Five Million Voices

Should the four Acts governing Parliament's operation be consolidated into one updated law that creates statutory security powers, a self-determined parliamentary funding model, and updated member support?

An omnibus bill consolidating and modernising the law on Parliament's operation by replacing the four current Acts, including provisions on parliamentary privilege, security, agency funding, and member remuneration and services. It was defeated at second reading.

MPs’ arguments for and against the bill

Why support it
  • Supporters argued that consolidating the four existing Acts and shifting decisions on parliamentary agency funding to the House rather than the executive would strengthen Parliament's independence.
  • Supporters said giving security officers statutory powers, accompanied by new training, reporting and oversight requirements, would address increased risks to MPs, staff and visitors.
Why oppose it
  • Some submitters cited in the debate argued the new coercive powers for security officers could affect people engaging with Parliament and should either not be conferred or only be exercised with great caution.
  • Some submitters cited in the debate argued that maintaining a permanent police presence would be a better approach than granting statutory powers to parliamentary security officers.

These are claims MPs made in Parliament’s debate — not verified facts.

Full bill summary & link to official bill page

This bill consolidates and modernises the laws governing how Parliament runs by bringing four separate Acts — the Clerk of the House of Representatives Act 1988, the Parliamentary Service Act 2000, the Members of Parliament (Remuneration and Services) Act 2013, and the Parliamentary Privilege Act 2014 — into a single updated statute. It covers parliamentary privilege (the legal protections for what is said in the House), the funding of Parliament’s support agencies, MPs’ pay and services, and gives Parliamentary Security Officers statutory powers similar to court security staff. It affects MPs, parliamentary staff, and the public.

A notable feature is a change in how Parliament’s budgets are set: funding for the Office of the Clerk and the Parliamentary Service would be recommended by the House itself rather than fixed by the executive government, reinforcing Parliament’s independence. It also shifts checking of Citizens’ Initiated Referendum petitions to the Electoral Commission. The argument for is a clearer, modernised framework and stronger separation from the executive; the argument against is that self-determined funding and expanded security powers concentrate authority with fewer external checks.

See the Parliament.nz ↗ site for the full bill.

Oppose (No) Support (Yes)

Parliament Bill · Third Reading, 6 Nov 2025
Agreed on the voices — no counted division.