Speaker’s Rulings — Contempt Finding—Hon Dr Nick Smith

On 24 March 2004 the Hon Dr Nick Smith was found to be in contempt of court by the High Court. Dr Smith subsequently wrote to me, seeking from me a ruling as to his status as a member of Parliament in view of this finding. Under section 129(1) of the Electoral Act 1993, if the finding of contempt did operate to create a disqualification, it is the Speaker’s duty to declare the seat vacant. I have considered the position created by the finding of contempt, and have received a superb piece of work from the Clerk of the House, which I will table shortly, and which I would invite all members to read. I have concluded that the finding of contempt against Dr Smith is not conviction of a crime within section 55(1)(d) of the Electoral Act, and that consequently Dr Smith’s seat is not vacant. Therefore, no further action is necessary on my part.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am sure that I will find that that ruling is correct when I come to read it, but I would be intrigued to know how you can make that ruling when the ruling on the Hon Harry Duynhoven was just as clear, and you were just as able to make a decision then, but in that case you referred it to the Privileges Committee and in this case you did not. I would like to know what principle you follow as to when you send things to the Privileges Committee and when you do not.

I would invite the member to read the report that Mr McGee has presented to me, which goes into that in some considerable detail.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think the answer to the question is that at the critical time, when you would have been required by law to make a decision, there was no need to make a decision, and that was pointed out by me and others in this House before you made the decision. But the other question I want to ask is whether it is usual for a quasi-judicial decision to be made, namely by yourself today, and have people applaud it, or are we going down the track of American behaviour in the courts?

That is not a point of order.