Smith Nick: General Debate 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Smith Nick: General Debate 
[Sitting date: 21 February 2007. Volume:637;Page:7557. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 Today we have seen the extraordinary spectacle of a Government in meltdown. In my 17 years as a member of Parliament I have never ever seen the spectacle of a Prime Minister and a former Labour colleague in open warfare. We had the Prime Minister threatening Phillip Field as to what he could or could not do with his vote. That is a sign of a Government on the way out. The saga highlights just how— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is very clear in the Standing Orders and in Speakers’ rulings—it goes back to  
Erskine May 
—that no person can threaten a member around the use of his or her vote. A member making that allegation is in fact alleging a contempt and there is a proper way of bringing that up. Therefore that is something that can be raised only one way—that is by way of a letter to you Mr Assistant Speaker not through this sort of vacuous assault. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Speaking to the point of order Mr Speaker. I say that it is important to recall the exact interchange that occurred between the Prime Minister and Taito Phillip Field. The Prime Minister told Mr Field that he needed to reflect on the fact that his voters in Mangere had voted for Labour and the Labour programme. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: In fact the Prime Minister was addressing the House—and members of the Opposition in particular—at the time. They should reflect on the fact that Taito Phillip Field had been elected on that basis. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The Hon Trevor Mallard has made a very valid point and there are actual ways to deal with the issue that the member raised. I ask the member to be very careful in how he addresses the House on that issue. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: This whole saga just highlights how unethical and immoral our Prime Minister has become. The Prime Minister will do anything say anything— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You may have been distracted because it happened in the first sentence following the previous point of order but the member has now reflected on the Prime Minister in an unparliamentary way. I ask that those comments be withdrawn and apologised for. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Speaking to the point of order I say that it is a matter of public record that the Prime Minister referred to Phillip Field as both unethical and immoral—she said those very words in this House. We cannot possibly have the situation that Mr Mallard would have us have: that it is OK for the Prime Minister to refer to another member Mr Field as unethical and immoral but not proper for others to use those exact two words of the Prime Minister. I put it to you Mr Assistant Speaker that twice now during my speech—and also during my colleague Judith Collins’ speech—a very defensive Mr Mallard has been deliberately breaking up the 5-minute speeches. There is a longstanding principle that during a 5-minute general debate speech there should not be continuous points of order that break up members’ speeches. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: When you are ruling Mr Assistant Speaker you should consider the facts. The Prime Minister did not make those comments about Taito Phillip Field in the House. She was asked about those comments and said she had not resiled from them. There is a big difference between a member repeating comments and that member indicating that he or she has not resiled from comments made earlier. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: First of all a personal reflection was made. Members must always be careful under Standing Order 116 in making reflections on other members. I read to the House Speaker’s ruling 38/2: “Reference to the private affairs of members or personal reflections would have to be of a strongly undesirable insulting or offensive nature to come within the meaning of the terms used [in Standing Order 116].” That is the first point. The second point which Dr Nick Smith raised is the issue of the constant raising of interjections during a 5-minute speech. That in itself is out of order. Such tactics can lead to disorder in the House so I would ask members to please be careful about what they do—recognising of course that where there are valid points of order then that is an issue that can be raised with the Speaker. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I raise this point now so that I will not be accused of interrupting again. I want to get this point very clear. Are you now stating and ruling in this House that the word “unethical” can be applied to a member in this House without it being an unbecoming reflection? Unless you make the member withdraw and apologise for making that comment that is the effect of your ruling. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I am saying to members that under Standing Order 116 “Personal reflections” imputations of improper motives offensive references to members’ private affairs and personal reflections are out of order. Members need to be very careful in how they address those issues. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I know there is a list of prescribed words and I think all of us know of that list. Every time in the past when I have been in this House when the word “unethical” has been used of a member and objection has been taken to it Speakers have consistently ruled that such a term is a personal reflection. It is a reflection on a member and every Speaker in the past has required it to be withdrawn and apologised for. In differentiating—if you do differentiate—in this case I think you are lowering the standards of this House. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the member for his considered viewpoints on the issues. It all depends on the circumstances that prevail in the House at the present time or during the course of the speech to the House. I did not take anything untoward from what was being said but had the issue been much stronger then the member would have actually had a valid point of order. