mention in the house

On Wednesday 21 November, I was in Wellington for the day, to attend the protest march against the Electoral Finance Bill . Also on the agenda, was collecting signatures for the petition for a referendum on the Anti-Smacking law, and to touch base with some team-members of the "feet on footpaths" group, Unity for Liberty. The next day, the bill passed it's second reading, 65 for, 54 against.

Following the march, I was looking forward to going up to the gallery for an hour or two, to observe the house in session. The security guards at the metal-detector turned me away saying that I was not allowed in due to having taken part in a protest march. I rang Larry Baldock and he gave Gordon Copeland, co-leader of the new Future New Zealand party a call. Thanks to Simeon Brown of nzdebate.blogspot.com for bringing this excerpt of Hansard to my attention.

Thursday 22 November 07 - Points of Order - Parliament Buildings - Public Access

GORDON COPELAND (Independent): I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. On returning to my office yesterday immediately after question time, I discovered that a young man from Christchurch, who is known to me, had been in touch to say that he had been denied access to the parliamentary complex and therefore to the gallery to observe question time. Security had intervened to prevent his entering the parliamentary complex, on the basis that he had participated in yesterday's march in opposition to the Electoral Finance Bill, and because of a ruling from your office, which stipulates that people in that situation are denied entry to the parliamentary complex for 24 hours. I was able to vouch for the young man so that following contact with your office he was eventually admitted to Parliament Buildings and to the gallery late in the afternoon.

However, I found through this incident yesterday that I would like to ask you to reconsider your ruling in regard to that matter—or the ruling of your office, because I am not sure whether it is your ruling or one by one of the former Speakers of the House. I want to suggest to you some reasons why the reconsideration should happen. Firstly, the security arrangements for Parliament Buildings are now far more stringent than was the case, say, 12 months ago. Secondly, I think the application of the ruling is very arbitrary. I had to ask that young man how parliamentary security knew he had been in yesterday's march. He said that he guessed they must have recognised him. You will appreciate that there are sometimes hundreds—if not thousands—of people on such marches. Therefore, a blanket ban of that sort must always be arbitrary in its application. Thirdly, I hold the view that, subject to normal security checks, etc., access to Parliament Buildings should be the right of all New Zealand citizens as part of the fundamental freedom that is a cornerstone of our democracy.

Madam SPEAKER: I would just note that this is a matter that I am prepared to look at. It is not normally a matter for this Chamber. It is not appropriate to bring it up here, but I can indicate that, yes, I am happy to look at the matter, and to get back to both members.

KEITH LOCKE (Green): Madam Speaker, you will remember that I sent you a note on this issue months ago. There is a problem, I think—

Madam SPEAKER: As I indicated to the member, we are taking time from the House at the moment. I have already indicated I am happy to look at the issue. If any other member would like to make a representation on it to me in writing, would he or she please do so, so it can be thoroughly looked at.

From the Hansard.