Parliament's Speaker Trevor Mallard has withdrawn five trespass orders for former MPs including New Zealand First Leader Winston Peters and Democracy NZ leader Matt King.
Trevor Mallard. Photo:
A cross-party committee of MPs last night decided former politicians should not be treated differently compared to the general public on the issue - but the five orders withdrawn all apply to former MPs.
Former ACT leader Rodney Hide, former Māori Party co-leader Marama Fox, and former NZ First list MP Darroch Ball - who is now a co-leader of the Sensible Sentencing Trust - have been confirmed as the other three to have their notices withdrawn.
To date, 151 trespass notices have been issued in relation to the illegal occupation at Parliament in February and March. Of those, 144 were for people arrested during the occupation.
Seven notices have been issued to persons of interest - five of those have since been withdrawn as the persons are now thought unlikely to seriously offend or incite others to commit serious offences.
"The advice I have received is that it is no longer necessary to retain trespass notices for these five people," he said in a statement this afternoon," Mallard said in a statement this afternoon.
The other two notices issued to people not arrested remain in force, Mallard said.
Former Deputy Prime Minister and New Zealand First Leader Winston Peters said in a statement his trespass notice had been withdrawn.
"It should not have taken the threat of a judicial review for the Speaker to come to his senses and an understanding of the law that he wanted to enforce," he said.
"This whole issue from the start to finish has been an absolute shambles, and has caused a number of people unnecessary anguish and expense."
It was not and should not be a matter of special treatment for former MPs, he said, rather a matter of fairness and standing up for freedoms and democracy.
Democracy NZ leader Matt King, a former National MP, told RNZ his notice was also withdrawn, and said the letter he received offered no justification or explanation as to why.
"I'm relieved I guess but I'm also massively disappointed that they even considered this, I know that Trevor Mallard will know about these trespass notices ... I can't understand what his thinking would have been in issuing them to us, you know, the non-aggressive, non-violent, passive protesters that were there," he said.
"I think it's only been dropped because of the backlash ... I don't think he's followed any reasonable process at all, anyone who thinks he did is misinformed I think.
"I think that no one should be trespassed, even the people that were arrested at that grounds."
"The people that committed actually true acts of violence and rioting, absolutely they should be trespassed and they should face the full extent of the law ... those people who were arrested for - I'd say - wilful trespass and obstruction, that sort of thing, those charges should be dropped."
Peters said given the five withdrawn notices applied to former MPs showed the notices were "always political".
Mallard confirmed further trespass notices could be issued for people arrested or "deemed by Parliamentary Security as likely to reoffend in a serious manner".
He said he had been working with police and Parliamentary Security to constantly assess threats to Parliament, and the meeting of the Parliamentary Service Commission last night established a general consensus that former MPs should be treated the same as other members of the public.
"The question then is what is a proportionate response in light of the time since the occupation and serious criminal offending.
"The behaviour of some individuals was clearly more egregious than others, and on that basis it has been relatively easy to identify those persons issued with trespass notices who no longer are regarded as being a risk to the safety and security of others at Parliament."
The speaker has refused to be interviewed by RNZ over the past two days and declined repeated requests for comment. A request was lodged again this afternoon. The offer remains.
'The response does need to be proportionate'
Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern, speaking just before Mallard announced the withdrawals as Parliament commenced sitting this afternoon, said she knew he was "doing some work around the application of those trespass notices".
"Because I think rightly the question has to be asked over whether or not some people's behaviour was more egregious than others," she said.
"It is a bit different when some people are arrested versus just attending ... I've simply made suggestions and shared thoughts on how you could potentially differentiate between what was very different forms of participation here."
She said what happened at Parliament during the occupation was unprecedented and it would take time to work through the aftermath.
Leader of the House Chris Hipkins also signalled the Speaker would be communicating some decisions.
"Ultimately that's a matter for the Speaker, we've had some conversations over the last 24 hours about that and given him some feedback but ultimately it's up to him to communicate the outcome of those discussions," he said.
"I think one of the key pieces of feedback from members across the House to the Speaker was that the response does need to be proportionate. And so, you know, he's been working through the best ways to give effect to that - those are ultimately his decisions."
"We need to recognise there were people out there hurling bricks at police and burning down the children's playground - there should be consequences for that kind of behaviour - but there were other people there."
He said Mallard had received "quite a lot of feedback in the last 24 hours and really it's up to him to work through that and then communicate what he decides to do".
"He asked for some further feedback, and then people went away and thought about it and gave him some further feedback."
National leader Christopher Luxon agreed the response needed to be proportional, and suggested the trespass notices as a whole simply be dropped.
"I think we've been pretty clear you've got to distinguish between those that have been involved in criminal activity and those that are peaceable, there should be no difference between MPs and everybody else, but fundamentally I think we just need to move on and let it go.
"I think for the sake of simplicity, to avoid trespassing what would be thousands of people, just be pragmatic about it - say 'look it was a tough time, in the interests of country moving on and healing, let's leave it behind'."
Green co-leader James Shaw said the principle was important however, and while he was not the one to be applying a threshold, a line had to be drawn somewhere.
"The question then is where do you apply it? Is it for people who walked around for four hours, is it people who stayed for four days, is it people who are convicted under a range of laws that were broken and that obviously gets quite messy."
ACT leader David Seymour said the trespass notices were "totally irresponsible", and agreed the response needed to be proportional.
"If they're folks who were throwing bricks, then yeah throw the book at them. if they were organising and inciting yeah, throw the book at them. Someone that came and walked around, giving them the same treatment's disproportionate, I think that's what the courts will find," he said.
"The only people who should be trespassed are selectively people that were violent or were threatening further trouble at Parliament."
"I'm defending the rights of all New Zealanders and even Winston Peters deserves human rights."
He said the buck did stop with the Speaker, who he described as "one of the most expensive beneficiaries this country has".
"Every time he gets in trouble, you pay. And that is really unsustainable. I think if he had a bit of pride he'd move on but unfortunately he just keeps getting in schoolboy scraps that costs all of us hundreds of thousands of dollars."
Shadow Leader of the House Chris Bishop also thought the approach had been too strict.
"If you camped out for four weeks and set grass on fire and set the slide on fire you're treated the same as someone who wandered down for an hour or so ... I think he's just taken a very hard line which is that if you were here basically for two days after the protest became illegal you're just included within the people that he will issue a trespass order to."