to participate in our democracy, regardless of their family situations. I think that this does go some way towards allowing people who have different needs of their family members to allow them to also meet those needs of their family and also participate as parliamentarians. I really do support those particular provisions and I hope that the special select committee is able to interrogate those and make sure that they are properly fit for purpose.

Another area that I think is really important in this bill is the definition of “parliamentary purpose”, which is covered in this as well. Members of the public may not know what that means, but for us and for those of us in this Chamber who really want to make sure that they’re doing the right thing and being transparent and accountable, it’s something that we think about a lot. What is the purpose of our particular function that we’re doing? Is it sufficiently connected to our parliamentary role? How do we best use taxpayers’ money in order to perform our function as a parliamentarian while still being accountable? I think that’s a really important aspect of this bill, and I think the select committee should look at that.

The other thing I think is the point around separation of powers, which I’ll just touch on briefly. It is really important and I think, probably, in my view, maybe the single most important aspect of this bill: the fact that this entrenches a greater separation of powers, because it does not allow a situation where a future Government could defund the operation of Parliament, the operation of the Opposition, and, therefore, the function of our democracy. There can be very few things more important than maintaining our democracy, and I think this bill—although the changes are small—does go a certain way towards making that democracy stronger. Therefore, I’m really interested to see how it develops, and I commend it to the House.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. This is a constitutionally important bill. It reflects a decade of quiet Government work spanning three Governments and five Prime Ministers. It’s an omnibus bill, and it consolidates the four separate Acts that currently regulate the operation of Parliament into a single Act. It makes the legislature more independent from other branches of government.

One of the key changes in the Parliament Bill is it sets out a funding model for parliamentary agencies, including the Parliamentary Service and the Office of the Clerk. They’ll no longer be funded by the Government of the day through the Budget process. Rather, they’ll receive their funding from Parliament, through a similar process, as independent officers, like the Auditor-General and the Ombudsman. I’d like to acknowledge the Clerk of the House, David Wilson, and the Chief Executive of the Parliamentary Service, Raf Gonzalez-Montero, and, of course, all of those who work for these vital agencies, without whom this place simply wouldn’t run and we wouldn’t be able to do our jobs as elected representatives.

Another notable change is to empower Parliament’s security team. At present, Parliament security officers have no more powers than private security guards hired to man the door of a downtown nightclub. While the changes would certainly have helped during the 2022 occupation of Parliament, they were, in fact, proposed before both COVID and the occupation, following a 2019 review of the precinct’s security. I want to take this opportunity to acknowledge all of Parliament’s security officers, like Siaosi, who do an outstanding job working around the clock, looking after MPs, staff, and visitors to the parliamentary precinct. They deserve credit, and they deserve the tools to be able to do their jobs as effectively and as efficiently as possible.

Victoria University of Wellington professor of public law Dean Knight said of the bill: “It’s an exciting time for constitutional trainspotters, because we are seeing parts of our constitution being consolidated and built in a way which better reflects the separation of powers which lies at the heart of our governmental system. It’s the institutional recognition of Parliament and its infrastructure and apparatus as a single entity. You’re starting to see the gathering together of the important rules that make it work. You see an institution rightly shaping itself out as a really important and really independent institution within the constitutional frame.”

This bill, this omnibus bill, brings together four separate Acts of Parliament into one piece of legislation. It ensures the independence of Parliament from the executive, it protects the privilege of Parliament, and it streamlines the different functions of Parliament and its agencies. I commend this bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Parliament Bill Committee.