Sitting date: 23 Oct 2025

Part 7 Parliamentary security

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members, we come now to Part 7. This is the debate on clauses 162 to 190B, "Parliamentary security". The question is that Part 7 stand part.

GLEN BENNETT (Labour): Kia ora, Madam Chair. The Minister did allude to this a bit earlier, and again, we don't want to labour this, but we want to spend a moment just reflecting. This is around parliamentary security. And again I, without expecting the Minister to do everything I say, but you know, I'd like him to explain a little bit what this is about, because I think what we currently have and what this part will do is quite a major change in terms of parliamentary security.

My first question, just to open up, is around Subpart 1, so clause 162 to Subpart 1, just around the actual definition of a security guard. I just want to seek clarification that they are specifically employed by Parliamentary Services, because I know in the past, for example, an electorate office out in the provinces or out around the country, there have been moments when there has been red flag issues and obviously there's been security things put in place, but actually having a security guard, for example, Armourguard or others for, you know, a set number of days or for a week because of something that's been heightened in that community.

So my question to the Minister is just to clarify that when we're actually talking specifically—again, Subpart 1—about the actual definition of a security officer, that they are specifically employed by Parliamentary Services. Or does that go beyond it to contracted Armourguard-type of services?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Leader of the House): I'm advised it does not include contractors; it applies to people employed by Parliament. The member Glen Bennett makes a good point that this is a change, and it is largely to clarify the law and make sure we have a modern approach to parliamentary security. It's modelled on the Courts Security Act, so the parliamentary security officers—who do a very good job may I say—will be similar to those of court security officers, who if you think about it are the other branch of Government, the judicial branch—they play a similar role in relation to that. The bill gives parliamentary security officers statutory powers of consent, search, denial of entry, temporary seizure of specified items, and temporary detention. The powers apply in the parliamentary precincts, parliamentary meetings outside the precincts—so, for example, sometimes select committees travel and do submissions in hotels or community halls; actually I think, probably, we should do a little bit more of that to be honest—and electorate and community offices. Of course, if MPs do travel for those, it tends to be—you know, by definition it's not Parliament, it's not the parliamentary precincts, and so because it's the sort of everyday, run-of-the-mill place, it makes sure that if there is security applied there, then those powers apply.

It also gives security officers immunity for the appropriate exercise of their functions and powers. It's quite interesting: security officers here currently lack those statutory powers and immunities. They rely on the common law and the rights of an occupier under the Trespass Act 1980. I think we would all agree that parliamentary security here does an excellent job, and it is really important that they have the appropriate powers in order to make sure that people who work in this building—it's not about MPs to be honest; far more people who are not MPs work here than are actual MPs, so it's more about the staff.

We also need to make sure that Parliament is as accessible as possible. You know, I for one think it is a fantastic thing that it is so easy to visit our Parliament and it's free, and you should never be charged to come to Parliament. And as long as you're not carrying things that you shouldn't be carrying, you can walk in, sit up and watch question time or you can watch the debates, and you can wander around and you can visit your MP. I mean, I've been lucky enough to travel to other parliaments around the world—sometimes even when I'm being a tourist in my own time, I've travelled to other parliaments; it's a slightly sad thing to admit—other parliaments are not like that. They're not. The House of Commons in the UK, it's like getting into Fort Knox, which is sad but it's the reality. And there are other legislatures and congresses and houses of representatives which are all but impossible to visit as a tourist or even probably an everyday citizen. That is a sad reality, and I hope we never get to that point in New Zealand. But part of making sure we never get to that point is making sure there's appropriate security, so that's what this section is about.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. I just have another question for the Leader of the House regarding this section. I'm looking at the bold part of clause 172A to about 175, and I think that's to do with a definition of a "detected item". Correct me if I'm wrong; it could be something that I missed here. Would the Leader of the House be able to just clarify what a detected item is, or is a detected item based on the four possible processes and how the detected item needs to be surrendered is very much on the item itself? That's kind of the first clarification.

The second clarification around a detected item is: does a detected item, in order for it to be handed over to the officer on reasonable grounds mean that the item itself, for example, may need to be about to commit or have committed or has the potential to commit or if an offence is considered dangerous? So, yeah, there isn't a specific definition I can see on what a detected item is and the different range it could be treated.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair. Look, I'm going to ask another—[Microphone feedback] Oh, goodness me. I'd like to ask a question in relation to security, again, in Part 7 of this bill. My question is really thinking about the amazing job that our parliamentary security officers do. They have a tough job in what is a really changed environment, particularly in the last three or four years, in terms of some of the risks that are presenting not just to MPs but to other people in the general public who want to come into Parliament. They have an amazing ability to detect and act, and we know that the existing provisions under common law, potentially, compromise their ability to deal with serious incidents, risks that would disrupt Parliament, that disrupt the running of Government. Though parliamentary agencies and members continue to advocate for Parliament's accessibility—and there is clear feedback, we know, from public engagement that that should continue—we know that that physical accessibility needs to be balanced with security and safety concerns.