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am asking you now to continue to reflect on this ruling because it is a very very important one. I cannot think of any circumstance where one can refer to a member of this House as being unethical and it not be a reflection on the member. If I called you unethical Mr Assistant Speaker it would automatically be a reflection. It would be a deliberate reflection on you. If I called John Hayes over there unethical that would be a reflection on him. If I called Dr Nick Smith unethical it would absolutely be a reflection. There is no other way of interpreting that comment. There is no circumstance in this House where a member can be described as unethical and it not be a personal reflection. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: It is actually a matter for members themselves who are indicated as being in that position to raise that issue not someone else on their behalf. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You know that that rule cannot work for members who are currently engaged in other activities and Government business outside of this Chamber. That ruling applies when people are in the House and they choose not to take it up. It is the choice of a member who is here to not object. It is just vacuous to suggest that members who are not present are required to come down to the House to raise an objection especially when an unprecedented ruling like this is being made. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you again Mr Mallard for your consideration. I have been in this House for some considerable time and accusations have been levelled against a number of members who have not been in the House. Those members are often called by the party whips to come down. I am prepared to seek some guidance on this issue and I will rule accordingly. In the meantime I am going to call Dr Nick Smith and he will start his speech again. 
Ron Mark 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I have ruled Mr Mark. 
Ron Mark 
: I am well aware that you have just made a ruling. I am asking for a point of order. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: He’s touchy today. 
Ron Mark 
: Is it normal for a member to interject— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member will be seated please. I just say to members that points of order on the floor are to be terse and to the point. There needs to be no interjections whatsoever because if there are interjections and the person takes longer to make the point of order then it leads to disorder. This place needs to just calm down for a little while. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I apologise Mr Speaker. I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I already have a point of order on the floor Dr Smith. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: This is taking up members’ time on members’ day. We have now had 11— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I already have a point of order on the floor Dr Smith. The member’s speech time is not affected. 
Ron Mark 
: Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. I will be quick and to the point. I now have two points of order which I will deal with quickly. Firstly other members have been thrown out of the House for interjecting on a point of order. Another member was thrown out of the House just a few moments ago for challenging the Speaker speaking over the Speaker and refusing to sit down. I want to know why Dr Smith is being treated differently from Mr Brownlee. That is the first point and I would love to hear the explanation on that. 
The second point is that you have just issued to all the members of the House—not just Dr Smith and not Mr Mallard—a warning about making spurious points of order that are designed to break up members’ speeches. As a result of that warning to all members of the House you have also given Dr Smith an opportunity to restart his speech which will effectively give him an 8-minute speech out of what was a 5-minute speech. It sounds to some people at this end of the House as though Dr Smith is being given some sort of leniency for a reason that is based around your decision that all the points of order you have heard thus far have been spurious. I put it to you Mr Assistant Speaker that the first point of order was raised because Judith Collins called someone spineless. You accepted the point of order as being valid and you required that she withdraw. The second point of order was raised because she did not apologise. You accepted that point of order—therefore it was not spurious—and you required her to apologise. Then there were other points of order— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Would you get to the point of order Mr Mark. 
Ron Mark 
: The point of order is that none of those points of order that you accepted and ruled on were spurious. They were obviously not so because you ruled on them. To give this member an extended period of speaking time when no spurious points of order were raised is wrong. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member will be seated. I say to members that this is a House of robust debate and one expects that. It is up to the Speaker’s judgment call at the time as to the atmosphere and what is happening in the House. What I want in this House is what everyone wants and that is order. It is my duty to keep debate within the Standing Orders. After all these are the rules that have been crafted for well over a century of parliamentary practice in New Zealand and it is my duty to ensure that they are upheld. I understand where Mr Mark is coming from but I tell him that Dr Smith had been speaking for only a matter of 15 to 20 seconds. Having said that I point out that one must recognise that when there are constant interjections that are designed to interrupt a member’s speech then it is up to the Speaker whether he or she will recognise that—in this case I do. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I can understand why the Government is so super-sensitive. 
Ron Mark 
: I raise point of order Mr Speaker. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Get a life! 
