Eckhoff Gerrard: Electoral (Vacancies) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Eckhoff Gerrard: Electoral (Vacancies) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:610;Page:7763] 
GERRARD ECKHOFF (ACT NZ) 
: 
 After listening to the debate today it does seem from the Opposition side of the Committee that we have had yet again little—or indeed no—contribution or justification from the Government side with regard to this particular bill. This is yet another day of shame for this Government especially. But it is worse than that because it is a day of shame for Parliament. The television cameras and the  
Hansard  
record of the proceedings of this debate will show the public yet again that the Government and Parliament are seen to be looking after one of their own. Whereas members of the public down on Lambton Quay or in the farms and valleys of New Zealand are left to their own devices to face the full force of the law parliamentarians it would seem do not. 
Some years ago a rather honourable gentleman by the name of Lord Carrington stood in the House of Commons when the Falkland Islands were invaded by Argentina and said words to the effect that he had not known of that event but he should have known. We have a Minister of this Government Harry Duynhoven who is a nice chap and all the rest of it but who is not actually doing what I think is the honourable thing. He should be saying he did not know but he should have known. How often do we see right throughout the parliaments of the Western democratic countries honourable members standing in their parliaments and saying those things? They say they did not know about something but they fall on their sword resign and then ask the people—it would be the people of New Plymouth in this case—to make a determination as to whether they were right or wrong and whether their behaviour was right or honourable. 
What I think is so wrong about this bill is that it takes away from Mr Duynhoven the opportunity to do the honourable thing. Harry Duynhoven could come down to the Chamber at any stage even in 2 minutes time and say to this Committee that he has just handed his resignation to the Speaker because he is an honourable man. But this Government has denied Harry Duynhoven the opportunity to do that. The question is why that is so. My answer is that it is because there are other members of this Government who are less honourable than Harry Duynhoven and who are hiding behind Harry Duynhoven’s proper move in recognising that he has broken the law. How often do we hear the people of this country say that they demand one standard and one law for all people in this country? Yet again we see nepotism. We see the Government looking after its own because Harry Duynhoven is a decent chap. 
I cannot help but reflect on the fact that for the first time in about—well in my time in this Parliament the polls are starting to show that this Government is not as popular as it thought it was. The opportunity for the public or indeed the people of New Plymouth to express their opinions to this Government on things like the “flatulence tax” and the foreshore and seabed issue is an opportunity that this Government will run a mile from. That seems to me to be why this bill is proceeding. I am perfectly sure that the Government would have polled on this issue. It would have been flat out on the phones over the last week or so to determine public opinion and it does not want to test that public opinion. 
So we will not have a by-election and Harry Duynhoven is being denied the opportunity to behave in an honourable fashion. According to the Speaker each one of us is an honourable member of this House. Yet in my view Mr Duynhoven has been denied the opportunity to express that honour in a very overt and upfront way.