Smith Nick: Electoral (Vacancies) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Smith Nick: Electoral (Vacancies) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:610;Page:7762] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (NZ National—Nelson) 
: 
 I join this title debate wanting to refer to this bill as the “Double Standards Bill” and I have some questions for the Minister in the chair. Six weeks ago the Solicitor-General alleged that I had broken the law with regard to the Guardianship Act. The Attorney-General said that if I had broken the law then regardless of whether the law should be changed I had to face the music. I had to take the consequence of breaking the law as it stood that day. Furthermore one of the Government Ministers Damien O’Connor went even further. He said that any member of Parliament who breaks the law has to face the full consequences. Well I want to know what is different about this. Now we have the Solicitor-General saying that a member of the Government—a fellow Minister—has breached the Electoral Act. 
In both instances I think that a majority in this Parliament would prefer that the law were changed. A majority of the House actually supported the introduction of the new Care of Children Bill which would have made it plain that my actions did not in any way breach the law because those new provisions allow publication of proceedings of the Family Court provided that one does not mention names and that was clearly the case in my instance. So in both instances it is probable that a majority of Parliament would say that the law was outdated and needed to change. 
But I want to know from the Minister in the chair the Hon Rick Barker why the Government’s top law enforcement officer will drag me before the highest court in the land and put me in the dock put me to huge private expense to defend myself but a different set of rules apply for Harry Duynhoven. I would like to know from the Minister Rick Barker why there is a different rule for Harry Duynhoven compared with myself. Can any member on the Government benches please explain to me why when the Solicitor-General alleges that I broke the law—even though the Government has introduced a bill to change it—I have to face the music but when it comes to Harry Duynhoven the Government has a different standard? The silence from the Government benches says it all. I know and every member of this Parliament knows in his or her heart of hearts why it is different. Because Harry Duynhoven is in the Government and I am in the Opposition. 
Hon Matt Robson 
: No. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: That is the reason. I challenge Mr Matt Robson to get to his feet and explain to this Committee why when the Solicitor-General alleges that I broke the law I have to face the music in the High Court but Harry Duynhoven is going to be saved by an Act of Parliament. I ask the Government members whether they would support an amendment—I am not asking for it; I am happy to be accountable for my actions— that would have me retrospectively saved. If it is good enough for Harry Duynhoven why is it not good enough for me? 
Rodney Hide 
: We should all have a clause! 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Rodney Hide wants a retrospective provision so that anybody who has ever done anything to breach the law is exempted. Well that might be the sort of thing they would do in Zimbabwe but not the Parliament of New Zealand. I say to the Minister in the chair that we should have a standard that is higher than this sort of politics which says there is one rule for Government members and a different set of rules for the Opposition. That is an awful commentary on this Parliament. It is two standards of citizenship. It shows the double standards in this House and we deserve some explanation. I want to hear from the Attorney-General and from Damien O’Connor who were saying so loudly just 2 months ago that Nick Smith has to answer the law—that the Solicitor-General has said that so that is what has to happen. I want to hear from a Government member why when it comes to Harry Duynhoven things are different. I will be taking call after call to ask for that explanation because I believe this Committee deserves an answer.