Power Simon: Electoral Matters Bill — In Committee 
Power Simon: Electoral Matters Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:622;Page:17273] 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 The Electoral Matters Bill is best broken into three major issues. The first issue which was dealt with in the last part related to broadcasting matters and amendments to the Broadcasting Act. Generally there was widespread agreement throughout the Committee on that part. It was a non-controversial part in the sense that the bulk of it was dealt with and agreed to by the Justice and Electoral Committee. A couple of amendments were offered by Murray Smith but there was nothing that was going to rock the world. 
However it is worth spending a bit of time on the other two issues that have been raised in this debate. My colleague Dr Wayne Mapp raised the issue of Mr Harry Duynhoven. I do not intend to traverse the issues already covered by Dr Wayne Mapp. I offer a slightly different perspective on that argument which is: who was Harry Duynhoven hiding? Who were the people behind poor old Harry Duynhoven—poor old Harry Duynhoven the public fall guy for any number of Government MPs who did not have the wherewithal to put their hands up and say in the House: “I am in the same position.”? 
Members can criticise Harry Duynhoven and have done so at length but another question has been avoided in this debate. Whilst the Hon Harry Duynhoven was pushed out the front who was hiding behind him? Where is that person now? [ 
Interruption 
] The member for the ACT party Stephen Franks says that even Harry Duynhoven does not know. I do not think that is right. I think Harry Duynhoven does know and I think it drives him nuts. I think it drives him nuts not to be able to stand up and simply say: “I took the fall for these other people. I took the hits publicly. I could have gone to my constituency and easily won a by-election.” Nobody in this Chamber can seriously put a case for Harry Duynhoven not winning that by-election. But who was hiding behind him? 
To some extent I have a bit of sympathy for Mr Duynhoven. In my view he was hung out to dry. That is not to say that what occurred was right. In fact Dr Wayne Mapp has gone to some lengths to discuss why the processes around Mr Duynhoven’s particular case were deeply and constitutionally wrong. But that does not excuse those who got off scot-free. I remember sitting in this Chamber when the House was in urgency and asking David Benson-Pope who at the time was the Government senior whip: “Who else is there?” I sought leave for Mr Benson-Pope to tell us who the other culprits were. Every other whip in this Parliament stood at some time as I recall and said that they had checked and it was not one of theirs. We asked the chief Labour Party whip who at the time was David Benson-Pope to stand and make the same declaration but he would not make it. 
This bill is about letting those other people off the hook while Harry Duynhoven was sent out to take the hit for them. The other issue which caused some controversy at the commencement of this debate was that relating to powers around design layout and colour of hoardings. I finish by saying that there cannot be one rule for MPs and another rule for everybody else. If the law is wrong we should amend the local government legislation and the Resource Management Act.