Points of Order — Parliamentary Complex—Use of Facilities

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek to raise a substantive issue with you relating to the order of the House, and I ask that rather than ruling immediately you take the opportunity to reflect on the points that I make, and provide the House with a considered ruling.

Last Friday I received a letter from you advising that you had denied a request from three parties represented in this House to use a room in the parliamentary complex to hear submissions from members of the public on the multiparty inquiry into banking issues. There have been other recent examples of the same issue arising. Although I do not seek to relitigate your ruling, Mr Speaker, I believe that members of this House need some clear guidance on the factors you will take into account in reaching these decisions.

Earlier this year you also denied requests to provide facilities for multiparty events to engage with the public on international aid policy and on youth unemployment. In each case you suggested that one party’s caucus room might be a more appropriate venue. I submit that in each case it would be highly inappropriate to use a particular party’s caucus room, as this would give the impression that, rather than being a genuine multiparty process, these were the internal party processes of one particular party. In this specific example, Mr Speaker, we are seeking to provide a venue for members of the public, banks, and stakeholders to appear on ground that is as neutral as possible, and for them to make their cases as fairly as possible.

Engaging with the public on issues of public importance is a core function of members of Parliament, and is, indeed, vital to the health of our democracy. It is a fact that the Government, by weight of numbers, controls all select committees. We submit that it would not serve our democracy if other venues around the people’s House were prohibited from being used for the proper pursuit of parliamentary business, especially where it is on a multiparty basis and, in this case, where all parties have been invited to participate.

Mr Speaker, I note that a range of functions have been hosted in the complex this year that seem to be of a more social or personal nature. In the past, I have attended meetings in select committee rooms for groups as diverse as, for example, the Parliamentary Network for Nuclear Disarmament, various parliamentary friendship groups, lobby groups hosting briefing sessions, and so forth. If the argument holds for select committee rooms, surely it is even more true for areas of common parliamentary space such as the Legislative Council Chamber.

Forgive my interrupting the member, but at this stage I do not see the point of order that the member is seeking to have me address as Speaker. The matters he has raised are not matters of the order of this House. They are not matters of the parliamentary process. They are matters that, certainly, I as Speaker am very much involved with, and I invite the member to write to me with his concerns, but I cannot address them by way of a point of order. In fact, I probably should have stopped the member a little earlier because it was not strictly a point of order. I accept the sincerity of the way the member is raising the issue, but the correct way to raise it with me is either to come and see me or to write to me again on the matter. But either way, I deal with those matters in my role as landlord, if you like, but not as Speaker and Chair of the parliamentary process here.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. In order to assist in bringing this matter into context, I say that the select committee rooms are rooms for committees of this Parliament. Therefore, it is my view that there is a question of order. I accept that you have a dual role, and your main role in this matter is as chair of the Parliamentary Service Commission, or, effectively, as the Minister responsible. The member, right at the beginning, indicated his request for the use of a select committee room, and I think that is probably a good way to hang that argument. I point out, Mr Speaker, that in the past I have noted that Government members, presumably with your permission, have used parliamentary facilities for multiparty events, and therefore there is a question of equity. Certainly, some announcements between the Māori Party and the Government have been held in the buildings, I note to the Leader of the House. I announced the 1996 Labour Party education policy in the Legislative Council Chamber, and—

I must ask the member to stop. I do not disagree with the arguments members are putting forward about the reasonable use of select committee rooms. The point I am trying to make is that they are not matters I as Speaker can address under the points of order process; they are not matters of the order of this House. There must be no further raising of those matters by way of a point of order. Members are certainly at liberty to raise with me the issue of whether select committee rooms should be used for a multiparty purpose. That is perfectly reasonable. If members wish to question my decision on that issue, there is no problem with that. I have no problem with members questioning my decision and asking me to reconsider, but it cannot be done by way of a point of order, because it has nothing to do with the order of this House. No one has been able to establish that what they are seeking to have me address today has something to do with the order of this House, so I cannot hear any further points of order on that issue.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I want to be helpful. My point is that two parties, three parties, or four parties having a meeting is not a proceeding of Parliament. That is what is different about a select committee, and that is why this matter is not a point of order; it is actually a question of the administration of the buildings. It is not a select committee meeting that is being discussed; it is a meeting of two parties, which is not a parliamentary proceeding.

Mr SPEAKER: I thank the honourable member.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: I stress that I do not want to take more time on this matter, because we have established that it is not a matter that can be handled by way of point of order.

Hon DAVID PARKER: With respect, Mr Speaker, I disagree with the Hon Rodney Hide’s point of order, because what jurisdiction can you have but as Speaker of the House? You do not have any private jurisdiction in respect of the offices that we all occupy; you have that role as Speaker of the House. I accept that these things are normally dealt with in an administrative way that does not take the time of the House, because they are normally non-contentious, but when contention arises, it is in your role as Speaker that you resolve the disagreement. That is why I think my colleague the Hon David Cunliffe was proper to raise the matter in this forum. You might very well, in response, say: “Oh well, there are some points there. Come and see me privately and we’ll resolve them.”, but I do think it is a point of order that can be validly raised here.

I thank members for the genuine way they have raised this issue, but I actually cannot accept the point the member has raised. The Speaker has a number of roles at law, and some of them are not directly associated with the Speaker’s role in presiding over Parliament. The Speaker has a number of lawful roles in relation to the Parliamentary Corporation and all sorts of things to do with the property on the parliamentary precinct, which are not related to the Speaker’s role in the House. That is why the Speaker has a wider range of roles than just being a presiding officer in the House, and points of order can relate only to the role of the Speaker as a presiding officer in the House and matters to do with the parliamentary process. There the matter will be left.

I seek leave to table a copy of your letter of 23 July regarding the use of a select committee room, and, by way of explanation, if I could just briefly mention that in it you—

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table a letter from me on the use of the select committee rooms. Is there any objection to that course being followed? There is no objection.

Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.