Sitting date: 9 Oct 2025 
PARLIAMENT BILL
Second Reading

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Deputy Leader of the House) on behalf of the Leader of the House: I seek leave to present a legislative statement on the Parliament Bill.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Leave has been sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: I move, That the Parliament Bill be now read a second time.

I welcome the report of the Parliament Bill Committee, which was established with the singular purpose of examining this bill. In the six months of its existence, the committee gave this bill a really good going over. In doing so, the committee consciously pursued a consensus-based approach to what is a significant part of our constitutional framework. All the committee's recommendations are unanimous, and I thank the committee's members for their approach and diligent work on the bill under the guidance of the chairperson, the Rt Hon Adrian Rurawhe.

The bill, essentially, brings together the statutory framework for the operation of Parliament, its privileges and powers, remuneration, and support for members, and the agencies that enable the institution of Parliament to function. It combines the four separate Acts that currently set out these arrangements.

Aside from this consolidation, the bill makes some policy changes to strengthen the independence of Parliament, setting out a funding model for the parliamentary agencies so their appropriations are commended by the House rather than determined by the executive, providing a statutory process for security arrangements in the parliamentary precincts, making the system for funding members' work-related expenses clearer and more family friendly, and updating and aligning provisions relating to the functions and staffing of the parliamentary agencies.

The committee received 62 submissions, and several of them dealt with constitutional matters, as you would expect for a bill of this nature. Some went well beyond the content of the bill, to call for substantive amendments to the Official Information Act 1982, broader reform of the Citizens Initiated Referenda Act 1993, the establishment of a parliamentary budget office, and an increase in the number of members of Parliament. The committee heard these points but reached the view that even if the committee had the power to recommend amendments along these lines, such major changes would require separate policy development processes, rather than being added to the bill at the select committee stage.

Aside from those broader issues, the main focus of the submissions was on the bill's provisions for parliamentary security. As introduced, these provisions were based on the Court Security Act 1999. The bill gives parliamentary security officers statutory powers of consent, search, denial of entry, temporary seizure of specified items, and temporary detention subject to limitations. These statutory powers could be exercised in the parliamentary precinct, at select committee meetings outside the precinct, and in limited circumstances at the electorate and community offices of MPs. These provisions are intended to ensure Parliament's safety and security are adequately protected, including a capacity to deal with serious threats to the safety of MPs, staff, and visitors.

At the same time, the aim is to uphold Parliament's current level of openness and accessibility to the public as far as practicable in light of the threat assessment at any given time. A number of submitters were concerned about the introduction of coercive powers that could affect people engaging with Parliament and urged that such powers not be conferred, or that they be exercised with great caution. Some submitters suggested that a better policy approach would be to maintain a permanent police presence at Parliament.

I note the committee's finding that the current lack of statutory powers to support actions taken by parliamentary security officers could place people in the precinct at risk. The bill provides a clear framework for parliamentary security officers to screen for security issues and respond in the first instance. The police will continue to liaise with the Parliamentary Service, assess the threat environment, and deploy as needed.

While recommending that the bill's provisions relating to parliamentary security should proceed, the committee expressed its strong expectation that the current level of freedom to use and protest lawfully on the Parliament grounds will continue, and I share this view.

The committee recommended several amendments to the security provisions. A couple of areas that I would highlight are the strengthening of qualification and training requirements for parliamentary security officers, and new provisions relating to oversight and reporting on the use of security powers. In terms of the qualifications and training of people employed as parliamentary security officers, the committee recommended that they be required to complete an approved training course developed by the Parliamentary Service, in consultation with the Ministry of Justice and Police. Amendments also require an equivalent standard of qualification and training for any person appointed as a parliamentary security officer who is not an employee of the service.

The committee heard submissions calling for stronger reporting requirements on the exercise of statutory powers by parliamentary security officers and recommended that the bill be amended to set out reporting requirements to this end. Proposed new clause 190A requires officers to report to the chief executive within three working days when certain coercive powers are used, summarising the circumstances and reasons for their exercise. It applies to the use of powers to detain or handcuff persons and to the use of reasonable force. Under the bill, the chief executive will be responsible for reporting to the Speaker and the Parliamentary Service Commission on the exercise of parliamentary security powers, just as for other operations of the service.

In terms of public accountability, new clause 190B requires the annual report of the Parliamentary Service to include information about the exercise of specified powers by parliamentary security officers.

Another point to note is that under the Ombudsmen Act 1975, an ombudsman can receive complaints about and investigate actions of the Parliamentary Service. That's already the case. When the bill is passed, it would then apply to the exercise of powers under the bill's provision relating to parliamentary security.

The bill incorporates the Members of Parliament (Remuneration and Services) Act 2013, primarily in Part 4 and Schedule 3. That Act provides for remuneration, funding, and services for MPs, and sets out travel services for their family members. The bill largely reproduces the legislative effect of the Act, with some policy changes—for example, the bill sets out guiding principles for the use by members and eligible candidates of authorised funding and services. It also gives greater flexibility for members' travel services so that a caregiver can accompany a member's dependent family members to Wellington. Another change is to include a new definition of "adult dependant", to cover a family member of a member, who is over 18 but who by reason of a disability is dependent on the member.

