
'New Security Service' For Parliament Would Have More Powers
The Parliament Bill is up for a second reading and would give the guards statutory powers of "consent search, denial of entry, temporary seizure of specified items, and temporary detention."
Parliamentary Services chief executive Raf Gonzalez-Montero told the Governance and Administration scrutiny hearing yesterday they were taking that responsibility "very seriously".
Police and the Ministry of Justice were assisting with the training, which is expected to begin in December, with the first guards certified around March or April next year.
As part of the hearing - which allows MPs to scrutinise funding decisions - Gonzalez-Montero mentioned the Parliamentary Service focusing on embedding the "new security service" for members.
During the election they trialled that service, which he said was "well-received".
It was now an established service and they will have staff that are able to travel with MPs when they have functions or gatherings "just to keep them safe", Gonzalez-Montero said.
He said a review of the security system overall will also be taking place, with some gaps between "when a member is a member, and when a member is a minister".
"There are things that need to be tightened up in that ecosystem."
Gonzalez-Montero told MPs the parliamentary service was also investigating options to increase the ability to monitor social media to address what had been seen this year, which was "digital harm" against MPs.
He said he wanted to make sure whatever service was chosen to respond the issue was "fit for purpose" for members.
Other issues in Parliament
Other questions in the hearing focused on the issue of infrastructure and accessibility, as well as Parliament's capacity to fulfil its democratic responsibilities.
The Greens' Lawrence Xu-Nan asked about a key lift in the Parliament building, which, when out of order, means a key route for wheelchairs is inaccessible.
Gonzalez-Montero said he agreed, if the lift was out of service, "that would be a big problem for us." He said he would love nothing more than to fix those things, but it required funding. He had a wish list to create a ramp for the entry to Parliament, rather than just having the stairs, or having to use different lifts.
"Unfortunately, those things are very expensive, and we haven't yet had the money to fix those things.
"We'll keep it on our radar, keep doing the things that we can within the budget that will allow us."
He pointed out they'd received funding this year for the infrastructure of the buildings, "so the sprinkler systems, things that fail, things like the lift."
But he said last year was the lift's "end of life" and it hadn't previously been budgeted as something that needed fixing, "we were lucky this year we got funding."
"That is the juggling we do all the time.
"So we've got a list of things that we focus on fixing, and then something pops up, and then we say, well, something's going to have to come out of that list for us to fix the lift."
The funding the service had been receiving was at 2005 levels, he said, and things go up in price and "every year we're able to do less."
He said a lot more upgrades in terms of infrastructure will be needed in future. The Beehive needed a lot of work, "it's a very old building," he said.
"Pretty much all the buildings here are in in dire need of fixes, strengthening and upgrading."
Clerk of the House of Representatives Dr David Wilson also fronted the committee and was asked by Labour's Glen Bennett about parliament's "ability to operate".
Bennett noted the Office of the Clerk had said there were "a lot of challenges in terms of workload" and asked how that was being managed in order to provide MPs with what they needed, as well as the public when it came to "scrutiny and transparency".
Wilson said he was confident the Office of the Clerk would be able to do that. The increase in funding they'd received wasn't a "vast sum of money" he said, but it did "make a difference."
"It enables us to retain the staff that are hard to attract, but also to take on additional staff when we need to, for example, when we have bills with large numbers of public submissions, we can temporarily embrace the workforce to deal with that."
This was notable during the submissions to the Treaty Principles Bill, where the committee received 300,000 online submissions, half of which were received on the last day. Submissions were re-opened due to technical issues so people who had issues were able to submit.
Some complaints have been made during the submission process to the Regulatory Standards Bill this week. Wilson told RNZ they were aware of a technical issue with the Parliament website, which was being worked on.
"The issue is affecting the whole website."
