The party of hypocrisy, part 2

In an email, Gordon King of NZPundit thinks I'm being too hard on ACT:

I think Frank's was pretty clear why he voted against it. He was very concerned about the administration of the law not the principle of liberalisation.

Which is all very well and good (though a strange position for someone from what purports to be the "party of freedom"), but what about the rest of them? Prebble? Eckhoff? Newman? What's their excuse?

If so many ACT MPs think that freedom (or indeed, actual human welfare) should take a back seat to administrative purity, maybe they should be thinking of rebranding?