Parliament Bill

Members, we come now to Part 3—

Hon Chris Bishop: Madam Chair?

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I’m just going to outline that this is the debate—I know that the Minister knows, but this is the debate on clauses 40 to 56, “Speaker, Deputy Speaker, and parliamentary precincts”, and Schedule 2. The question is that Part 3 stand part.

If the committee will indulge me, or the Chair will indulge me, I do just want to make a brief comment in relation to Part 2, which we’ve just covered, which I know we’ve voted on, but there seems to be a spirit of bonhomie in the Chamber, so I hope the committee won’t mind. The committee has just voted on an amendment from the Rt Hon Chris Hipkins that I do just want to briefly touch on. I mistakenly looked at the amendment and thought it was in relation to Part 7, so I thought we might have a bit of time, but it’s actually in relation to Part 2.

The committee has just voted to clarify that the House of Representatives cannot imprison for contempt, and that is an important change. Well, it could be seen as important. It is not clear, from a reading of Parliamentary Practice in New Zealand by David McGee and case law and recent Privileges Committee reports, that Parliament could not, or the House could not, imprison someone for contempt of Parliament. It’s worth noting that this power has never been exercised in New Zealand by the House of Representatives, so the committee has just voted to make it clear that imprisonment is not a punishment for contempt.

Now, what is a contempt? Well, a contempt is a serious breach of the Standing Orders, as judged by the Privileges Committee. It’s laid out in the Standing Orders, and, regrettably, this Parliament, and indeed the Parliament before, has had some incidents where members have behaved badly—I think it’s fair to say that—and people have been referred to the Privileges Committee and people have been found guilty of contempt. There are a variety of punishments that can be laid down for that. What has been discussed is whether or not the extremity of the punishment could extend to imprisonment, and we’ve now decided that that is not the case.

I’m advised that in section 8 of the Parliamentary Privilege Act 2014, which will now become part of the Parliament Bill, the House has the powers exercisable by the UK House of Commons as at 1 January 1865. Of course, back then—someone will have no doubt gone away and researched this—in 1865 in the UK House of Commons, they did have the power to imprison people by committing them into the custody of the Serjeant-at-Arms. It is at least arguable that the New Zealand House of Representatives had that power up until, well, 2 minutes ago, or 2½ minutes ago. I suppose it doesn’t take effect yet, until we’ve received the Royal assent—so, I don’t know, next week or something.

Now that’s been clarified, and I do want to thank the Rt Hon Chris Hipkins for moving that amendment, which the Government has been pleased to support.

Thank you, that’s a very important clarification. Is this in response or is this Part 3?

Rt Hon Adrian Rurawhe: No, sorry, I’m on Part 3.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): That’s all right. OK. That was very important, thank you.

For the record, I thought it was Part 7 as well. I just want to recognise that in Part 3, the Speaker of the House will have the ability to delegate certain functions to the Deputy Speaker, which I think is wholly appropriate, in the same way that a Minister who also has responsibilities under the Public Finance Act, say, might delegate something to an Associate Minister or an under-secretary. I just wanted to just briefly recognise that in Part 3, that is one of the things that has changed in there. Kia ora.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’d just like to draw the committee’s attention to what I think is a really good change, but I ask for a couple of clarifications: that is, in clause 61, where we’ve got the “meaning of adult dependant”, and we’re talking about an adult dependant in relation to “a person … means a person who has a disability that means they require ongoing daily care”, and this is going to entitle them to—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Oh, I think clause 61 is in a different part.

INGRID LEARY: Oh, sorry. My apologies, Madam Chair; I’ve jumped ahead.

Kia ora, Madam Chair. Clause 52 is around the “House of Representatives may add … to parliamentary precincts”. Obviously, we have the current precinct where it’s at—well, the three buildings, and buildings that are currently being built. I just want to seek clarification that this, obviously, is around—I mean, the initial purchase of the land back in 1867, or whenever it was, can be dubious, in many ways. I’m just wanting to seek clarification from the Minister that whenever we talk about adding land to the parliamentary precinct, this, obviously, will be in a way that fits in with current laws and isn’t about acquiring land but is around doing right by modern laws.

Also, the ability for members or the Business Committee to look at what the parliamentary precinct is—does that fit into the space in terms of whether Parliament is able to not just purchase more land but actually add to the precinct? For example, Defence House, behind us, is becoming part of the precinct. I just want to clarify that that, obviously, all sits quite clearly and we’re making sure that however land is acquired in the future, it is done in a way that honours current laws and honours our commitment to the Treaty.

Just in relation to a couple of comments made, they’re both really important points. Mr Rurawhe talks about the Deputy Speaker; that is a really important point in Part 3 of this bill. The Parliamentary Service Act 2000 makes it clear that the Deputy Speaker can have the functions and powers of the Speaker, but it’s unclear in the Clerk of the House of Representatives Act 1988. This goes back to the starting point, which is that the Act was written in 1988 and needs updating. This makes it crystal clear that the Deputy Speaker can exercise the functions of the Speaker.

In relation to Glen Bennett’s point around clause 52, this is a bit of a carry-over provision, but it makes it clear that the “parliamentary precincts” in clause 53 are Parliament buildings, including the very important executive wing, of course, and Part 1 of Schedule 2 and Part 2 of Schedule 2 have the indicative map of the land. The key point is that there’s flexibility for Parliament in the future if it chooses to grow and expand. In fact, there’s a process under way around that at the moment, but it just gives some flexibility so that, by resolution, the House can expand the grounds without having to go through a legislative change, because being on the parliamentary grounds has a particular meaning for Parliament, not the least of which is leave. Before any honourable member asks, yes, there would be the ability to extend that to places of ill repute near Parliament, but there is no current proposal on the table to do that and, I hasten to add, for everyone listening, the Government is not intending to do that.

