Dalziel Lianne: General Debates 
Dalziel Lianne: General Debates 
[Volume:618;Page:14402] 
LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 The Government won its second term in office 2 years ago yesterday. Apart from the total disarray of the National Party at the time which was helpful it was a positive vote for the continuation of the good work of a good Government whose members had said before an election what it was going to do and who delivered on those promises after the election. National cannot stand that. Every time we deliver another pledge it reminds people that National broke promise after promise all through the 1990s. 
The bottom line is that this country is doing well. Areas of deprivation in the 1990s are today building growth rates that are higher than the national average and the National Party cannot stand that either. Dr Brash says we are a lucky Government which I suspect means that he thinks Ruth Richardson was just plain unlucky when she plunged our economy into recession with her “mother of all Budgets”. Maybe he thinks he would have better luck now because he is really stuck in that ideological mindset of the 1990s which this country firmly rejected in 1999 firmly rejected in 2002 and will firmly reject again next year. 
My view is that we would see history repeat itself if National were to gain control of the Treasury benches. I was talking to an older constituent on Monday who said to me that Dr Brash would ruin the New Zealand economy if he had the chance giving tax cuts to the richest New Zealanders and taking service away from the poorest New Zealanders. National will learn that it cannot fool the people even some of the time. The question I am asked is that if National is doing so well why are so many of its members now leaving—deciding that they are not going to stand for the National Party? Obviously Roger Sowry has made a good decision. It is better to jump ship than to suffer a humiliating defeat at the hands of the National list-ranking committee. To decide to stay on would only be delaying the inevitable. Linda Scott was furious that Dr Brash could not bring himself even to include health as one of National’s top five priorities. No wonder they are going. 
Although there is speculation about Georgina te Heuheu leaving voluntarily and Richard Worth or Clem Simich being forced out there is no speculation about the one member of the Opposition who should stand down because of the dishonour he has brought upon himself as a member of Parliament the dishonour he has brought upon this House by being here and the dishonour he has brought upon his party—Nicholas Rex Smith. Nick Smith was convicted of contempt of court but not because he breached the privacy provisions of the Family Court as his colleagues seemed to think. They gave that man a standing ovation in this Parliament for trying to force in the most high-handed manner imaginable a genuine litigant in a Family Court proceeding to withdraw from that proceeding. Nicholas Rex Smith rang the caregiver in a family dispute and asked her whether she felt guilty for stealing the mother’s child. How dare he! He said to her words to the effect that he was a member of Parliament that Parliament is the highest court in the land and that everyone is answerable to Parliament. That is intolerable behaviour from somebody calling himself a member of Parliament. 
Lindsay Tisch 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The member is casting aspersions on the credibility of a member on this side of the House by referring to a court case that has been heard and is over. Her attack on Dr Nick Smith is uncalled for and unparliamentary and I ask that she apologise and withdraw those comments. 
LIANNE DALZIEL 
: Speaking to the point of order I am quoting from the court case. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I wonder whether it is appropriate that we get into this sort of slanging match. The reality is that the court at the end of the day vindicated Dr Smith’s position without a doubt. In fact it is very clear that it was a politically motivated prosecution. There is no doubt that undue influence was brought to bear on various parties in this case and Nick Smith in my view was totally a victim. I think for the Labour Party to have a member stand up now and talk like this is just outrageous. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I thank members for those comments. The last speaker was simply furthering the information that was in the original point of order. I say to the member who was making those remarks that she is quite entitled to make them because they are from a court case but I and the House would appreciate it if she desisted—certainly in the tone that she was delivering them. 
LIANNE DALZIEL 
: To quote from the court case the member concerned rang the caregiver in a family dispute and asked her if she felt guilty for stealing the mother’s child. He said to her words to the effect that he was a member of Parliament that Parliament is the highest court in the land and that everyone is answerable to Parliament. He denied that in court but the court did not believe him and found against him. If Nick Smith had one ounce of integrity he would say he must stand down because he had led his own party and the wider public to believe that he was a martyr to the cause of openness in the Family Court and he knew he could rely on the local media—apart from the Christchurch  
Press 
 which actually reported it accurately in its editorial—not to tell the real story. I invite members to read the decision of the Solicitor-General on Nicholas Rex Smith TV3 and Radio New Zealand and ask why such contemptible behaviour is acceptable to the National Party. 
I want to quote from the supplementary judgment from the other two judges in the case: “The list of contempts just given demonstrates that what he did went well beyond simply making public details of a proceeding in the Family Court. It will have been clear to you from our judgment that we regard your contempts as serious ones not the least because they occurred on four different and separate occasions. Your subsequent conduct is devoid of any expression of regret—indeed quite the opposite. To be unrepentant is your prerogative. We find it disappointing and for someone of your standing surprising. On the more positive side we accept that your motives were a desire to help your constituents.” He did not achieve that end.