We know, as the Minister has pointed out, that the New Zealand Parliament provides more physical access to the public than many, many overseas parliaments, and we do not want to lose that. But its security arrangements are, really, way out of step with our international counterparts. We know, from the review of parliamentary security, that staff regularly have to manage irate, threatening, and problematic individuals—or, even, groups—and they currently lack the legislative power to respond effectively, safely, and efficiently. They largely depend upon the police to be able to be here, and we see that police do come in here at those times. The review recommended that our parliamentary security officers be provided with legislative powers of detention as soon as practicable.

My question, really, to the Minister is in relation to what training and support will be provided to our parliamentary security officers? If we are providing these additional powers, which I understand is the ability to detain people, they would have the ability to lay their hands on someone, to handcuff them, and to hold them until police arrived. That puts a number of health and safety risks upon the parliamentary security officer. We know, from police experience, that just simply the act of arresting somebody can result in physical injuries for both the arresting officer and the person being arrested. Those things are never as straightforward as you might think they are.

There are a number of injuries, whether it be a dislocated shoulder, an injured finger, other scratching; there are a number of things that could go on if we are expecting our parliamentary security officers to step in and physically put their hands on someone. I think that New Zealanders would like to know that, if we are providing this additional power—which we're not arguing with; we think that there needs to be an increase of security here—that those front-line workers who are putting themselves on the line, what training will they be provided to deal with situations that could be volatile and dangerous?

Secondly, what support—additional to that training—will be provided? Because we know that if someone has been assaulted or abused, that that weighs upon a worker in the days and weeks after the incident has occurred. We know very well most of our parliamentary security staff here as our colleagues and friends, and we would like to be reassured that there is a plan in place to make sure that they are safe at work and that sufficient consideration has gone into how this will play out for their work safety on a day-to-day basis. I'll be interested to know the Minister's response to those questions.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Leader of the House): I need to clarify my answer from a few minutes ago in relation to the contractor point. The answer is that clause 136(1)(b) makes it clear that there can be contractors appointed if the chief executive considers it necessary and desirable, but they have to be qualified and trained to the equivalent standards. So, sorry about that.

Members raised a couple of other really good points. I thank them for that. In relation to Mr Xu-Nan's point around detected items, any item found by a parliamentary security officer during a search, the security officer can ask to examine it and determine such matters such as whether it may have been used for an offence, for example, or is dangerous. It's slightly convoluted to get there, but, in a way that he's become known for, he's managed to find a tricky section of the tricky clause, and the references for the members notification are clauses 172A(2) and 173(1)(b) and 173(1)(c). So that I think deals with that.

Miss Andersen makes, I think, a really good point around quite broad powers given to security officers. The section is modelled on the Courts Security Act. So, broadly, with some modifications for the parliamentary environment, the powers of security officers will be the same as those of court security officers. I can't exactly remember when the Courts Security Act was passed, but no doubt the courts went through a similar exercise to what Parliament's gone through, which is realising that there needed to be a bit more statutory tramlines and, you know, rules around security at courts. So this brings Parliament into line with that, which I think is wholly appropriate. I'm advised that there is already training and there will continue to be training for security officers who are here at Parliament, who, as the member says, do a great job.

I would also draw, just more broadly, while we're talking about this part, on some of the quite careful drafting that's been gone through in relation to these powers. So it's power to use reasonable force, but then there are a variety of checks and balances in the section as well. So, for example, clause 190B, the "Chief executive must report annually on the exercise of specified powers"—parliamentary security officers must report the exercise of certain powers; powers are not generally applicable if the police is involved. So, yes, there are powers around detention and reasonable searches and things like that—they're all there for good reasons—but there are also checks and balances in place as well. I think that's wholly appropriate.

INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): Thank you, Madam Chair. This question is really for listeners at home who might be wondering how this new legislation is going to impact their ability to protest and what the lines are there. I refer to the Minister's previous comments about the areas adjacent to Parliament—in fact, he mentioned a couple of watering holes. I'm wondering, what is a test for adjacency—that is going to have practical implications when it comes to electorate offices? There are some things around pavements and footpaths and so on, but is it feasible that if there was a protest or something where the centre of action that contained threat was at Parliament and it spilled over and, you know, went to some of those watering holes, would a parliamentary security officer potentially have, on reasonable grounds, the ability to intervene if it was the same kaupapa, if you like?