Several submitters called for greater disclosure of members' spending. The committee adopted a proposal from the New Zealand Law Society for the Speaker to have authority to set the disclosure requirements relating to categories of expenses and services that are determined by the Speaker. This would be in addition to the reporting that is already required for specific types of travel and accommodation expenses that members incur.

Part 8 of the bill amends the Public Finance Act 1989 to establish a model so that the House can determine the funding of the parliamentary agencies similar to that used for deciding the appropriation of the Offices of Parliament. These provisions are intended to enable parliamentary funding to be determined in a way that upholds the House's right to control its own affairs while also being fiscally responsible. The committee agreed it is constitutionally appropriate for the legislator to determine its funding levels and allocations for itself rather than leaving it to the executive, and did not recommend any amendments to Part 8. In its commentary, the committee recommended that the Standing Orders Committee consider how to reflect this new process in the House's rules.

Finally, an important feature of the bill is Part 2, which incorporates the Parliamentary Privileges Act 2014. The bill as introduced did not alter policy settings in this area, but included parliamentary privilege in the bill so that legislation relevant to the operation of Parliament is in one place. The committee received submissions that sought some quite profound alterations to how the law provides for parliamentary privilege. However, in supporting the incorporation of the 2014 Act into the bill, the committee reiterated that no changes were proposed to the substance of parliamentary privilege.

Again I thank all members of the committee for their thoughtful consideration of the bill, and I commend the Parliament Bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Just a procedural issue: that legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website. The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you, Madam Speaker. There's not a lot of detail I can add after that comprehensive speech by the Minister, which quite accurately went over the main changes and initiatives of this bill, so I will keep my comments relatively general.

The first comment I would make is actually about procedure, and what an excellent procedure this was for a bill that is clearly part of our constitutional framework. It was a special select committee, ably chaired by Adrian Rurawhe, and also it was not done at pace. It was not a hurried piece of legislation, but it was very well prepared over a number of years, and it was well formed when it came to the Parliament Bill Committee. Some of it has been improved in that process. That is how constitutional law should be done. Everyone knew that it was coming and what it was going to look like. I would suggest that whenever we look at matters which strike to the constitution of our country, that is the approach that we should take, and, sadly, it hasn't necessarily been the approach of this Government to date.

The access of the public to Parliament and parliamentarians is one of the defining features of our democracy, and we should absolutely hold it dear and treasure it. But we have seen over the few years that risks to MPs have increased, and it is necessary to give powers to security staff, employees of Parliamentary Service and, in some cases, others to address those risks.

I think it was a very useful process in select committee to go through in some detail the nature of the powers and just a real caution as to what degree and how often they are exercised. Those powers, for example, of a security guard to detain someone or take them out of the gallery if they're being disruptive or to exclude them from the premises if they're causing undue harm are entirely appropriate, but we absolutely want to know how and why those powers are exercised. That reporting was an important part of the improvements, along with, I must say, a number of other what could be called tweaks.

A further major part of this is the way in which Parliament is funded. Parliament's finances, as we would all know, are under strain. This place is absolutely fundamental to trust in our democracy. Some of us in the House will know that the number of submissions being made on bills has increased and the work associated with it has increased as well and the amount of work that Governments are pushing through has increased. What we don't want is an under-resourced Parliament where the quality of the lawmaking and the quality of the interactions of the public with this place are at risk. If that trust is eroded, then our democracy is waning. We remain a high-trust democracy, and we need to protect that.

The change in the funding model, which essentially gives this House control over its own funding—in the same way as the Ombudsman is funded, and the like—is absolutely a step in the right direction. We do have a constitutional conundrum in that this House is also dominated by the executive, but I'm hopeful that this change will bring an improvement and that the executive will adhere to the spirit of this change and not seek to use its parliamentary majority to exert an inappropriate influence.

The only other thing I really wanted to say before I close, and I won't speak much longer, is that we did have a discussion—perhaps it's a interesting day to have to mention this discussion—on the role of the Treaty of Waitangi. There was a member who suggested that perhaps we should somewhere in the Parliament Act recognise the Treaty of Waitangi and perhaps tikanga. Now, that didn't happen, and I can see why. The reason why was actually well articulated by advisers—that is that it is the executive who is bound by the Treaty, not Parliament. The relationship is between the Crown—that is to say, the Ministers of the Crown—and Māori, rather than between Parliament, the legislature, and Māori.

It wasn't constitutionally appropriate, but at the same time the select committee report noted that "There is work being done to develop a te Ao Māori strategy.", and I think that that is appropriate. Obviously, fitting tikanga within this House in a way which we all agree about would be a great thing, and so let's hope we can get there in the not too distant future.

