Parker David: General Debates 
Parker David: General Debates 
[Volume:619;Page:14621] 
DAVID PARKER (Labour—Otago) 
: 
 It is another sad sad week for National. Despite the controversy of foreshore and seabed where is that party going in the polls? Down down down! Why is that? National has no principles and added to that no depth. The bunch on the other side is a talentless and depthless bunch. When Dr Brash is compared with Helen Clark there is overwhelming support for Helen Clark. Dr Brash the pale comparison that he is is pallid and unsupported in the electorate. 
It goes further. The whole of National’s front bench is weak. When Gerry Brownlee is compared with Dr Cullen New Zealand knows the difference. Dr Cullen is capable; Mr Brownlee is a buffoon. Lynda Scott compared—[ 
Interruption 
] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I know what the member is going to say. That is a personal reflection and under Standing Order 116— 
DAVID PARKER 
: I withdraw and apologise. Lynda Scott compared with Annette King! No wonder Lynda Scott has resigned! Then we go further down to the juniors. So many of National’s front bench are under 40 with little life experience or experience in Government. We heard from one of them today. Simon Power an expert in male-patterned baldness gave us a speech attacking John Tamihere’s speech about concerns for men particularly some young men. Simon Power has a problem with that so he attacks John Tamihere for it. Well why? There is nothing wrong in supporting groups within our society. That is where National goes wrong. We know that New Zealand is made strong by supporting any of its groups that need help be they young men with problems or other minorities. National does not support minorities and is afraid to do so. Then we heard from Dr Smith. I quote him: “New Zealanders can smell a con a mile away.” 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: That’s right. 
DAVID PARKER 
: He says that is right—and they can. Nicholas Rex Smith is a con. He was convicted of contempt of court. He was found guilty by the High Court of New Zealand this year. We in Parliament are in the privileged position of being able to change laws. Until we change them we more than anyone else should know we are bound by them. Earlier this year Dr Smith was found in contempt of court by the High Court. He is contemptible. He was represented by Queen’s Counsel and he had his day in court. Did the court believe him? No it did not. It found him to be in contempt of court because he had phoned the caregiver of a child and accused her of stealing the child despite the fact that she had the care of the child with the authority of the court. Indeed at the time the court order was made it was with the consent of the natural parents. Dr Smith asked that caregiver whether she felt guilty for stealing the mother’s child but he denied making that comment. Did the court believe him? [ 
Interruption 
] Do you say that you did not say that? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member may not bring the Speaker into the debate. 
DAVID PARKER 
: Dr Smith said— 
Hon David Carter 
: It’s a long 5 minutes. 
DAVID PARKER 
: It is a long 5 minutes. Well his actions were contemptible and he was found in contempt of court. What did the National Party do— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member but although he is making a hard-hitting speech and although some interjections can be expected they should not be such that the member cannot be heard. The Speaker will not allow that. 
Simon Power 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That places us in a difficult position because if the member opposite is intent upon making inflammatory remarks during the course of his contribution to the general debate then he invites disorder from the Opposition side of the House and invites members on this side to protect Dr Smith’s position in respect of those comments made by the member. If it is now the case that inflammatory remarks made by Government members are not able to be challenged by interjections from this side then by my reading of the Standing Orders I say that that is a complete change to the historical position. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I am sorry if the member misunderstood. I am saying that I cannot allow a member to be drowned out. Interjections are considered to be OK if they are rare and reasonable. 
DAVID PARKER 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I do not think you have ruled on Mr Power’s point of order which was to deny that I am able to call Dr Smith contemptible and to use language that suggests— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: No no. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. In every general debate I have participated in so far this year Government members have interjected very loudly all the way through every single speech. So I have some difficulty because of the fact that Speakers need to be consistent in the standards they are setting. I had a constant barrage of shouting all the way through my speech and you sat there silently. My colleagues did not take a point of order for the very reason that with just a 5-minute speech it ends up breaking the flow. I simply ask Speakers chairing the general debate to be consistent because I put up with a continuous barrage yet with a few points made on Mr Parker suddenly the Assistant Speaker wants to protect that member. 
Hon Mark Burton 
: I raise a point of order— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: No no. I really do not need any help on this; the member will please be seated. The Speaker will not allow a member to be drowned out. Now I recognise that this is a vigorous place and that we should have vigorous and passionate debate. I do not have a problem with that—in fact I welcome it. But when it gets to the stage when the Speaker cannot hear the person on his or her feet then the Speaker will intervene. 
DAVID PARKER 
: For the sake of listeners I say that I am not being— 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I tell the member that I have already ruled on this. 
Rodney Hide 
: I know. This is a new point of order. I think one of the things you should reflect on Mr Speaker is that when you are considering these points of order you do not enter into the debate. I do not think it is correct to say that there was some inflammatory language used or to describe the speech as being hard-hitting. I do not think that that was the complaint. To say that that was a hard-hitting speech suggests to members on this side of the House that red-blooded heterosexual males over there are in danger. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member has made his point. 
DAVID PARKER 
: Having put pressure on that caregiver by saying that it was State-sponsored theft of a child Dr Smith then said that that person should be concerned because Parliament was the ultimate court. Well Parliament is the ultimate court in that its members have the ability to change laws. But we more than anyone should know we are bound by the law. That conduct was disgraceful and it was made worse when the National Party gave that man a standing ovation as he walked back into Parliament. Having been found in contempt of court Dr Smith was given a standing ovation by National members. It is no wonder that the  
Otago Daily Times 
 on 20 July 2004 after celebrating the indication that Mr Sowry will not stand again at the next election stated: “It would have been more useful for Dr Brash if one or two other brat-pack members such as Nick Smith and Tony Ryall had found it timely— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I seek leave of the House to table my statement that I was happy to have a by-election with the people of Nelson on the issues raised— 
Document not tabled. 
DAVID PARKER 
: I seek leave to table the decision of the High Court of New Zealand which found Dr Nick Smith to be in contempt of court. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Hang on. I will put this first. Is there any objection— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: No. I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I want to speak to that quite specifically. [ 
Interruption 
] It is speaking to the point of order. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Well the member has sought leave and the House is the master of its own destiny; it can either reject it or allow it. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: No no. There is a very important Standing Order in this respect Mr Speaker. I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. There is a longstanding Standing Order that we cannot seek leave to table a document that has already been tabled. The document that Mr Parker seeks to table was tabled by the Speaker when it was delivered by the High Court in May. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you. 
DAVID PARKER 
: I seek leave—and anyone can decline it—to speak to the point of order. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: No. If what Dr Smith alleges is correct then that is where the matter will rest. 
DAVID PARKER 
: If Dr Smith is giving me an assurance that that document has already been tabled then I am happy with that.