Parker David: Amended Answers to Oral Questions — Question No. 4 to Minister; Family Courts (Openness of Proceedings) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Parker David: Amended Answers to Oral Questions — Question No. 4 to Minister; Family Courts (Openness of Proceedings) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:618;Page:13894] 
DAVID PARKER (Labour—Otago) 
: 
 One of the speakers we heard on this bill before the dinner adjournment was Nicholas Rex Smith. Nicholas Rex Smith was the defendant found guilty of contempt of court in February this year for breaching the rules of this country. We in Parliament are in the privileged position of being able to change laws. Until we do we are bound by them. I think the lamentable conduct of Nicholas Rex Smith—Dr Nick Smith as he is known in this House—ought to be put on the record of  
Hansard 
 and I intend to do it now. 
Nicholas Smith was charged with contempt of court arising out of his conduct in Nelson in 2003. His conduct is referred to in the judgment which runs to 20 or 30 pages and thoroughly analyses the issues. He was properly represented by a Queen’s Counsel in that case and stated his case. New Zealand’s High Court found him to be in contempt; his conduct was contemptible. What did he do? He tried to influence court process. What did he do? He rang up individual litigants. 
The background to this case is that some parents had voluntarily given up custody of their child. The caregiver of that child had custody. Nick Smith had a visit from the parents who had changed their minds and thought that the decision of the court which they had consented to was wrong. He rang up the person who had care of the child and put incredible pressure upon her. What did he say? One of the things he said was: “Don’t you feel guilty for stealing [the mother’s] child?” He later denied making that comment. The court did not believe Dr Smith; it believed the person who received the call—the caregiver of the child. He did say: “Don’t you feel guilty for stealing [the mother’s] child?” 
He also said he was a member of Parliament which was the highest court in this land and that everyone was answerable in Parliament. He denied that statement in court. Did the court believe him? No the court believed the person who received the phone call. Dr Smith was accordingly found in contempt of court because he was trying to influence the process of the court. He went further. He did not just put pressure upon that poor person who was legally going about her business; he actually put out a press release. One reason the court did not believe him when he said he did not steal the child was that the media release he put out about the same time said that this case almost amounted to State-sanctioned child stealing. That was a disgusting episode. Members opposite ought to acknowledge that their colleague Dr Nick Smith behaved abominably and accordingly was found in contempt of court. His behaviour was outrageous and contemptible and accordingly he was penalised by the court. 
What was the response of the fine upstanding National Party members? When Dr Smith arrived back rather than say that his conduct was unacceptable they gave him a standing ovation as he walked into this Chamber. You should be ashamed of yourselves. Sorry not you— 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I believeMr Parker owes you a withdrawal and an apology. 
DAVID PARKER 
: Speaking to the point of order I have already withdrawn that comment. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The member will withdraw and apologise. 
DAVID PARKER 
: I apologise for bringing you into the debate Madam Speaker. National members ought to be ashamed of themselves for giving a standing ovation to one of their members who had been found in contempt of court. 
I see that Mr Carter is now on the telephone to bring Dr Smith down to defend himself. Dr Smith should stand up and defend himself because his conduct was contemptible and was found to be in contempt of court. We who have the ability to change the law should of all people honour the law until it is changed. Dr Smith ought to be pilloried not just by this Chamber but by the press for his contemptible conduct.