With that, can I thank my colleagues from around the House for the work on the Parliament Bill in select committee. It's a significant improvement and it makes what we do here a lot more accessible and understandable, and that's a good thing. Kia ora. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Democracy comes at a price, and it is a price worth paying. That price also includes resourcing our Parliamentary institution, which in and of itself supports us to do our mahi to be effective voices for the communities that we represent. This Parliament Bill, I think, is a step in the right direction when it comes to the changes that we are making, in a cross-party spirit, to mechanisms in which parliamentary services in the Office of the Clerk are funded, for example, and how their budget works. I want to mihi to the work that Parliamentary Service does, that the Office of the Clerk does, to actually uphold our democracy and to enable us to be effective representatives. Without them, we wouldn't be able to do our mahi.

In my personal opinion, what I have observed is that with a growing population, with growing complex issues in our communities, the current mechanisms that are in place to ensure that parliamentary services and the Office of the Clerk are adequately resourced to, for example, ensure that we meet the needs of our communities at the select committee, are just insufficient. I'm really, really stoked that we've got to the second reading and that we're able to progress new processes that will ensure that those funding mechanisms are less in the hands of the executive and more in the hands of the rest of Parliament.

I want to thank submitters, who canvassed quite a range of issues, including access to information and issues around security and constitutional questions. I want to also thank the Parliament Bill Committee for adequately addressing concerns that the Green Party initially had in relation to the issues around oversight and reporting of the use of the new search, seizure, and detention powers. Those additional mechanisms include the requirement to report the uses of detention, force, and handcuffs to the Chief Executive of the Parliamentary Service within three days; the requirement for Parliamentary Service to report on the number of uses of detention, force, handcuffs, seizures, and removal of persons in Parliamentary Service's annual report; the requirement for an approved training course for security officers, to be consulted on with Police and the Ministry of Justice; the requirement for identity cards held and presented by parliamentary security officers to include name, role, photograph, and unique ID number; and other measures.

Those are important not just to give the public certainty that these new powers will be used adequately but also, I think, in my view, to protect the security officers who are there to keep us and the public safe. There will be a greater level of trust from the public when we increase that level of accountability. That in and of itself, I hope, would make those interactions that security has with the public a lot smoother, which is what I would hope we move towards and continue aspiring towards.

The bill also continue advances other changes, and, in my view, some of the changes that I think are really important are also around the support that we provide for parliamentarians with adult dependents. That's really important. I think Parliament should be a place where all types of families should be accommodated, and that no parliamentarians should feel like they have to leave their family behind when they enter into this space. I think that's also important.

The bill continues to work to address issues around what we do to support families of deceased members. I think that's also a really important situation. It's important that we canvassed this at the select committee stage because, at the end of the day, these incidents may be rare, but when they do happen they can have a huge impact on the family of parliamentarians.

Ultimately—and I won't to take too long in this speech because, as others have noted, we have reached a really constructive cross-party consensus on how to move forward—I hope that that very same spirit of cross-party consensus gets taken into the new processes that this bill will enable, to ensure that we have a well-functioning, well-resourced democracy, because, at the end of the day, that's what our constituents deserve. They deserve select committee processes that can accommodate hundreds of thousands of submissions. When that does happen, it's because we're pushing through bills that have reached the members of the public, that have garnered interest from the public, and the systems that are in place to ensure that we MPs canvass the views of the public are well-resourced. Then we don't have to make as many compromises as we have done due to the lack of resourcing in recent times.

The Green Party commends this bill to the House and thanks to the committee for addressing some of the concerns we had at the first reading. We look forward to the bill progressing to the next stages.

CAMERON LUXTON (ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I, too, was on the committee that heard this bill, and I would like to just pass my acknowledgments on to the Rt Hon Adrian Rurawhe, who did a very impressive job chairing, assisted by the Hon Scott Simpson in the deputy chair. It was a masterclass in the way to run a committee.

This bill had many people submitting on deep constitutional issues, and that was an enjoyable experience for a new MP, such as myself, to be a part of. It was an incredibly important piece of work for this Parliament. The security, you guys are doing a great job, and I think we really did get some good wins in there for democracy. Thank you.

ANDY FOSTER (NZ First): Madam Speaker, thank you. Ka mihi ahau ki te Whare Pāremata. We are all privileged to sit here in this House of Parliament. It's a place of mana, it's a place with its own tikanga, and it's a place that needs to be treated with respect. We are put here to represent the people of New Zealand, and I think that is part of what this place owes respect to, because we are here to represent the people of New Zealand.

It's also a place of mana. If I look around the walls and look at the names on those walls, where we know that New Zealanders in times past fought, suffered, shed blood, and sometimes died—many times died—for their country and for democracy, it is this place, more than any other place in our country, which represents that democracy.

It was a privilege to represent New Zealand First in the Parliament Bill Committee, and it's a real privilege to finally—because it's been quite a while that we've been waiting to get to the second reading—stand and speak in the second reading. It's an important bill. It's a bill about the operation of this House of Parliament. I just want to thank all the parties around this Parliament for what was a very collaborative process. There was a lot of to and fro; we built consensus through that, and I think what that represents is that we all recognise that this is about how the Parliament runs, regardless of who sits where—which parties are here, which parties aren't here. It's about how Parliament runs, and we do that as best we possibly can.