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Scoop
7 hours ago
- Scoop
UN Experts Urge Iran To Choose Protection Over Repression After Ceasefire
Geneva, 4 July 2025 UN experts* today expressed alarm over the crackdown in the Islamic Republic of Iran since hostilities began on 13 June 2025 and the subsequent ceasefire. 'Post-conflict situations must not be used as an opportunity to suppress dissent and increase repression,' the experts said. Acknowledging the impact of unlawful military attacks by Israel and the United States of America, the experts nevertheless expressed concern over reports of executions, enforced disappearaces, and mass arrests. Since 13 June 2025, at least six individuals have reportedly been executed on charges of 'espionage for Israel', including three Kurdish men. Hundreds of individuals, including social media users, journalists, human rights defenders, foreign nationals—particularly Afghans—and members of ethnic and religious minorities such as Baha'is, Kurds, Balouchis and Ahwazi Arabs, have been detained on accusations of 'collaboration' or 'espionage'. Those detained include human rights defender Hossein Ronaghi and his brother. Meanwhile, Swedish-Iranian researcher Ahmadreza Djalali faces imminent execution with his whereabouts unknown. The conflict has also substantially exacerbated Afghan deportations from Iran, with 256,000 returned in June alone amid serious refoulement concerns. The experts expressed alarm at official statements announcing expedited trials on accusations of espionage, putting individuals at heightened risk of summary execution or punishment without adequate due process. They also found equally concerning reports of incitement to discrimination, hostility and violence in the media, which have labelled entire minority communities as traitors and used dehumanising language such as 'filthy rats.' This rhetoric in state-linked Persian and Arabic media outlets has reportedly included calls for surveillance, and killing of Baha'is, echoing the 1988 atrocities. The experts warned that Iran's Parliament is concurrently advancing legislation that would classify intelligence or espionage activities carried out for 'hostile Governments' as 'corruption on earth'—an offence punishable by death. 'Criminalising the sharing of information in broad language violates the rights to freedom of expression and information,' the experts said. 'This legislation also represents a worrying expansion of the death penalty that violates international human rights law.' The experts urged the international community to prioritise sustained support to Iranian civil society actors, including technical and financial assistance to independent media outlets and human rights groups. 'The survival of civic space depends on the ability to document human rights violations, preserve collective memory, and coordinate action, which is essential during this critical period,' they said. They also condemned the deteriorating conditions faced by prisoners transferred from Evin Prison after Israeli attacks on its facilities. Prisoners were reportedly moved to the Great Tehran Penitentiary and to Qarchak Prison and held in abysmal conditions. The fate and whereabouts of some prisoners remain unknown, placing them outside the protection of the law—a situation that amounts to enforced disappearances. 'Following the ceasefire, the world is watching closely to see how Iranian authorities treat their own people. This will be a defining measure of the country's commitment to human rights and the rule of law,' the experts said. 'Iran must not allow history to repeat itself by resorting to the same dark patterns of repression that have devastated its people in previous post-conflict periods.' The experts have been in contact with Iranian authorities on this issue. *The experts: Mai Sato, Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Islamic republic of Iran, Nazila Ghanea, Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, Morris Tidball-Binz, Special Rapporteur on extra-judicial summary or arbitrary executions, Nicolas Levrat, Special Rapporteur on minority issues, Richard Bennett, Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Afghanistan, Irene Khan, Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, Mary Lawlor, Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders, Gabriella Citroni, (Chair-Rapporteur), Grażyna Baranowska (Vice-Chair), Aua Baldé, Ana Lorena Delgadillo Pérez, Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances, Margaret Satterthwaite, Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, Laura Nyirinkindi (Chair), Claudia Flores (Vice-Chair), Dorothy Estrada Tanck, Ivana Krstić, and Haina Lu,.