Ron Mark 
: I point out to the member that I do have a life unlike some people with convictions. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member will be seated. I have explained to the member that when a point of order is made it is to be terse and to the point. Members should not get into interjections with other members because that in itself leads to disorder. That is not what I require in this House. 
Ron Mark 
: I thank you for that Mr Assistant Speaker but your job is to protect all members of this House and to treat all members of this House as equals. Your job is not to— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: That is what I am doing. If the member has a valid point of order he will make it please. Otherwise I am going to call Dr Nick Smith. 
Tariana Turia 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I am sorry. I already have a point of order on the floor. 
Ron Mark 
: My point of order is that I raised two issues. You have not addressed the first of those issues which is why given that Mr Brownlee was thrown out of this House for challenging the Speaker and refusing to sit down and be quiet you have not thrown out Dr Smith for doing precisely the same thing to you. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I did not notice Dr Smith doing that but if he did then I will be taking note in future and we will do it on that basis. 
Tariana Turia 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I would like to bring to your attention that those of us on this side of the House believe that Mr Mark is challenging the Speaker. He should be asked to leave the House. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: That is a judgment for the Speaker to make. I have considered the matter but I am going to call the Hon Dr Nick Smith. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I can understand why the Government is so sensitive. Let me set out very clearly why the conduct of this Government is unethical and immoral. You see we had the Prime Minister in the newspaper—the  
New Zealand Herald 
—and on  
One News 
 saying quite clearly that Mr Field’s behaviour was unacceptable unethical and immoral. They are the words of the Prime Minister. Yet she is prepared to have her Government propped up with a one-seat majority by a man whom she says is immoral and unethical. We say that is not good enough. 
What is even worse is that we have a set of rules in this Parliament about when votes can be cast. Standing Order 156(4)(d) states that a vote can be cast on behalf of an Independent member only when he or she is ill or when there is a good family reason which is fair enough or when he or she is on public business. This Government is now saying that being interviewed by the police for corruption is the public business of members of Parliament. If I were a member of a Government that was hanging on by that thread I would say its time was up and it was time to move on. 
Let us look at the contortions of the Prime Minister’s statements. Let me read this quote to members. She said quite clearly: “I think the only thing Mr Field is guilty of is trying to be helpful to constituents.” Was that just the first newspaper report? Was that statement made way back in 2005? No it was made in September 2006 which was after the Ingram inquiry and after it was a matter of public record that Phillip Field had been using Thai tilers to do slave labour work while he jacked them up with visitor and immigration status in New Zealand. What sort of Prime Minister and Government do we have that can say: “That’s just helping constituents.”? What sort of moral vacuum is there amongst Labour members opposite when they think that is just the normal work of helping constituents? I wonder what Michael Joseph Savage—a fighter for the rights of the unprivileged and the workers—would think of a Labour Party today that thinks it is OK for a member on a ministerial salary to use the slave labour of desperate Thai migrants. 
But the saga gets worse! Let us look at what has happened this week. On Monday the unethical immoral Government says it is going to have a proxy for Phillip Field. On Tuesday the Labour whip casts the vote to prop up this tired decrepit Government with that vote of Mr Phillip Field. And today the position has changed again and Mr Phillip Field says he has withdrawn that proxy. Is that the basis on which the Government of New Zealand operates? Is that what it has deteriorated to? Is the state of affairs we now have in New Zealand that a Government is propped up on the single-seat majority of someone whom the Prime Minister herself says is unethical and immoral? 
Let us look at some of the other things that the Prime Minister has said. Last week she said: “I have made it clear for a long time that his conduct was unethical and immoral.” 
Judith Collins 
: How long ago? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: That statement was made on 13 February 2006. 
Judith Collins 
: How long had she thought that? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Well in September she said: “I think Mr Field is guilty of trying too hard to help constituents.” 
Judith Collins 
: That doesn’t sound like her. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Well what is this business that she has been saying for a long time? Can we believe anything the Prime Minister now says? The answer is we cannot. This Prime Minister will hang on to power by the barest of threads and by the ends of her fingernails. The further disgrace is that we have heard all those Labour members give speeches in this Parliament about ethical conduct about standing up for the rights of workers about minimum wages etc. but how many of them have we heard talking about the Thai migrants who were abused by Mr Field? Not one. That is disgraceful.