“His long experience in the role will have given him the necessary judgment to deal with a difficult situation. I doubt he would have ever expected to have to tell a member of the House not to drive a vehicle on the slopes of the building, particularly as it was a repeat of a 2003 event and in light of the enhanced security arrangements that Parliament has since put in place.
“The question of possible prosecution – as was the case in 2003 – is a matter for the police and not the Speaker.”
Labour’s leader, Chris Hipkins, questioned whether the Speaker had advised Seymour that permission had not been granted for driving the vehicle up the steps.
“David Seymour’s comments to the media at the time was that he understood that you had given permission. If it’s clear that you hadn’t given permission that in itself is a material piece of information.”
Brownlee said the event’s organisers had asked if they could re-enact a 1948 occurrence where a Land Rover was driven up the steps, but he could not find any reference to that event.
“They were told they could come and have a photograph taken in front of the steps, but most definitely not drive the vehicle up.”
He said he would consider the points Hipkins had raised.
Brownlee said Parliamentary Service could consider a ban on all vehicles driving on to the forecourt, but in his view that would be an overreach that would affect the openness of Parliament.
Ngarewa-Packer suggested it was a matter of double standards for Seymour compared to the hīkoi protest last year.
Brownlee said the protest organisers had been true to their word, and in other protests the organisers had been asked not to mount the steps, but he said he was “conscious of the contradiction you have pointed out”.
- RNZ
Sign up to The Daily H, a free newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.