The other one is the question about reasonable grounds, which is a well-recognised legal test. But I would ask the Minister to consider how that interplays with the powers that are invested in the Speaker that we discussed previously, because I had asked if there could be some kind of clarification around process, and I think the Minister thought I meant through the legislative drafting, but, actually, it was more of a procedural thing. My question is, without a clear process of the Speaker using his or her powers through the chief executive or others—the decisions that a security guard believes that they are making on reasonable grounds, which has a legal objectivity element to it—what is the interplay if the Speaker has given a direction that has not gone through a process that involves the chief executive or if there isn't, kind of, a clear process?

I'm thinking here about both the ability of the members of the public to protest in a strong way, but also security officers having clarity about what is reasonable grounds, because the Minister's mentioned the safeguards in a retrospective element, which is annual reporting, and so on. These are decisions that have to be made in very quick times—split seconds—by individuals weighing all these things up.

Again, they're not conceptual or imaginary because the very vexed questions that led to this legislation, in my view, were probably what we saw on the steps of Parliament and the lines that were crossed. There isn't a single view in Aotearoa New Zealand about how those lines were crossed. Many people had many different views about what was and wasn't appropriate. I think most people would agree that burning down the children's playground was not appropriate.

It is so important to have clarity, and I'd just like to get an understanding from the Minister about that reasonableness test. Should it be considered alone, or how does it interplay with the Speaker's powers? Would, for example, a security officer be able to rely on action taken by the Speaker? Presumably, if it was pursuant to a recognised process, that would be fine, but where the Speaker has just said something and then that influences a security guard who may or may not have reasonable grounds, will that Speaker's direction form part of the reasonableness objective test legally? It is quite a technical question, but it has real-life implications for when people protest and for the very difficult job that our security officers have to have in making judgments in the moment.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Leader of the House): The member makes good points, but if I could summarise what is reasonable, the answer is: it depends. That's the beauty of the word "reasonable", and it's why it appears multiple times in the statute books and throughout the common law, because what is reasonable in the circumstances is fact specific, and it's impossible, by definition almost, to give a definition. If that makes—yeah, for me it works.

Historically, the common law has talked about "the man on the Clapham omnibus", it's probably inapplicable to New Zealand—the Karori trolleybus or electric bus these days—what that person thinks is reasonable is the test, and it depends. The short answer is it depends. It's impossible to judge in advance. Yes, it is true that people have to make decisions. That's life. What's important is that there are guard rails and tram lines in place to guide that decision-making process and then, also, that there are checks and balances afterwards.

In relation to the other point the member makes, parliamentary service officers can exercise powers only in the parliamentary precinct, a place where select committees are meeting, electorate offices where the chief executive has authorised it. Beyond that place, police have jurisdiction and the necessary power. To put this into real terms, when you walk into the gates down the bottom and you walk into Parliament, you're subject to Parliament's jurisdiction. When you walk outside and go down Lambton Quay, which is a public footpath or public road, the ordinary laws of the land apply—well, they apply here as well, but you're not part of the parliamentary precinct at that point.

Ingrid Leary: Madam Chair!

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I was just wondering if the Rt Hon Adrian Rurawhe—you were both standing.

Rt Hon ADRIAN RURAWHE (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair. I just wanted to add, on this section, that the committee considered a number of things. There was, as the bill was originally drafted, a procedure in there that required that when an object was removed from someone, they had to be detained. The committee decided that we wanted to give the security officers as many options as possible. For example, if that object was brought to Parliament unknowingly and not without intention of using it as a as a weapon, the danger was then considered to be over and detaining the person wasn't necessary, particularly if they decided they were leaving. So rather than bring police into it, the committee felt that that could be the end of that situation.

It's relevant to the question that my colleague Lawrence Xu-Nan asked, as well. We considered a lot of things and decided that the common law that the security officers currently operate under just wasn't enough for 2025, and that it was important that we had a set of processes, that we had a set of rules that they could follow—and, as the Minister pointed out, in a reasonable way, whatever that looks like. I think it's important that this House recognise the gravity of some of the situations that our security people become involved with. I think we owe it to the safe operation of our security and of this Parliament that we give them all the tools that they actually need.

DAVID MacLEOD (National—New Plymouth): I move, That debate on this question now close.

A party vote was called for on the question, That debate on this question now close.

Ayes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Noes 49

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.

Motion agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Minister's amendments to Part 7 set out on Amendment Paper 362 be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

Part 7 as amended agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members, the time has come for me to report progress. Just for the House's record, I'm going to do something a little unusual here. I'm going to ask one of the members to report back to progress to me because our other Speaker's still in select committee.

House resumed.

© Scoop Media