Hunt Jonathan: Speaker’s Rulings — Privileges of the House and Speaker's Actions 
Hunt Jonathan: Speaker’s Rulings — Privileges of the House and Speaker's Actions 
[Volume:611;Page:8735] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I promised the House yesterday that I would respond to points of order raised following my statement that I had initiated discussions with the Commissioner of Police on police access to the parliamentary precincts. 
It has been suggested that there may be some advantage in having the Privileges Committee examine any proposed rules or protocol. While I emphasise that as Speaker and the statutory occupier of the precincts I will make the final decision on the procedures I think that there is merit in this suggestion. I intend therefore to present draft procedures to the House when it resumes after the adjournment. The House can then if it wishes refer the draft to the Privileges Committee for its consideration. 
I was asked to elaborate on my office’s contact with the police prior to the police’s decision to lay charges against Mr Ardern. The police did speak to my office on the day after the incident occurred seeking to meet with me to discuss possible action. In accordance with my previous direction which I had communicated to Mr Ardern when I met him immediately after the incident the police were informed that the Speaker did not wish to be involved in discussions about police action. That was a matter for them. The police accepted that and indicated that in those circumstances they would probably seek to interview Mr Ardern and another person who had ridden a scooter on the steps. 
I was informed at the time that the police had sought to meet with me but not of the details of the conversation. However as I indicated to the House yesterday I became aware of the police’s announced intention to interview Mr Ardern shortly before delivering the ruling on Thursday when the staff member involved specifically drew my attention to it. That this aspect of the conversation was not emphasised to me earlier was consistent with my express wish not to be involved with the police’s decision on the matter and I do not see it as at all significant. It is clear however that members the police and Parliamentary Service staff need clearer guidance as to police conduct in Parliament Buildings. It is such guidance that I intend to give my attention to as a result of the devising of the procedures that I have already mentioned. 
Mr Peters made a number of allegations about my involvement in decisions resulting from an incident that occurred in the grounds in May. When he raised the matter I was at first unable to recall it at all until reminded of the details by Mr Franks who had rung me about it at the time. I have since met with Mr Franks to refresh my recollection of the incident. 
I have to say that I think that it is most unfortunate that this matter has been brought up at all. It concerned an individual whose close relative was the victim of an appalling crime and who was acting under intense personal strain as a consequence. The individual who caused some damage to the lawns presented himself to the police. The police contacted the Parliamentary Service security staff and asked if they could meet with me to explain the background to the incident. This they subsequently did with me along with Parliamentary Service management. At that meeting the police indicated that they preferred to take no action in the case. I agreed that this was an appropriate and a humane decision while emphasising that the matter was entirely at their discretion. 
Mr Franks who also knew the history of the matter rang me before the police called on me to ask that the matter be treated sympathetically. After the meeting with the police I called him back to tell him that I thought that matters had been resolved satisfactorily. 
In response to Mr Peters I did not direct that the person not be charged. Indeed I have no power to do so. I did indicate that for the reasons given I agreed with the police’s preference not to prosecute. What the police conveyed to the person concerned I have of course no way of knowing. 
There is one further thing I want to say to the House. Last week I acknowledged that I had been in error in speaking to the news media about Mr Ardern especially when inquiries into his conduct by the police were still under way. I apologised to the member for that and do so again. But that does not mean that as Speaker I intend to submit myself to allegations and wholesale cross-questioning of my actions. If members wish to express criticism of the Speaker as is their right the appropriate way to do so is to put down a notice of motion not to do so by way of a point of order or in the course of debate. My door is always open to members who wish to express their opinions to me frankly and freely. Indeed if there is one charge that I do plead guilty to it is that I have operated an open-door policy. I do not intend to change that. I do intend however to uphold the dignity of the Speakership of the House.