I think the select committee, under the able chairmanship of the former Speaker, of course, Adrian Rurawhe—thank you—recognise that this is something which is supposed to last for a long time. It's been worked on under this Government and two previous Governments. It's not a constitutional bill—people have asked that, a little bit; although there is one constitutional aspect I will touch on—but it is about the practical operation of Parliament.

We've heard a fair bit about the consolidation of four Acts and putting them all in one place—the modernisation of those Acts. What the bill does is it makes the legislation about Parliament more accessible than it is if you've got to go to four different Acts. What it does is it addresses issues, particularly around parliamentary security. Look, I think we should take great pride in this—and we've already heard a little bit about it: we're one of the most open, accessible Parliaments in the world, and also one of the most accessible groups of parliamentarians. That's something which we should be treasuring and that is not something which we should take for granted. We've only got to look at the incidents over the last week or so, particularly around our party leader's home, and say that that is not something which we can take for granted and is something which we need to treasure and to look after.

I want to pick up one thing from the commentary on page three. It says, "the bill aims to maintain Parliament's current level of accessibility as far as is practicable We are proud of the openness of Parliament's grounds, and the ability of New Zealanders to protest peacefully on the lawn." That's an important part of our democracy: the freedom to be able to speak one's views. I just want to say one thing I was proud of the last Parliament for. After the parliamentary protest, you'll remember that the then Speaker, Trevor Mallard, said, "Look, I want to go and look at potentially putting a lot greater security around the parliamentary grounds, and potentially make it harder to get in." As the Mayor of Wellington at the time, I was going, "Oh, no, don't do that." But the Parliament—his parliamentary colleagues—also said, "Don't do that." It is really, really important that people are able to access these grounds and this building. That's very important.

But back to the security issue: not everybody who comes to this place comes in a way which is orderly and helpful. Our security staff are part of the wonderful, welcoming face of this Parliament, along with the education team, the Chamber officers, and the Clerks. They do a fantastic job in being the friendly face of our Parliament, but, sometimes, they need powers when somebody is not behaving the way that they need to do, when they are not showing respect not only to this this Parliament but also to the people that visit this Parliament.

I can remember, in the Legislative Council Chamber, one elderly lady standing there with a protest sign. Winston Peters was speaking in his roles as both, at that time, the Deputy Prime Minister and also as the Minister of Foreign Affairs. All the dignitaries were there, all the ambassadors were there, and one person, because security couldn't just say, "Hey, we're going to take you aside, move you away," actually disrupted that whole operation for quite some period of time. That's something that our security staff need the ability to be able to say, respectfully: "We need you to move away so that Parliament and the people who are in this place can get on with doing their jobs." And, of course, we had the situation just now—I'm not sure whether the parliamentary security's powers actually help there or don't help there.

But, anyway, this bill gives some powers for our security team to at times prevent access, to remove objects, to remove people, or, occasionally, to detain people. But, as I think we have already heard—and it gives some necessary immunities. The committee made some amendments because we want to be very, very clear that there is additional training for those staff—because that was something that came through the submissions—and also, if there's an exercise of any of those powers, particularly issues where force is used or detention is used, the officer involved reports those within three days, and also—second tier—that the Chief Executive of the Parliamentary Service reports those in their annual report. Those are really, really important. Those are new clauses 190A and 190B, which were added by the select committee.

There was also a lot of focus on MPs' expenses, and we had a number of submitters who of course wanted to get stuck into the details of MPs' expenses. I don't think they actually realised that they are published every quarter anyway, and, by crikey, I think we all know that the finance team are assiduous in pursuing every single receipt that we've got or haven't got. I think the people who pay our wages should take some comfort that those expenses are well reported, well scrutinised, and well looked after.

Tom Rutherford: Where was this yesterday? We needed this yesterday.

ANDY FOSTER: Oh, look, I'm sorry, Tom. Well, I'm going to come to yesterday, very shortly.

Tom Rutherford: Oh, make him stop!

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Do you want me to change the clock?

ANDY FOSTER: Well, Tom Rutherford clearly does. It also was very, very good to be able to provide for greater support of families of parliamentarians, especially where an MP is a carer for an adult dependent rather than just a child dependent. That's really, really important.

We had quite a bit of discussion about the Official Information Act (OIA), and, actually, what was reassuring is that while there was a lot of focus on MPs' expenses, there was also some interest in the agencies of Parliament. The report covers that, saying while they don't operate under the OIA, they operate under a "Protocol for the release of information from the parliamentary information, communication and security systems". We considered that, but said that is outside of scope.

There's one constitutional matter which is in there, in my view, and that is that Parliament is supposed to scrutinise the executive. However, at the moment, the budget for the agencies of Parliament—the Office of the Clerk and Parliamentary Services—is set by the executive, not by Parliament. This legislation changes that and sets up a process so that the Parliament itself says, "This is the resource we need.", and recommends that to the Governor-General. What it doesn't do is say, "Parliament, you can sort out the buildings.", because there's a lot of expense in those.

