Reaction to Nick Smith case
March 25th, 2004 at 8:41 am by David FarrarThere appears to be a lot of sympathy for Nick Smith going by media reaction to date. I’d actually forgotten he had actually personally paid thousands of dollars of legal fees for the family to convince them to not act outside the law. That is on top of the cost of defending the contempt case which he had to mortgage his house to help cover.
Most MPs have been very supportive (partly knowing it could have been them). The Greens and United Future especially as well as his traditional colleagues.
The real creep has been Winston Peters who has been showing his nasty side a lot lately. He had the temerity to chastise Dr Smith saying his behaviour was unacceptable and you can’t act this way. The hypocrisy being that Winston Peters has defamed more New Zealanders than any other MP with wild reckless attacks, often without a shred of proof. But he has cowered behind parliamentary privilege (except one time when he got done for defamation) to protect himself.
The issue being debated by lawyers is whether contempt of court is a crime with maximum penalty over two years, or to quote exactly Parargraph (d) of Section 55(1) of the Electoral Act 1993:
“If he or she is convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term of 2 years or upwards”
The lawyers seem to be split quite evenly on the issue. I am not a lawyer but for my 2 cents worth I agree with Richard Prebble and think that it is not covered.
Nick was charged with the common law offence of contempt of court. What is interesting is that the Crimes Act 1956 does also have a specific statute offence of contempt in Section 401. It deals with abusing in court the Judge or other official, obstructing the Court, intimidating witnesses etc. The maximum penalty is $1,000 fine or three months jail is the fine is not paid.
Section 401(3) notes “Nothing in this section shall limit or affect any power or authority of the Court to punish any person for contempt of Court in any case to which this section does not apply”
I would have thought the worse contempt was one where you jump up in Court and yell the Judge shags sheep (as an example), compared to allegedly pressuring a Judge through the media, but the former has a very small maximum fine and the letter no maximum penalty.
No tag for this post.
March 25th, 2004 at 12:12 pm
Wow, a morals lecture from Winston Peters. Now, how many of the allegations he’s made under privilege have ever been proved to have a foundation in objective reality?
Vote:March 25th, 2004 at 12:13 pm
And another question for Mr Peters: Has Selwyn Cushing ever seen a penny of him damages?
Vote:March 25th, 2004 at 10:21 pm
I think the National party are being very canny about this whole episode. As you have pointed out, Nick can not be expected to resign based on the penalty for his “indiscretion”.But this is great for National, who up until now have really been a one man party.
Vote:Now we are presented with Nick the “great kiwi battler” as well as “straight laced and straight up” Don. Together appealing to the opposite ends of the voting demographic.
The whole saga has been turned into a great opportunity for National to increase profile and I would expect to see this reflected in the polls.
I find particularly appealing, the solidarity of support for Smith amongst his own party members and even those from the smaller parties.
Had it been Labour? We’ll we all know they eat their young.
March 26th, 2004 at 8:07 am
Pete –
I’ve been mildly cheered by the reaction among people I know: Yes, the law is an arse – but Nick broke it and should take the consequences. If he worms out of a by-election he opens himself (and the National Party) to charges of talking the talk but not walking the walk.
And why the hell would Smith want to spend the rest of this term as National’s answer to Donna Awatere-Huata? Or, even worse, National’s answer to Harry Duynhoven?
I also note ‘Bring it on!’ Hel-zilla in the Dom-Post this morning hinting that Labour will not contest the by-election. Goody, I say — nothing says I’m a gutless wonder louder than an empty chair.
Vote:March 28th, 2004 at 3:11 pm
I’m more interested in the furore that’s erupted over whether Nick Smith should resign his seat, forcing a by-election that no other major party’s prepared to contest! Nick’s electorate chairman said such a move might be necessary to reconfirm his mandate. This, in an electorate that elected Smith as their MP by a whooping margin of 4,000 votes.
I suspect the move is more of an attempt by Smith to avoid being relegated (in a Brian Neeson like fashion) come the 2005 election. Smith’s lost popularity after the terribly embarrassing “stress-leave” incident that tarred his tenure as Deputy Leader of the National party. So, to avoid being thrown out, he’s seeking to graphically show his party only he, and not just a National party stooge, can win Nelson.
Vote:March 28th, 2004 at 3:24 pm
Rob – a by-election could happen whether or not Nick resigns. Matt Robson today has said the Privileges committee should hold a hearing and decide if his seat is vacant.
I think what Nick’s electorate chair was referring to is that some people are suggesting the conviction makes him unfit to continue to be an MP, and that the best way to resolve the issue is to ask the people.
It is fanciful Labour spin to suggest Nick could lose his seat or be challenged in 2005. First of all on current polls National would gain 35 extra MPs, so I don’t think many of the 27 current ones have much to worry about. A lot of Labour ones do though.
Nick is very popular with his colleagues, the wider party, and most importantly of all with his local electorate. There is a lot of sympathy for what has had gone through in the last year.
Unlike the Labour Party where Head Office effectively picks all the candidates, in National is is entirely up to the local electorate.
Vote:March 28th, 2004 at 3:40 pm
The Labour Electorate Committee is responsible for electing the local candidate for a particular electorate, not Head Office. Each electorate has its own LEC. In that respect, just like the National Party, candidates must receive a mandate from the local branch to be considered for nomination.
I don’t know anyone who’s questioning his mandate, or his ability to represent his constituents in the wake of the court ruling. I drew my own conclusions as a result. The theory is also my own, so I can’t see how it’s a vast conspiracy propagated by Labour to destabilise Smith.
The pragmatist in me agrees with you. It’s unlikely Smith will lose his electorate seat. I used that to base my argument on, the fact that a by-election would only seek to prove what most of us already know, and could thereby be a tool for Smith to entrench himself. If Matt Robson thinks the privileges committee should review Smith
Vote:March 28th, 2004 at 3:47 pm
“The Labour Electorate Committee is responsible for electing the local candidate for a particular electorate, not Head Office.”
Well unless there has been a rule change that is not correct. The LEC appoints two or three people to the selection committee and Head Office appoints three. If the rules have changed please let me have a copy as my copy must be out of date!
“I don’t know anyone who’s questioning his mandate, or his ability to represent his constituents in the wake of the court ruling.”
Generally Labour MPs in the House. Not on the record, but shouting things out. I suspect Helen will pull them into line soon.
“If Matt Robson thinks the privileges committee should review Smith
Vote:March 29th, 2004 at 1:48 pm
I have always been told the final electorate committee comprises members from New Zealand Council, or Head Office, to grade each candidate from a national (as opposed to regional) perspective. Convention has always meant those delegates from Head Office have supported a candidate that carries a strong regional mandate. In that respect, you’re correct the final make-up of the committee considers the opinions of Head Office members, but it certainly doesn’t run off them alone.
I felt you misrepresented the party by saying Head Office hand picks all their candidates. That’s just simply not the case….!
Vote: