Brownlee Gerry: General Debates 
Brownlee Gerry: General Debates 
[Volume:609;Page:6149] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (NZ National—Ilam) 
: 
 I want to speak about the very serious matter of the letter that Dr Nick Smith has received from the Solicitor-General threatening him with a prosecution— 
Clayton Cosgrove 
: A good letter too. At least the Solicitor-General writes. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I take it that that is not coming off my time. I said at the start that I wanted to make a serious contribution. The member who then interrupted for some time is interrupting from a seat that is not his normal seat. The Standing Orders are very clear. I should not be punished or penalised by way of the time I have available to me for that. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I take the member’s point. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: So the clock will be reset? 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Yes carry on. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Dr Smith received a letter from the Solicitor-General couched in very threatening terms suggesting that he had committed a contempt of court and that he had also breached the Guardianship Act. I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I would like to be heard in silence. A member has the right to be heard in silence. I am calling on that right now. 
Hon John Tamihere 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. It ill behoves any member to walk into this Chamber indicate that they have a matter of some seriousness that they want to lay before the House then require it to be heard in silence. That is my first submission. My second submission is that this is general-debate day. The general debate is quite a vociferous debate. That member has interjected on no less than six occasions in this particular general debate on a number of other speakers. To have the temerity to ask the Speaker to grant a right of silence to a speech which is normally arcane and insane at the best of times is just beyond the pale. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Speaking to the point of order I point out that it is not unusual for a member to ask for silence. Indeed one of the worst speakers in this House as everyone knows is the Prime Minister who regularly has to ask for the Chair to protect her in those circumstances. This is members’ day it is a member’s time and I have an absolute right under the Standing Orders to ask to be heard in silence. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The member does have a right to ask for that. There have been a lot of interjections from both sides. However I now ask that the member continue with his speech. He has asked to be heard in silence. He can exercise that right. I ask Mr Brownlee to continue—and he will be heard in silence. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker—for the third time. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Please be seated. I was ruling on a point of order. The member was quite incorrect to stand while I was ruling on the point of order. Now I will hear the member’s point of order. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Madam Speaker my point of order was raised before you gave a ruling and it is simply this. You entertained a submission from Mr Tamihere on this matter when it is not a requirement whatsoever. Mr Brownlee sought leave from you to have his speech heard in silence. That is a matter for you and you alone to decide and to take into account a very junior member’s views on the matter—views that are of no great comment or relevance whatsoever—is seriously wrong. That is my point of order. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. In the course of the previous debate the Hon Lianne Dalziel criticised and said that the matter was not drawn to her attention as did Mr Clayton Cosgrove. I seek the leave of the House to table a letter from the Hon Lianne Dalziel dated 24 March 2003 to my constituent stating that she was not prepared to do anything as a Government Minister. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. How long do I have left? 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The member has 4½ minutes left. [ 
Interruption 
] I have indicated to Mr Brownlee that he will be heard in silence. I now call for order. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: As I had begun to say Dr Smith received a very threatening letter from the Solicitor-General indicating that the Solicitor-General was considering prosecuting him for contempt of court and for a breach of the Guardianship Act. Dr Smith’s colleagues in the National Party strongly refute and deny both those allegations. Dr Smith was faced with an interesting situation whereby constituents in his electorate went to his office and asked for his assistance. Those constituents had been to their own member of Parliament—the southern Maori member—and had had no satisfaction from that person. Over a period of time those constituents had written some five letters to Government and State officials asking for assistance and had had no satisfaction. Those constituents had been in touch with the Associate Minister of Justice and were simply told that nothing could be done for them. Those constituents had had their child taken away from them by the court for no apparent good reason.  
So Dr Smith decided to take up the cause of that family. He began a crusade in the proper way to get attention given to their circumstances and to try to get some sort of inquiry into how those honest hardworking parents who are doing a good job of bringing up their other three children can have one of their children taken off them by the Family Court without their knowledge. That does not seem to me to be an unreasonable step for a professional politician to take in his advocacy for his constituents. Any suggestion that Dr Smith breached the provisions of the Guardianship Act are a nonsense. Dr Smith did not release the names of the people involved. Dr Smith did not release details of proceedings. Dr Smith did not make any allegations about any party involved in this circumstance. Indeed after Dr Smith had spoken in an interview about some constituents of his and after he had put out a press release outlining the appalling facts in this case in a very general way the Principal Family Court Judge Judge Mahoney phoned Dr Smith’s office and asked for the name of the family in order that he might investigate the circumstances of that case.  
I suggest to the House and to the Solicitor-General that if Dr Smith had breached the requirements of the Guardianship Act or in fact had acted in some contempt of the court then Judge Mahoney would have been under no doubt as to who he was talking about and what the case was about. In fact he had to make that phone call to find out about that very circumstance. Then he went one step further and got involved in a radio interview where anybody can see he most certainly was talking about the proceedings before the court and the specific family that had been named in the television programme. At the heart of all this is the threat that that letter poses to all MPs who decide to go out and take on a difficult case for their constituents. The right of free speech in this country is precious and the right of privilege to speak freely in this House is precious and it concerns me that in the 7 years I have been here the courts appear to be slowly encroaching upon both those rights with some stealth. This whole circumstance is very unfortunate. We certainly do not want to see a situation developing where Parliament through its Privileges Committee is at direct loggerheads with the judiciary but with the way we are going that looks like the way it will spin out.