We considered the idea of setting up a parliamentary budget office, and there was communication to the Minister of Finance, who is giving that consideration. I think that's potentially a really exciting proposition, because it means that we, as political parties, can't just charge off and say, "Hey, we're going to promise the world." Our voters should know what the world is going to cost. I think that's really, really important.

Now, I do want to touch on something else, one final point. We had some interesting submissions, notably, I remember, from the Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey Palmer, and he said we're all far too busy. He said we should have more MPs, and I actually challenged him on that and said, "Well, don't you think we could actually get more out of our MPs if we operated more efficiently and our processes were potentially more efficient?" It strikes me, having considered the way in which we operate, particularly in the committee of the whole House at times, that we could be a hell of a lot more efficient in that particular situation.

Suze Redmayne: Ha!

ANDY FOSTER: Suze Redmayne is saying to sit down in this particular case. But if it had been yesterday, it wouldn't have been "Sit down", it would have been "Spend as much time as you possibly can on your feet to try and take as long as possible." That is not good use of our time. That's something which we should reflect on. I thought Sir Geoffrey Palmer raised a good point, and we should consider that. I commend this bill to the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The next call is a split call.

CELIA WADE-BROWN (Green): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It's really interesting to hear the ways where the often unsung heroes of making democracy work are recognised in this bill, whether it's people with legislative experience, the wonderful people who when you've forgotten your papers come trotting in with them, when you've left your phone under the desk, or all of those—and they seem like minor matters, but without that support it would be really difficult for the 100-plus MPs to work.

I do think that the role of elected members is a complex one and we are reasonably remunerated, and we have reasonable expenses. I think it would be useful if people realised how transparent those are, and I agree with my colleague Andy Foster on that. We were concerned that there might have been some over-the-top security provisions in this Parliament bill, so originally, we were, as a party, prepared to support it to select committee. There have been a number of amendments that have soothed some of those issues, but I also reflect that the good outcomes and the improvements have come from being able to take the time. I think there's a number of pieces of legislation that would hugely benefit from a more considered approach. I'm not saying that everything would come out with cross-partisan support, but at least we wouldn't be almost pretending there's no disagreement because things go through so fast in a number of instances.

Then perfectly reasonable member's bills—I was so looking forward to supporting Mr Brewer's life jackets bill. I've been looking forward to it for weeks, but we haven't done it. So I do think there are some changes to processes, particularly—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Mr Brewer couldn't possibly disagree with that.

CELIA WADE-BROWN: —particularly to do with raising the role of member's bills. And we are a Parliament as well as having an executive Government, and sometimes we forget the opportunity for people to bring up things that are important but maybe haven't hit the priorities of their party that day.

Our committee services at the moment are under huge pressure, and again, this is one of the issues of ramming through legislation too fast. We end up having to select just a few submissions in some cases, or we have to break into subcommittees where actually all of us on a committee would like to hear more of the submissions. And we curtail our ability to deliberate, especially when select committees are always squeezed into that 8 a.m. to 9 a.m. and that hour at lunchtime, and you can barely get a doughnut at Coppers in your breaks. So that's pretty tough.

I just want to say, though, there are improvements, but one of the things that submitters to select committees have wanted is for the committee staff to be able to get back to them and tell them what happened next. They don't always expect us to have taken on their issue, or they realise that they are putting in a contrary view, but then they never know when the legislation is coming up, what's been agreed, has there been an amendment, and so on. Now, at the moment we cannot expect our committee staff to have the time to be able to do that.

So I will support this bill on behalf of the Green Party, but unless there is some budget allocated for improvements to parliamentary services and the support of the staff, we will not, as a country, be as well served as we should be.

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (Minister for ACC): Well, thank you, Madam Speaker. I'm pleased to speak in this second reading debate on the Parliament Bill. I had the privilege of being the deputy chair of the special select committee that was formed to consider this bill, the Parliament Bill Committee, under the very capable chairmanship of the former Speaker, the Rt Hon Adrian Rurawhe.

No matter what we as members of Parliament or as citizens or members of the public might think about our Parliament, we are privileged as New Zealanders to live in a functioning, stable, participatory democracy. Over the years, of the 150 or so years of unbroken, stable political democracy, participatory democracy, in New Zealand, society has changed, attitudes have changed, and so too must this institution of Parliament evolve, change, modify, and reform itself.

The special select committee received 62 submissions from some notable New Zealanders who had given some of the constitutional, weighty matters great thought and great consideration. It was actually a real privilege to sit and listen to those contributions. Ultimately, the recommendations that the committee has made were unanimously agreed by members of Parliament representing every party in this current Parliament. I think that's a good thing, because this is a Parliament that does need to change, evolve, modernise, and ensure that it stays relevant in functioning—how it's administered, how it operates, and how it looks after itself.

I want to thank everyone who participated in the process, whether it was at the special select committee or as a member of that committee, and also for the collegial, thoughtful, and considered contributions of all members. I, with great pride, commend this bill to the House.

