Benson-Pope David: Care of Children Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Benson-Pope David: Care of Children Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:621;Page:16676] 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Associate Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I would just like to respond briefly to the comments that Ms Collins has made in relation to Nick Smith’s championing of the causes of families. I would like to do that by putting on the record a couple of quotes from the judgment of the court case that was referred to. In quoting from that judgment can I first inform the Committee of this comment from the presiding judge. “The fact that pressure was applied privately to a litigant did not prevent the action being a contempt of court. All improper pressure whether applied publicly or privately had to be considered. The comments to the caregiver were neither fair nor reasonable nor moderate. They were contemptuous because their purpose was to persuade the caregiver to give up the case and concede custody to the parents. The comments were not bona fide persuasion”—[ 
Interruption 
] I say to Ms Collins that she seems to operate as do many members on that side of the House on the theory that the fantasy often repeated becomes the truth. I think it is quite important for the people who are listening and for the parliamentary record of this debate that people hear just how much that champion of the family and justice Nick Smith was in contempt of the Family Court. 
The second quote I would like to put in the record is as follows: “Dr Smith had sought to influence the Family Court’s decision. He sought to bring about the return of custody of the child to the parents. He did this by propounding that outcome by denigrating the other possible outcome and by calling for an inquiry.” 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Members need to confine their speeches to the content of this part. Passing references to other matters have to be very narrow. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I am very happy to have a debate in this Chamber about the issues that brought about the contempt of court charge and I seek leave of the Committee for the Minister to be able to stray in that area providing members on this side of the Committee have the opportunity to respond. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: No the Committee has no authority to do that. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I seek leave. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Well the member can always seek leave but whether it is granted is another matter. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I seek leave for the debate to be widened so that the aspects of the contempt of court charge that led good parents in my electorate to lose their child are able to be debated in terms of this debate about opening up the Family Court. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The Committee actually has no authority to do that. It would require the authority of the House to do so. 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: I am confining myself absolutely to the matter of this section in direct response to the matters raised by the previous speaker Ms Collins. 
The final three sentences of my contribution are as follows and I quote from the judgment which I will seek leave to table in a moment. “By making public comments and statements that undermined the public confidence in the Family Court decision Dr Smith at the same time undermined public confidence in the court itself. The intemperate derogatory and unfair remarks of Dr Smith assaulted the authority and integrity of the Family Court and the fairness and legitimacy of its decision.” I seek leave to table the decision of the  
Solicitor-General 
 v  
Smith  
in the High Court in March this year. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. The Minister’s point of order actually breaches the Standing Orders in that one cannot seek leave to table a document that has already been tabled. The decision of the Solicitor-General—the Crown’s top law enforcement officer—versus myself has already been tabled in the House and it is not within the Standing Orders to seek leave to table something that has already been tabled. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I just say to the member that it is a public document and it is up to the Committee as to whether it agrees to that. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: But it has already been tabled. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: It has been tabled but the reality is that it is still— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: No—there is a very specific Standing Order that says that one cannot put—[ 
Interruption 
] 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Points of order are to be heard in silence. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: It is a very clear Standing Order and I have to say Mr Chairman that the Speaker has ruled on this. This is the fourth time that Labour has sought to re-table this document. [ 
Interruption 
] I tell Marian Hobbs that the Speaker ruled—[ 
Interruption 
] Mr Chairman you have already told members that they should not interject during points of order. Marian Hobbs has been repeatedly interjecting. What are you going to do about it? 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I have already called for order on this side. If the member made such comments—I am sorry; I did not hear them—I request her to stand withdraw and apologise. She has her first yellow card; the next time she is out. 
Hon Marian Hobbs 
: I withdraw and apologise for the interjection.