Act leader David Seymour is asked why he attempted to drive a Land Rover up Parliament's steps. Video / Mark Mitchell
The Speaker is considering points raised by the Labour Party about comments Act leader David Seymour made prior to attempting to drive up Parliament’s steps in a Land Rover.
Footage aired on 1News on Tuesday evening showed an organiser of the charity eventSeymour was at on Monday telling him security had forbidden him from driving on to the steps. He attempted to do so anyway, leading to security intervening. Seymour afterwards laughed off the idea he might be sent to the Privileges Committee.
Seymour today maintained he “didn’t know I wasn’t allowed to”.
“What I did know was that it was for a good cause. It was re-enacting something that has happened before. There’s no specific rule against it, nobody was harmed. What it has done is draw a lot of attention to a fantastic charity.”
He said that “as soon as I was aware the Speaker himself had expressly forbidden it, I stopped”.
“I hadn’t been aware of that previously,” he said.
Seymour explained shrugging off the Privileges Committee risk by saying it would “be an absurdity” to be referred to the committee over the matter. No one had made a complaint, he said, but he would respect the institution.
Act leader David Seymour was told off by Parliament security for driving a historic Land Rover up the steps of Parliament. Photo / Adam Pearse
In the House later, Labour leader Chris Hipkins raised the television footage, though he suggested the Speaker had “specifically said the Land Rover was not allowed to be driven up the steps of Parliament”. The organiser didn’t reference the Speaker in the footage.
Hipkins said making comments questioning the Speaker’s judgment was a matter of privilege and the footage made it “very clear that [Seymour] was questioning your decision, that he defied your decision, and, therefore, a question of privilege must arise”.
Speaker Gerry Brownlee said he had watched the footage and the organiser didn’t reference him. He noted that Seymour had written to him saying the security guard told him the Speaker had forbidden it. This happened as Seymour attempted to drive up the steps.
Seymour had apologised, Brownlee said, and he wouldn’t move ahead with any suggestion of a privilege hearing.
Hipkins contended that MPs should know that security guards operate under the authority of the Speaker and “for any member of Parliament to not follow instructions from a security guard here at Parliament is directly undermining your authority as the occupant and the employer of those security guards”.
Brownlee called that a “fair point”, however, he said a Privileges Committee report would likely just lead to a requirement for an apology, something Seymour had already given.
“But, look, I’ll think further about the points that you have raised today,” he said.
He also added that he hadn’t received, as would be normal practice, a letter sent to him “claiming that a privilege has been breached, stating the points of the Standing Orders that particular claim refers to”.
Labour is understood to be writing a letter raising the comments as a matter of privilege.
Seymour said in the House that he believed Hipkins himself may have breached the rules as the Labour leader had “misrepresented” what had been said in the television footage.
Brownlee highlighted some difficulties with hearing the exact words of the exchange, so “I’m not going to be particularly critical of someone making that distinction”.
Prime Minister Christopher Luxon has attempted to distance himself from Seymour’s actions, describing them as a “political sideshow”.
Under questioning from Hipkins, Luxon said matters of parliamentary security were for the Speaker to decide on and he retained confidence in Seymour.
Jamie Ensor is a political reporter in the NZ Herald Press Gallery team based at Parliament. He was previously a TV reporter and digital producer in the Newshub Press Gallery office.