Rt Hon ADRIAN RURAWHE (Labour): Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare, otirā tēnā rā tātou katoa. It was a privilege to chair the Parliament Bill Committee, and I want to acknowledge a few people first of all. To our officials, in particular from the Office of the Clerk and from Parliamentary Service—they provided excellent assistance to the committee. I'll give you an example. We would have a meeting and discuss certain things. We would, at the end of it, ask the officials for further information about all manner of things within the scope of the bill, and then before the following meeting they would have distributed quite comprehensive further information for us, to go into the next meeting. I identified the value of them being able to do that for us. It was often the case that we would go back to the select committee and there would be only a few or no questions at all, because all of the information about what we had asked the previous time had been answered in those documents.

Also, I want to acknowledge all of those officials that provided that information for us. It certainly made the work of the committee a lot easier, I believe.

I also want to acknowledge all of the submitters. As the Hon Scott Simpson has said, it was a privilege and pleasure to listen to the well-thought-out contributions of all of those who had made submissions on a bill like the Parliament Bill. It's not the kind of bill that many people would take an interest in and write down their thoughts about, this particular bill, and so I believe the quality of submissions that we got was excellent and was helpful for the committee.

I won't go into the full detail of everything that we changed; many of the things have been spoken about already. I just wanted to highlight a couple. Around the funding of Parliament, the couple of things that I wanted to mention about that are, firstly, recognising the importance of the independence of this Parliament and that it should be able to set its own budget for its own functioning; secondly, the infrastructure that needs to happen will need to see some changes to the Standing Orders to establish such a committee and how it will operate.

We had some comments around that it wouldn't be as transparent as the current system. I reject that, and we've reported in our report exactly why. It is a very transparent process, what is being proposed—very similar to how Officers of Parliament operate as well—and so it would mean that all parties would be represented on a select committee to decide and to consider budget applications from the Office of the Clerk and from the Parliamentary Service, and would be scrutinised by, basically, all parties in Parliament.

There was some discussion around whether the Government's veto would be appropriate still or not. I'm not sure that that's fully been resolved and whether a change to the Standing Orders may or may not happen around that.

In terms of security, I encourage MPs to actually go and speak to some of our security officers around Parliament, and especially some of the ones that have been around for a little while, and they'll happily tell you why these changes are necessary. I'll summarise the changes that we made in increasing reporting and increasing monitoring, because there were concerns that were raised around whether there was enough reporting and monitoring of what those officers will be doing: if they use their new powers, that must be reported to the CEO within three days, and the CEO must report those at least annually.

I think as we pass this, hopefully, into law, ready for the next Parliament, and to give time for the training of Parliament security officers to be able to properly implement the new powers that they will have after it's passed—it's really important, I think, that we continue our scrutiny and examination through the parliamentary process. I commend this bill. Kia ora.

TOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. Just a really short call from me this afternoon, to say this is a really collaborative and proactive approach to the legislation around how this place actually operates and how it works, bringing together four different Acts to enable a modern framework for Parliament to work as best as it possibly can, and the agencies that support this incredible place. Full credit to everybody who has been involved in this process. Therefore, I commend it to the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The next call is a split call.

Dr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker, for the opportunity to also add my contribution to the Parliament Bill. Like many others have also noted prior, this bill is important. It's important that a bill like this has support across the House, because it is constitutional in nature.

My colleague Andy Foster is correct to say that it's not entirely constitutional—there are practical considerations and practical operational enablements within the bill, which is important to note as well—but it's part of what governs Parliament, so it is important that, across the House, people are on the same wavelength, so to speak, about what we value and about the modernisation that needs to take place to make the operations of this place work for everybody. It's very easy for us to think of this sometimes as our place of work, or as "our place", but it's the people's House, and it does need to be accessible and it does need to reflect what people's expectations are of this institution. It is, therefore, important that it remain accessible and not just accessible in a physical sense, in terms of access, but accessible in understanding and accessible in so far as the appropriate separation of those powers.

As has been said, the bill does three main things. It takes the parliamentary services out of that contestable process that's applied to other public sector agencies, and, on the same basis rather, applies to Offices of Parliament, which I think is absolutely the right thing to do. As well as the budgetary concerns that have been raised—because any institution or any agency is only as good as it's afforded the opportunity to be with appropriate budgets—it's a symbolic change to make sure that that separation of power between the legislature and the executive is seen to be done, which is important.

Other people have also made mention today of the utility and the esteem that we hold our parliamentary security staff, as well as all other staff. It is important, given that the nature of the job has changed as time has gone on, that they should have those enhanced powers, which reflect the reality of what it's like to be the host, the face, and in charge of the security of this important place. Simple things like consented search and denial of entry and temporary seizure of specified items, or even temporary detention, are all within the scope of what we would expect, and they're certainly the same standards that are applied to the Courts Security Act.

The bill also makes some changes to MPs' work-related expenses, with the aim of trying to create a more transparent and family friendly regime. Is it now perfect? Absolutely not. Are there more things that we could do to enhance that? We should probably hope so over the course of time, but the ones that are being made within this bill are worthy and, therefore, worthy of support.