Otago Daily Times
9 hours ago
- Otago Daily Times
Exploring diligently throughout Question Time
When I get back from leave, I am going to have to find out if the HR department is in cahoots with the government. The two occasions I took a break last year coincided with one of Prime Minister Christopher Luxon's two visits to Dunedin, and the other with Health Minister Simeon Brown's trip to town. So naturally as soon as I headed out the door last week Mr Brown was back in Dunedin again for another hospital announcement — one slightly more palatable than the last one. I still have some way to go to beat my much-respected former boss Audrey Young: her holidays had such a spooky habit of coinciding with party leaders being rolled that it came to be known as "the curse of Audrey" — but it's still a little frustrating. So having missed all the fun, let's go back in time to Parliament's last sitting week, and Wednesday's Question Time, which may have set a record. Of the 12 questions, a quarter were asked by southern MPs ... although maybe only a third of those elicited anything which might have been of any interest to their constituents. First up was Act New Zealand Southland list MP Todd Stephenson, who got to ask the acting Prime Minister — who, coincidentally, just happened to be his party leader David Seymour — the hardy perennial of whether he stood by all his government's statements and actions? Spoiler alert: yes, he did ... particularly the NZ Infrastructure Commission's freshly announced National Infrastructure Plan. Mr Stephenson followed up by asking about access to new medicines — which the man who is also an associate health minister with responsibility for drug-buying agency Pharmac was more than happy to talk about — and then GPs (ditto). It was going so well, but Mr Stephenson then incurred the Speaker's wrath by asking his leader to comment on comments made once upon a time by the little-remembered Labour MP Charles Chauvel about the Regulatory Standards Bill. "No, that's not something you [Mr Seymour] can make any comment on whatsoever. So sit down and have another go at the question," the Speaker harumphed. Fair play to Mr Stephenson; he found a cunning way around the Speaker's edict by asking if the acting PM agreed with any statements that he had recently seen in relation to the Regulatory Standards Bill. "Well, I do, as a matter of fact," Mr Seymour replied with glee, before embarking on the sort of answer which makes Gerry Brownlee turn puce. Q10, from National Waitaki MP Miles Anderson, was much more benign, as he asked Agriculture Minister Todd McClay about the government's plan to ban full farm-to-forestry conversions — as covered in last week's Southern Say. No alarms and no surprises here, as Mr McClay gave a suitably apocalyptic answer to Mr Anderson's question: "What is the impact on rural communities of whole farm-to-forest conversions?" Q11, from Labour Taieri MP Ingrid Leary to Associate Housing Minister Tama Potaka on proposed changes to the Retirement Villages Act, was when things got really interesting. She wanted to know if the draft legislation would include "provisions for repayments but not mandate them". This is a topic close to Ms Leary's heart (she has a member's Bill in the ballot on just this subject), not to mention thousands of retirement village residents and their families affected by the issue. Most villages operate under an occupation rights (ORA) agreement system, whereby residents buy the right to live in what might well be their final home, but not ownership of it. That sum is then held until the ORA ends. An ORA does not come cheap — in the realm of hundreds of thousands of dollars. Which is high, true, but which may also be fair enough in some circumstances: villages are expensive to build and costly to run. But an ORA comes with associated bonds and fees, and gruesome tales abound of residents, or their families, being obliged to pay fees after moving to a higher-care unit or dying. Also problematic is the process of getting out of an ORA. The village will usually claim a portion of the ORA as an "exit fee" and then resell the ORA. However, that right may well have accumulated a considerable capital gain in the intervening period — something that the former ORA owner cannot benefit from. Many, and Ms Leary is one, think this effectively means villages are enjoying an interest-free loan from their residents — albeit that they receive a secure and comfortable lifestyle and residence for their golden years. Consumer has been running a campaign for years on the issue of what it sees as unfair retirement village contracts; Mosgiel's Brian Peat, president of the Retirement Village Residents' Association, has also been hot on the topic for a number of years. Mr Potaka has bad news for Ms Leary, saying that the Northern Advocate article on which she has based her question had been incorrect Undeterred, she then asked if Mr Potaka would commit now to mandating fair repayment times and terms. "There are a number of matters that we are considering as part of a broader reform of this matter, including dispute resolution protections, and a wide range of consumer protections and various matters, including those that the member referred to, will be considered and are still under active consideration," Mr Potaka replied reassuringly ... but not reassuringly enough for Ms Leary, who pointedly followed up with: "What other sectors are there where people have no control over when someone pays them back their own money?" That was quite a broad and open question, Mr Potaka replied, but he could say that the government was "responsibly reviewing" a wide variety of matters, including consumer protections for elderly folks living in retirement villages. Would that include, perhaps supporting a law change which would require operators to give residents their money back within three months, Ms Leary wondered, knowing full well that such a Bill existed. "If the member is asking me to jump in front of Cabinet and make decisions by way of a question and answer session, I will not be doing that," Mr Potaka said. "What I will be doing is diligently and professionally undertaking my responsibility as associate minister of housing to explore these issues and bring these matters through the policy decisions and, ultimately, to this fine chamber." But whether that exploration makes anyone happy is a question for another day.