I believe I’m on the right part now, Madam Chair. I just want to draw the Minister’s attention to clause 55. It talks about the Speaker controlling and administering the parliamentary precincts. It talks specifically about the powers that are vested in the Speaker, and then it kind of self-refers, in subclause (2), to subclause (1), but it’s pretty unclear about what the precincts mean.

I’m thinking of a specific example here. For example, is it the Minister’s view that the Speaker has authority and powers under this legislation to direct and control members of various workforces, such as security guards, the parliamentary colleagues or staff working with MPs, and the press gallery? I’m thinking about examples where there could be events happening on the forecourt, and members of Parliament might want their EAs and others present. Can the Speaker, under the legislation as it’s currently worded, make an order to remove the press gallery, for example, or to require staff to go back inside?

The reason I raise this is that in some of those situations, members of Parliament could feel quite insecure, given the volatility at the moment around public protest and polarised views, and parliamentary members may not want to venture on to the forecourt if they don’t feel they have adequate support from staff. Equally, there is a duty for the fourth estate, the media, in this place to make sure that everything here happens transparently, and it is of great public interest when there are large crowds on the forecourt. I’m not challenging anything that has happened over recent times; it may well be that that is the Minister’s understanding, but I question whether the legislation as it’s currently worded actually does make that explicit, and whether, if that is his view and if it was the will of the committee, it should be added. If it was not the will of the committee or if there were not public submissions on these very important points, my view would be that the legislation should be read at face value, and that the clarification should be made via an amendment or we should have it on the record what actually the committee came to conclude here.

These are not entirely hypothetical situations, which is why I am raising them very respectfully, but I do think that the public interest, the media interest, and also the personal views of MPs when it comes to staff and resourcing and support need to be considered when we’re looking at the boundaries that relate to clause 55, which really does confer an awful lot of power on the Speaker, or vest in the Speaker, as is right to have that power, but I think the boundaries need to be extremely clear so that in those situations, everybody is comfortable and clear about what the rules are, and when they could decline or not follow a direction and when they are required to under this legislation.

Hopefully I can be helpful on that particular question. It’s actually a question I asked at select committee. What we need to remember is that under the new set of rules and under this new legislation, which we’ll talk about in Part 7, there’s a clear monitoring role and reporting role, and the direct reporting is with the CEO of Parliamentary Service. The Speaker of the House has overall authority but doesn’t actually carry it out himself or herself.

It’s really important that we recognise that parliamentary security will be operating in a very professional way under clear rules, and, in fact, the regime for reporting such incidents, and carrying that out, is at arm’s length from the Speaker of the House.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m grateful to my friend Adrian Rurawhe for outlining that. Of course, with his experience as a former Speaker, I think he would have been able to go through these issues at select committee, which I’m sure they did.

The member does raise a good point. The Speaker has broad discretion in administration and control of the precincts. That’s what clause 55 means. The easiest way to think about it is that the Speaker is, essentially, the Minister of Parliament. They’re in charge of Parliament. They’re like Parliament’s Minister. It’s not a perfect analogy. It’s an inapt analogy, but it’s close enough to the truth.

But, of course, there are a couple of checks on the Speaker just having unlimited power. One is that he’s subject to the control of the House. I’ve been around long enough to see no-confidence motions, and sometimes they get moved and most times they don’t, but they sit on the Order Paper. Members who have been around for a while will remember some of the back and forwards about those. Ultimately, the House is in control of who the Speaker is, so that is actually a really important check.

Then the other thing I would say is that the Speaker has to act reasonably. Why do I say that? Well, there’s quite a long line of case law around this, most notably the Beggs case which has to do with protest and assembly on the forecourt. And, of course, the Speaker, as indeed the whole of Parliament, is subject to the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 by dint of section 3. Is it section 3? Yes, it is. My friend James Meager is nodding at me.

Section 3 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act makes the legislature, the executive, and the judicial branches of Government subject to the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, which means that powers in relation to Parliament have to be exercised in accordance with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, and so that is an important check as well.

I understand where the member’s coming from, but, of course, clause 7 is the substantive change that we’re making around the parliamentary security officers, which is where I think the rubber hits the road on this stuff.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Just in view of the incredibly helpful comments from my colleague the Rt Hon Adrian Rurawhe, and also what the Minister has indicated—and I understand and appreciate the validity and importance of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. What I heard from my colleague was something around due process and the line of communication and direction being really crystal clear and not muddied.

I appreciate these things happen very quickly when they do. I wonder if the Minister can indicate whether he is open-minded about looking at the devil in the detail about how that should happen, so that the reasonableness test—which, we know, is incredibly broad—is not the litmus test, but there is something a little bit more substantial, so that those delegations happen appropriately and everybody is clear about what the rules are and what they do and don’t need to do.

Well, I’m happy to have a look at it. The ship has sailed, somewhat, to be honest, because the committee has reported the bill back unanimously, and, as I understand it, there’s no Amendment Paper from the member in relation to that—but I’m happy to look at it in the future. Until we’ve got evidence that there’s actually a problem, having gone through quite a long process—the gestation of this bill has been many years. It actually spans back to the previous Government. Happy to have a look at it in the future, but I’m not convinced at the moment that there’s actually a problem worth solving.

The question is that the Minister’s amendment to Part 3 set out on Amendment Paper 362 be agreed to.

Amendment agreed to.

Part 3 as amended agreed to.

Part 4 Salaries, allowances, expenses, and services for members and others