With that said, I do note that Labour has an Amendment Paper lodged for consideration, because, whilst we've all acknowledged the collegiality of the special committee that was very ably chaired by the Rt Hon Adrian Rurawhe, I don't suppose everybody was always unanimously excited about every suggestion that was made. Certainly, Labour has an Amendment Paper lodged for consideration at the committee stage to clarify that parliamentary security does not, amongst all those other powers that we've mentioned, have the power, and shouldn't have the power, to imprison, as was quite shamefully suggested by one member in light of the recent breach of privilege. With that said, we're happy to commend the bill to the House.

SUZE REDMAYNE (National—Rangitīkei): A decade in the making, this is a constitutionally important bill. I want to highlight the fact that this bill empowers Parliament's security team, and I'd like to take this opportunity to thank and acknowledge the security officers in Parliament, especially Manoj Thattipron, who's here this afternoon, and also Geno Wharakura, who, I think, has just left. You do an outstanding job. You're on the job 24/7, taking care of us as MPs, of staff, of visitors, and the parliamentary precinct. This bill recognises your vital role, and it gives you the tools to be able to do your job efficiently and effectively. I commend this bill to the House.

VANUSHI WALTERS (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. One of the things that I noticed was quite novel about the New Zealand Parliament when I came in last term was that, in the months of summer, the parliamentary grounds become almost this lunch destination for people, which I think is absolutely wonderful, along with being able to see our kids and other kids play on the playground, being able to sit so close to select committee submitters. My absolute favourite is seeing our school kids line up and come into the gallery and their local MP give them a little wave. We are an intimate but a loud democracy. We're small but of special character, in my view, and that's something very uniquely New Zealand to protect.

I do remember being here in the last term when conversations started happening about potentially doing things like putting a plastic barrier up so that there would be something between the public and members of Parliament, and considering what the future grounds would look like. I think it's a real credit to this place that, within what was a difficult period in New Zealand's history, we've recognised that we're anchored in this idea of accessibility and being close to people and people feeling like this is their Parliament. It isn't an easy decision to make to get that balance right, and we're certainly a standout when you see countries like Ireland, who have got those barriers in place. There have in the past been discussions in other Parliaments, including the UK Parliament, about what potential barriers might be put in place as well. I think this is absolutely the right balance, and I'll speak more about that in a moment.

I just also wanted to add my thanks to our security team here in Parliament. As others have mentioned, they aren't just security; they're also our greeters. They're the face of Parliament in so many ways, and they're problem solvers in so many ways. For years and years, they have operated so graciously, in extremely difficult circumstances at times, and so I just wanted to add my thanks to them.

In terms of the changes that are being made, Part 7 of the bill is modelled on the Courts Security Act. Interestingly, this isn't the first time that those provisions have been stretched into new spaces. In April 2019, there was a decision taken to stretch those rules into a whole host of new tribunals, including the lawyers disciplinary tribunal and other tribunals as well. I think what we're seeing is a tried and true set of rules. I did look to see if there had been complaints made or anything that was very obvious in the media space in this area, and I really couldn't find anything, which says to me that the rules are set in a reasonable way. As you read through them, you'll see that the powers of search, for example, are quite restrained in themselves, in terms of how they're drafted.

We are different from other Parliaments. If you look at Australia, the UK, and Canada, there aren't specific statutory powers or immunities as we're writing them in. However, what they have instead is a much higher police presence on their parliamentary grounds, and certainly, if you take the example of the Palace of Westminster, the Metropolitan Police Service there are contracted to play a much larger armed role within the parliamentary grounds. I do think that we've taken the right approach in going the way we have. I understand that the police have said that they wouldn't have capacity to be able to perform that role in Parliament, but I actually think, regardless of the capacity question, we've made the right decision in terms of the culture of New Zealand.

Something people haven't yet mentioned is that the coverage of these new powers will extend to parliamentary meetings outside of the grounds and will also extend to electorate offices and community offices too. Here I just wanted to recognise the work that a lot of our staff do out in the regions, out in electorate and community offices, and the risks that they will sometimes put themselves in to respond to community need. My team in Upper Harbour last term, at one stage, had what we thought was a bullet go through our electorate office window. It ended up being a projectile—a metal projectile that shattered part of the window—but certainly for the weeks and months after that, I was very concerned about the sense of safety that the staff had. I think, to continue to be able to fulfil that function well and be accessible, I'm delighted that those powers have been extended as well.

I won't go through the powers in detail, but I did just want to stop a little while on the powers of search. As I mentioned before, I think they've been drafted really carefully so as to be cautious to only allow what is necessary. There's language, for example, in the drafting that says, "involves no physical contact" when they're using electronic screening devices, or only the "external examination of the person's clothes". There's language that says, "no more than incidental physical contact with the property being searched". In the language itself, it's quite restrained, but then we also have to remember that the common law continues to apply in these circumstances. The courts have also been very clear about limiting and making sure that any powers exercised in search have been reasonable.

