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:7795] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (NZ National—Nelson) 
: 
 I rise with significant concern about the provisions in this part. Again I want to challenge the Government about its double standards. Only 6 weeks ago the Attorney-General Margaret Wilson said that if a person broke the law he or she had to face the music. When my situation arose and the Solicitor-General alleged that I had broken the law Ministers of the Government said the law applied regardless of whether they agreed with it or not—and the Government has introduced a bill to change the very section of the Guardianship Act that I am alleged to have broken. Government Ministers said that did not matter and I had to comply with the law of the land on the day. On that basis the top law enforcement officer in this country will drag me before the High Court and try to hang me for doing my job. 
Mr Harry Duynhoven then came along. He was not doing constituency work and was not trying to help anybody but as he said to the Privileges Committee he wanted an extra passport so that he and his children could travel easily in Europe. On the basis of that he breached the Electoral Act. Then the Government changed its tune suddenly. Only 4 weeks earlier it set the moral standard and said that Nick Smith had to front up and account for his actions. Suddenly the rules are different for Harry Duynhoven and I ask Government members why that is. When the Solicitor-General alleges that I have broken the law I have to face the music but when the same Solicitor-General finds that Harry Duynhoven had breached the Electoral Act the Government is to pass retrospective legislation. Section 55 of the Act is the very section that if I am found guilty will potentially put my position as a member of this House at risk. 
Government members say that this legislation is a matter of principle. Well golly gee! The principle goes no further than looking after their mates and having a different standard for those who sit on the Government side of the Chamber. I listened to the debate last night and all morning and I have yet to hear a single member from the Government explain why I should be hung and Harry Duynhoven should walk free. That is what the Government is saying should happen. 
Would Clayton Cosgrove the noisy member from Waimakariri explain why he will vote for legislation that changes the very section that if I am convicted of the alleged breach of the Guardianship Act will put my career at risk and why he thinks that I should go to the High Court but not Harry Duynhoven? Will he support the amendment proposed by the United Future party which has at least been consistent? I am not asking for the protection of this Parliament and nor should Harry Duynhoven. But I am saying that at least the United Future party is being consistent. 
Clayton Cosgrove 
: Which of the five lawsuits against you are you talking about? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Mr Cosgrove wants to divert attention from the issue. He does not want to answer the question of why there is one standard for members of the Government and a different standard for members of the Opposition. 
It is a damning indictment on this Parliament when there is one set of rules for members on one side of the Chamber and a different set of rules for those on the other side. I ask Government members to examine their consciences and to think about whether they are being consistent and fair to this wonderful institution of Parliament that we are privileged to sit in. It is just a pure double standard. This is straight cynical politics. The Government does not want to hold a by-election. It will conveniently change section 55(1) of the Act because it may hang Harry Duynhoven but it will leave me lined up on another provision in section 55. If something is good enough for one it is good enough for all. Margaret Wilson has to explain this bill. Other Ministers like Damien O’Connor have to explain it. Only 6 weeks ago my local newspaper stated that everybody must comply with the law—and Harry Duynhoven is included.