Been sent these e-mails:
From: Group Manager Precinct Services
Sent: Friday, 23 January 2015 3:49 p.m.
To: Tim Macindoe; Chris Hipkins
Subject: Parliament House level 2 – proposed separation door
Hello Tim and Chris,
As you are aware PH level 2 accommodates members from both parties. When the accommodation allocation was done last September there was talk of installing a corridor door to physically separate the parties, please see the attached floor plan with the small yellow highlighted area indicating the proposed door location. This door has not been installed – my question to you is “do we need to install it?”
For all the right reasons we are all used to getting up from our desk during the day, leave papers lying around, not always consciously locking our computer, and not often locking the office door. That’s a great way to be able to work. The situation I want to avoid is something going missing and the bone being pointed at the other party sharing the floor when it could be anyone at fault, or a genuine mistake.
If we install the door the card readers on either side will prevent the other party from accessing through the door. ‘Neutral’ people like security officers and Parliamentary Service staff will be able to get through both ways. The kitchen adjacent to the door will become Nationals (as I understand a gentleman’s agreement has it today); Labour will have access to the kitchen (room 2-012) accessed from the corridor by the spouses room (2-009). There are stair wells that provide access to either space so members from one party could access the others space via a stairwell. Installing the door isn’t a complete solution, but it does put a separation point in place for those who’s offices are on level 2.
Could you please consider the merits and pitfalls of installing this door. I don’t need an immediate answer so if you would like to consult with your members I am happy to wait. If you want to continue to trial it without the door but reserve the right to ask for it to be installed at some future date that’s fine with me too, I’ll keep the funding in my capital forecast.
I’d like us to agree on what we decided to do (or not do) so we all avoid a tension point in the coming months or years. Thank you very much.
Group Manager Precinct Services
And the e-mail between National MPs:
From: Tim Macindoe
Sent: Thursday, 29 January 2015 2:09 p.m.
To: Seven National MPs
cc: Nine National staffers
Subject: Your views re: Parliament House level 2 – proposed separation door
I have now heard from all of you in response to my request for your thoughts about installing an extra security door on Level 2, and I’m pleased that you are all of the same view.
Thank you for replying and for the helpful reasons you provided for not wanting the door. I have now summarised those views and replied to Jim Robb on behalf of the National Caucus requesting that the status quo be maintained, while reserving the option to look at the matter again at some future date should problems be reported.
That’s pretty crystal clear. National MPs and staff were unanimous in January they saw no need for the door. So you don’t need to be Sherlock Holmes to deduce Labour insisted on it.
Maybe Chris Hipkins could release the e-mails between himself and PS on the issue.Tags: Chris Hipkins, Labour, National, Parliamentary Service