Smith Nick: Care of Children Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Smith Nick: Care of Children Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:621;Page:16678] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 It was interesting that during the Associate Minister’s contribution in quoting from the contempt of court proceedings in which I was involved he chose not to say that the judge had concluded that at all times I had acted in good faith. I hold a very basic view and that is that good mums and dads in this country have an absolute right to be able to raise their children. I find it absolutely remarkable and gutless for members opposite to raise repeatedly— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member is a longstanding member of the House and he knows very well that to imply that a member lacks courage is a personal reflection and is out of order. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I withdraw and apologise. The interesting point is this. At the time I was convicted I said: “Let’s have a by-election in Nelson. Let’s have the people of Nelson decide.” The Labour Party was nowhere to be seen. Its members did not have the courage of their convictions to argue that issue in the public arena of my own community of Nelson. Six months later they sleaze around in this Chamber trying to relitigate those issues when they did not have the capacity to put those issues to the public at the time. 
Hon David Benson-Pope 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I do not know a lot about sleaze—that member might—but I take exception to any member of the Government being referred to as sleazing around the Chamber. The member might like to explain just what it means because clearly he knows. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The Minister has taken exception to the word used—I would assume rightly or wrongly that that is under Standing Order 116. As the Minister has taken exception I ask the member to withdraw. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I withdraw. How sensitive members opposite are! I shall put this very simply. Ever since May members opposite have been very keen to quote all the time what happened in the court. 
Hon Marian Hobbs 
: That’s dead right. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: When Marian Hobbs was caught cheating on her provision—[ 
Interruption 
] She was caught out cheating. She was sacked as a Minister. 
Hon Marian Hobbs 
: I raise a point order Mr Chairperson. I take exception to that man lying about the actual circumstance and the court order. I ask him to withdraw. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: All members should just take a deep breath. It is not acceptable in this House to say that a member is not telling the truth. That is absolutely out of order. Here a member’s word is his or her bond. If there are any circumstances where that is found to be otherwise members have a course of action that they can take. I would ask the member to withdraw. 
Hon Marian Hobbs 
: Do you want me to withdraw? 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member will withdraw. 
Hon Marian Hobbs 
: Can I have a point of clarification? 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: No I am asking the member to withdraw. 
Hon Marian Hobbs 
: I withdraw first; then can I ask a point of order for clarification? 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Yes the member may have a point of order. 
Hon Marian Hobbs 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. If the speaker on his feet alleged something that put me in a criminal position that was incorrect and that had been proven before an authority to be incorrect can he continue to say that? What is the difference between that and lying? 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: All I can say is that if the member is concerned about the manner in which a speech has been delivered in this Chamber and if the member believes that it was incorrect the only position available to me is that I have to take the word of the honourable member. If the Minister herself is not satisfied with what is being said across the Chamber then she can take a breach of privilege. There is a course of action available for her to do that. 
Dail Jones 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. As a New Zealand First member I ask you to bring the Labour Party and the National Party back to the bill. They are wasting the country’s time talking about something that is not related to the bill. New Zealand First supports entirely the decision of the Family Court judge and the High Court which was absolutely right. Clearly Mr Smith did not support the interest of his— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I have heard enough. I am on my feet. I am in the process of dealing with the issue. I am the sole judge of relevancy. I ask members to come to the bill. The Committee’s term of reference is what is in the bill. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The part of the bill we are dealing with is the issue in respect of the opening up of the Family Court. I very strongly hold the view that we need to provide for public accountability of an institution that goes to the core of the most important relationships that we have during the course of our lives. 
Yesterday in the Chamber it was interesting to note that the Minister in the chair was very keen to quote editorials. When it came to Judith Collins he did not come up with his own words. He had to quote editorials from newspapers up and down the country. Well I want the Minister to look at what editorials state about his provisions in respect of the opening up of the Family Court. Under those provisions it appears that he is making our judges editors of our newspapers. It is a flaky and inappropriate form of State control when a judge in the Family Court can tell journalists what they can and cannot write. 
Judges are just people. They are lawyers who have gone on to take up that office. The only accountability of our judiciary is through opening proceedings to the media. The only time I have ever seen a judge resign is when he or she has been exposed by the media. If we have a secret court that is closed where is the check on those people who make absolutely critical decisions about people’s families? That is why I have argued consistently that the Family Court needs to be opened. That is why I say that the Minister must reconsider the State control and the editorial control that judges are given in subclause (2AB) of clause 131. I simply say that I could quote editorials up and down the country in which editors have said—and the New Zealand Press Association and the New Zealand Press Council have also said it—that those provisions are wrong. 
My challenge to Mr Benson-Pope is very simple. Why did he quote editors yesterday but not today? Why is he so keen to quote editorials in the  
Otago Daily Times 
 the  
New Zealand Herald 
 and the  
Dominion Post 
 when it suits him but he is not prepared to take any notice of them when they do not suit him? His provisions in the bill do not provide the open accountability that the people of New Zealand need from our Family Court. Do Government members opposite really believe in open justice? It is one of the absolute most important principles of any system and even more so when it involves families. I ask them to reconsider.