Points of Order — Member Conduct—Privilege

Point of order, Mr Speaker. At the beginning of question time yesterday, you indicated that you had considered the matter of David Seymour driving a Land Rover up the front steps of Parliament and had indicated that there was no question of privilege that you could identify at that time. Subsequently, it has now become apparent on the TV news last night that before taking that course of action, David Seymour was twice told that you had specifically said that the Land Rover was not allowed to be driven up the steps of Parliament. He then indicated that he was going to do it anyway, and did it anyway. He then, effectively, made fun of the decision and the ruling that you had taken.

It is well-established practice in this House that making comments about the Speaker and questioning the Speaker’s judgment outside the House is a question of privilege—I know this for a fact because I was referred to the Privileges Committee for doing exactly that—and it seems, therefore, that David Seymour now very much does face a question of privilege. On the TV news last night, it was very clear that he was questioning your decision, that he defied your decision, and, therefore, a question of privilege must arise.

Well, I thank the member for his contribution. I’ve looked extensively and multiple times at the footage that came from TV ONE, I think, and I think, even playing with the volumes and other such, the statement that was made by the organiser of the event, or the person who was driving the Land Rover on the trek, did not reference the Speaker having told them, but did reference security having told them. In the letter that David Seymour provided to me not long after the event, that is the position that he put, recognising that he had, in fact, been told by the security guard that it was the Speaker who had made that decision, and on that basis, I’ve accepted his apology. The question you raise is slightly new and I’ve tested it out today somewhat extensively with the Clerk, and, at this stage, I haven’t decided to proceed with any suggestion of a privilege hearing.

Speaking further to the point of order, Mr Speaker. I think it is important—I understand the distinction that you’ve just drawn there—that all members of Parliament are very clear in their understanding that the security guards here at Parliament operate under your authority, and that for any member of Parliament to not follow instructions from a security guard here at Parliament is directly undermining your authority as the occupant and the employer of those security guards.

That is a very fair point, and I’ve made in my discussion with the House yesterday the clear, I suppose you’d say, support for the particular security officer. He’s been here a long time. He is, you’d say, a person that’s very easy to get along with, but certainly knows his job, and he made a very good decision on the day and most certainly was put into a difficult position. The question comes as to what a privilege case might do, other than reinforce things, and almost inevitably from which case, if it were to be brought, it would result in the request for an apology, which was forthcoming very quickly after the event. But, look, I’ll think further about the points that you have raised today.

Well, a further point of order, Mr Speaker. Just with regard to the very last comment that you made, I think it is important when you’re making decisions on referrals to the Privileges Committee that the last consideration that you raise there is not the consideration that you make. The Privileges Committee has just reported back. The only real remedy is a report where the member will be asked to apologise and there’d be a debate in the House. That is, basically, what the Privileges Committee can decide. Similarly, it would be the case with David Seymour. He has not apologised to the House, he has not apologised to the public; he has only apologised to you, and I think it is very appropriate that the New Zealand public actually sees an apology from a Minister who has clearly broken both the rules of the House and, potentially, the law of the land.

One of the things that’s most interesting about, firstly, your contributions today and the many pieces of advice that I get via the email system is a general view that the Speaker has all-encompassing powers somewhat similar to Henry VIII, and, therefore, everyone’s head is somewhat in a perilous position. That is not the case, as you well know, and what I do have to tell you is that I have not received, as would be the normal case, a letter claiming that a privilege has been breached, stating which points of the Standing Orders that particular claim refers to.

Mr Speaker, I hesitate to do this, but I have to point out that the leader of the Labour Party stood up and misrepresented a television broadcast. He specifically misrepresented the words in it. Now, he either is unable to read the captions at the bottom of the screen or he was deliberately misleading the House about what that says, and I’d put it to you that that actually is a breach of privilege and people are going to be watching very carefully.

The point I made before was that I’d listened to that tape extensively because I’ve got to say that when I first heard it, for whatever reason, I heard, rather than “security”, the word “Speaker”. When you look at it a bit closely, you get the words, so I’m not going to be particularly critical of someone making that distinction. I’ve cleared that distinction up, and we’re now moving on to question No. 1, in the name of Tim van de Molen.