I now want to talk a little bit about complaint, which I don't think anyone else has touched on yet as well. When I first heard about the changes to these powers being introduced, my first thought was, "Well, where's the avenue of complaint? Where would people go if they had an issue with us?" Certainly to the Speaker directly, but there's a useful case in Police v Beggs, which was a 1999 case where the courts were very clear that the Speaker must also have regard to the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. In effect, the delegations that come to security here are also subject to the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, and if there was a complaint that proceeded down that pathway, certainly those rights would be assessed against the powers exercised and we'd have to determine whether in the circumstances reasonable powers had been exercised.

Speaking to a few legal colleagues about this, some raised issues about the institution that is the Independent Police Conduct Authority and whether it would be useful to expand the powers of an institution like that so that it also covered not only security staff on precinct here but all the other security officers who are using similar powers in the courts and in the tribunals. Perhaps that's something for us to think about going forward.

My final point is on going forward, because I think this has been a really useful exercise. I think it should take as long as it has done. I think we should constantly be in the mode of reviewing how Parliament should evolve, much the same way as we do in terms of the Standing Orders. I would put a challenge to our Parliament in regards to an issue that I think we should consider next time around. It is ensuring that our Parliament is accessible for people with disabilities. I had a fantastic youth MP in the last term, Ayolabi Martins, who raised this issue as he navigated Parliament himself. He raised several issues of sometimes not being able to access certain things, sometimes finding it difficult. I think, with 25 percent of our population identifying as having some sort of disability, there's certainly a need for Parliament to consider whether it's time for us to have that kind of review in place.

Finally, I commend the committee for its excellent work and commend this bill to the House.

CARL BATES (National—Whanganui): Thank you, Madam Speaker, and thank you for the opportunity to speak on the bill. I wanted to touch on the fact that the bill makes the Parliamentary Library a standard business unit in the Parliamentary Service, and just acknowledge the role that the parliamentary librarians play in supporting us as MPs, particularly with our constituency work—the ability to engage and contact and get feedback that helps us answer constituents' queries on a daily basis, for those of us who are hard-working constituent MPs like my colleagues on this side of the House. I really just want to acknowledge the work of the Parliamentary Library and the change that this bill brings about for them. Therefore, I commend it to the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Helen White—this is a split call.

HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert): It is. Thank you. It's an honour to speak on this particular piece of legislation. I just want to focus on a couple of things.

First, the very careful rules around parliamentary security. I think that we are living in a bit of a different world. I was very lucky to go on a Speaker's tour, actually, with several other people in this House, many years ago. When we were looking at other Parliaments, most of them are not as accessible as ours. We don't have any screens here. We should be proud of how accessible our Parliament is, but we also have a world where people are starting to disconnect from the reality, the humanity, of the people here, and that can only be for the worse. I do remember at one point a banner being dropped down here. I was quite frightened and I think that probably quite a few of us would be. I don't think it occurred to the people who were dropping the banner that they would scare us. I'm not suggesting that, but I think we're living in a world where things now happen that mean that the people who are at the front line—those are our security guards—need to be given appropriate powers. But what I like about these powers is they haven't gone too far. They're very much in line with the powers that have been given in courts and they're carefully considered. So I'm fully in favour of those powers.

I'd also like to talk about the provisions that relate to MPs. One thing I recognised when I first arrived here was that we weren't treating—in a way, it was very old fashioned what we were doing. We didn't really treat MPs in the way we were in amending legislation and recognising whānau, and I've spoken to the Speaker about this myself. Whānau, for me, is something much broader. I'm no longer married. I have children who are adult. I have people who are connected with me. Actually, there are a lot of people in that situation, and one of the things we've done recently in our history is we've really recognised that families come in all sorts of shapes and sizes. So one of the things that happens in this legislation is that we recognise that families with disabilities, where people have a child, an adult child, with disability, no longer are in a situation where it's appropriate to treat that child as if there is no dependency, when, in fact, that is the case.

Now, I would argue we could go further. I think that perhaps we should look at some other iterations of this later, things like perhaps a buddy system. In the time I've been in Parliament, I've never been able to bring somebody down to support me in any way, and I think we should look at some of those relaxations because it's not a conventional situation for many people. I think it reflects the work we do in other places, and we should have some sort of consistency over that concept of whānau.

I fully support what my friend Vanushi Walters just said about disability. I think that's a really key issue where we could show some leadership with a change in the rules. But I am very thrilled to see this legislation and step one on that process and really adopting some extremely good modernisations. So I commend this bill to the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to. Those of that opinion will say Aye—

Hon members: Aye.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: To the contrary, No.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: Party vote called.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Ayes have—oh, sorry, did you vote no?

Hon Julie Anne Genter: Yeah, as a proxy—no. Party vote called.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: OK. Clerk, please conduct a party vote.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Parliament Bill be read a second time.

Rt Hon ADRIAN RURAWHE (Labour): Point of order. Madam Speaker, it's been a while, I could be incorrect, but I understood that if a party has six or more members, another party cannot do a proxy vote for them.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you for that reminder. That is correct, so we'll just take that vote again so that we're very clear. We'll disregard the last vote. The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

© Scoop Media