Scoop
21 hours ago
- Scoop
'Silenced Before Anyone Can Hear': Youth MP Breaks Script To Challenge Alleged Censorship
Chris Hipkins' Youth MP made waves in Parliament on Wednesday, changing his approved General Debate speech last-minute to call out what he and others have described as censorship by the Ministry of Youth Development (MYD). Ryan Grant-Derepa, 17, represents the Leader of the Opposition in this year's Youth Parliament. Just hours before taking the floor in the Debating Chamber, he altered his speech to criticise MYD's handling of Youth MPs' contributions – claiming that while rangatahi are invited to share their voices, they're also being filtered in the process. 'But here's the irony: there's no livestream. No cameras. No public record. We're told to speak, but silenced before anyone can hear,' Grant-Derepa said in his speech. 'And if the government won't take action, our rangatahi will. We're not here half-hearted. We're not here half-asked. And we're not backing down. We are the future. And they are not ready.' His address was met with murmurs of support from peers across the House, and audible approval from ministers, whānau and observers in the public gallery. Youth MPs push back The three-day Youth Parliament kicked off with orientation on Monday, followed by two days of debate, questions and parliamentary working groups. But behind the scenes, controversy had already begun to build. An open letter published earlier in the week, signed by numerous Youth MPs – particularly those on the Opposition side – alleged that MYD staff were requesting significant changes to speeches, especially where they involved criticism of current government ministers or policies. A second open letter, released Thursday, included signatures from prominent voices outside the programme, including 2023 Young New Zealander of the Year Shaneel Lal, and mental health advocates Jazz Thornton and Genevieve Mora. The letters describe an environment where Youth MPs felt unable to speak freely – despite the purpose of the programme being to elevate youth voice in national politics. Speaking after his speech, Grant-Derepa said he changed course not for shock value, but because 'it was the right thing to do.' 'If MYD want us to share our voice, why should they also be stopping us at the same time? It doesn't make sense.' 'We're not given a chance to show people hope… show that we're working together, that we're not as polarised as people like to think. Yet somehow, we're still the ones causing the ruckus. Isn't that exactly what this government says it wants? Obviously not, right? They're scared of young people.' His shift in tone echoed earlier comments made by Labour leader Chris Hipkins, who, when asked on Monday about the speech review process, said: 'Any idea that they're being asked to submit their views in advance so that they can be censored, so that they can have critical comments about the government taken out of them, is just totally out of step with the spirit of Youth Parliament, which is hearing from young people.' The Ministry responds In a statement attributed to Minister for Youth James Meager, the Ministry of Youth Development strongly denied any form of censorship. 'MYD did not stop or censor any Youth MP's speech,' said Meager. 'The Ministry's suggested changes were just recommendations for the young people to consider. However, they acknowledge that recent feedback received from some of the young people is that this was not as clear as it could've been in every instance.' 'If Youth MPs felt like that amounted to censorship, that is unfortunate, because at all times the Ministry had their best interests at heart and repeatedly reminded Youth MPs that ultimately what they say and do is up to them… Many, if not most Youth MPs were grateful for the support and guidance provided by the Ministry, and made excellent, robust and challenging contributions to the debate.' He added that safeguarding participants was the Ministry's primary concern: 'MYD's number one priority throughout this programme was keeping all participants safe and protected as much as possible… and advising them on how to best express their views without falling foul of the law, the standing orders, or the horrible trolling which can occur online.' Addressing the decision not to livestream this year's proceedings, Meager said: 'Youth Parliament participants were told early on that the event would not be livestreamed, although all debates and speeches have been filmed – and will be provided in full for all participants to share as they please.' The statement did not mention the reason behind this decision, though an Instagram comment made by Green Party MP Benjamin Doyle says it was due to funding cuts. The Minister also addressed concerns over legal protections, noting that Youth MPs do not have parliamentary privilege: 'What Youth MPs say in the House will not be protected in this way. MYD reviews speeches to look for any aspects which could fall under defamation, copyright, privacy or contempt of court – which the Youth MPs may be unaware of.' 'This review is not about changing the content of speeches – it's about MYD being responsible organisers of an event that is predominantly made up of minors who may be unaware of such rules and laws.' Meager concluded by reaffirming the value of Youth MPs' contributions: 'The Youth Parliament speeches were full of diverse and differing points of view, which is the entire point of the event and democracy as a whole.' A growing call for transparency As debates wrap up and Youth MPs return home, questions remain about how best to balance safeguarding with free expression. For Grant-Derepa, this week's experience has been a turning point, one he says made him even more determined to challenge the status quo. 'We're told, 'Wait your turn.' But that's the problem. We have things to say now.'