Points of Order — Finding of Contempt—Hon Dr Nick Smith

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.

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.

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.

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.