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:8651] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Earlier today members raised a number of points of order relating to my conduct and the conduct of the police. I want to respond to those points before the House adjourns for the week. Members questioned statements that I have made outside the House on two incidents one involving Shane Ardern and the other involving a demonstration in the gallery yesterday. Let me deal with the latter first. 
I announced publicly yesterday afternoon that trespass notices have been issued against the demonstrators concerned. I considered it was appropriate for me to do this as soon after the incident as possible. I could also have informed the House of my decision and perhaps on reflection I should have done. However the issue of trespass notices following incidents in the gallery is not uncommon and it has not been the practice to take up the time of the House with them. Mr Prebble questioned why disorderly behaviour charges have not been laid as has occurred with Mr Ardern. As with Mr Ardern that is entirely a matter for the police. The fact that I have issued trespass notices does not preclude other charges being laid. Just as I did not interfere with the police over Mr Ardern I have not done so in this case. It is a decision for them. 
The statements that I made on Friday in relation to Mr Ardern were made in response to reported public comments by Mr Ardern that he had no regrets and would do it again. On reflection I feel I should not have responded to them in public and I apologise to the member concerned. 
The police indicated to my office that they intended to interview Mr Ardern. I regarded that as a matter solely for them. No question was raised as to the interview occurring in Parliament House and I was unaware of that having been the case. I understand from Mr Ardern that the police rang his office for an appointment which was made with his secretary last Tuesday. I do not regard that as satisfactory. Mr Worth drew attention to parliamentary practice in Australia and to the fact that the police exercise their powers in Parliament House under the general control of the presiding officers. Subject to any specific statutory differences I think that this is broadly the position in New Zealand too. 
In the year 2000 I issued to all members a circular on the serving of legal process on members emphasising that this should happen in Parliament House only with the agreement of the Speaker and the member concerned. The Clerk is in the process of revising that circular for reissue. I think it should also deal with the question of the exercise of police powers in the building. I want to discuss this matter with the Commissioner of Police with a view to devising appropriate procedures for police conduct in Parliament House. Those procedures should take account of our security needs while not infringing Parliament’s privilege of control over its precincts. 
Finally there is one other point that I wish to respond to. That is the allegation that has been made more than once that I have never explained my actions over the Hon Harry Duynhoven to the House. That is not correct. I gave a ruling on 23 July describing the course I was intending to follow and a second detailed ruling on 7 August explaining why I had acted as I did. These rulings are on pages 7211 and 7748 to 7749 of the daily  
Hansard 
. Some members may not agree with my actions. That is their right. But it is not true that I have never explained my position on that case to the House. I will make sure that a copy of this ruling is put in every member’s box eventually.