Points of Order — Finding of Contempt—Hon Dr Nick Smith Member’s Notice of Motion No. 2—Wording Finding of Contempt—Hon Dr Nick Smith 
Points of Order — Finding of Contempt—Hon Dr Nick Smith Member’s Notice of Motion No. 2—Wording Finding of Contempt—Hon Dr Nick Smith 
[Volume:616;Page:12039] 
Tuesday 30 March 2004 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Points of Order 
Finding of Contempt—Hon Dr Nick Smith 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I hereby present a communication I have received from the registrar of the High Court regarding a finding of contempt against the Hon Dr Nick Smith. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The House would be interested to know if you have had a report from the registrar whether that report is a report under the Electoral Act suggesting that Dr Smith has been convicted of an offence carrying a sentence of more than 2 years. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Any member can see the copy of the report and it is here for anyone to get a copy of. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: Do you not know the answer? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: This is a report—[ 
Interruption 
] I am sorry. I am not entering further into that argument. 
Member’s Notice of Motion No. 2—Wording 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You will be aware as we all are that questions in the House are approved by the Clerk’s Office and that notices of motion come through a similar system as well. Appearing on page 6 of today’s Order Paper is a notice of motion that is a gross affront and insult to all of Parliament. With the greatest of respect I do not know how it got through—or whether there is a grammatical problem with the National Party and its leadership—but clearly I do not think a member can allege that this House has a gross lack of knowledge of the Standing Orders. I think it could be said that we collectively are the experts and that we do not exhibit a gross lack of knowledge. That being the case what remedies does a member of Parliament have when he or she reads such a notice of motion? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I agree with you that the way it is expressed does give rise to two interpretations. In fact the grammar is completely wrong. It was submitted correctly. It can be put down as a notice of motion. That is a way it can be done; but then of course it is a matter for debate. 
Finding of Contempt—Hon Dr Nick Smith 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I notice you have indicated to the House that you are tabling a report from the registrar of the High Court relating to the conviction of Dr Nick Smith. With regard to that I call your attention to a news release put out at about half past 12 today by the Prime Minister in which she states in a very categoric way that Nick Smith’s Nelson seat is not in jeopardy. Last week you gave a statement to the House that you thought there was no problem in the meantime and that at some further point you may have to make some reconsideration of that. Dr Nick Smith wrote to you on 29 March asking for a clear ruling and noting that there is no need for you to wait until sentencing. 
 The reality is that the Electoral Act makes clear that you call all the shots in this case. Most worrying for us is your reply to Dr Smith that you cannot make a ruling until early next week after the Clerk has made a report to you. We would like some clarification. If the Prime Minister is wrong we would like you to state in the House that she is wrong and make it clear that these sorts of statements are not helpful to her to Parliament or in particular to the member concerned. Further if she is right why can you not deal with Dr Smith’s issues now and declare his seat safe for him? It seems—and you are perhaps unwittingly being drawn into this—that there is a programme by the Government to tell the nation there is no need to have a by-election when the reality is that because of the time you wish to take to consider Dr Nick Smith’s position there is a considerable amount of uncertainty about his seat in the House. That is not fair to him or to the people he represents in Nelson and I suggest that the Prime Minister’s actions are not fair to you either. It would be easy to suggest that the Prime Minister is attempting to usurp your position by convincing the public that there is nothing to worry about here. Dr Smith has been through this for quite some time— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member has made his point. Could he please come to it quickly. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: My point is simply this: if the Prime Minister is wrong please tell her so. If the Prime Minister is not wrong then please deal with Dr Smith and make his seat more secure—in fact totally secure—immediately. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I cannot stop members from making such statements as they wish outside the House. We do live in a democracy. Any judgment I have to make under the Electoral Act will be uninfluenced by them. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Are you suggesting that any statement made outside the House can never in any way be considered to be a contempt of the House? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No of course I am not. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Well what is the heart of the issue we are going to? It seems fundamentally unfair— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member mentioned the word “contempt”. The proper way to have that dealt with is by writing to me as contempt is a matter of privilege. Any member can do that if he or she wishes to do so. As far as I am concerned—and I repeat—I cannot stop members from making such statements as they wish outside the House.