Barker Rick: Electoral Matters Bill — In Committee 
Barker Rick: Electoral Matters Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:622;Page:17250] 
Hon RICK BARKER (Associate Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I suggest that the member Tony Ryall read the report from the Justice and Electoral Committee on this bill. 
Rod Donald 
: It was unanimous. 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: It was unanimous—absolutely unanimous. It was unanimous because there was no dissenting opinion in it. The National Party was represented on the committee by none other than two members. Let me refer Tony Ryall to the fact that Clem Simich and Richard Worth were on that select committee— 
Darren Hughes 
: Dr Richard Worth! 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: Dr Richard Worth. What did the select committee say unanimously to this Parliament? Let me read the select committee report to the member Tony Ryall so that he can hear it probably for the first time and perhaps begin to comprehend it: “We are concerned that variation in local authority rules can unnecessarily impinge on free political speech and add to the costs of advertising.” That is what the National Party signed up to; that is what the report stated unanimously. [ 
Interruption 
] The select committee then went on to state and Wayne Mapp should listen to this as he will learn something maybe for the first time: “We encourage the Minister to address guidelines for hoardings at the Committee of the Whole House stage (if his discussions with the Society of Local Government Managers have not had satisfactory resolution by that time).” The select committee carried on to state unanimously: “We propose that minimum levels could be set where appropriate for size content and display period.” and colour. I just want to say to that that is the recommendation from the select committee. 
I have taken the select committee at its word—unanimously encouraged by the National Party—and done exactly that. That is what Mr Ryall has conveniently overlooked—as will Dr Nick Smith because he is unbelievable. Not even the High Court in New Zealand could believe Dr Nick Smith. It found him to be unbelievable so no one else will find him to be believable. Having done that we went through the law and we saw—[ 
Interruption 
] I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I know what the member is going to say— 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: That member accused me of being gutless. I resent that bitterly. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I will rule on that because I heard the comment myself. The member knows he cannot imply that a member lacks courage. I ask the member to withdraw. He is a longstanding member. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
Simon Power 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Having endured the Minister’s outrage over a comment made by a colleague on the Opposition side of the Chamber I waited for you to bring the Minister to order firstly over his comments regarding Dr Nick Smith and secondly over the fact that those comments were well outside the scope of Part 1. I noted that you started to reign in the Minister but then refrained from doing so. If we on the Opposition side have to endure points of order from Minister Barker then I ask that you apply the same standards to the issues raised by him and leap in as appropriate to bring him to heel when he makes inappropriate remarks during a very tightly worded part of the bill—in particular when he hurls innuendo at a colleague on the Opposition side of the Chamber. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Under Speakers’ ruling 43/3 a member is entitled to reply to comments made by the previous speaker. However I take on board what the member has said. This is a rather robust debate and relevance is something that the Chair takes into account. 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: Having been asked unanimously by the select committee including the National Party members on it—there is no minority report in here; I have read the report thoroughly—I came back with Supplementary Order Paper 310 in my name to do exactly that. 
There are several safeguards on that Supplementary Order Paper. Firstly before a regulation goes as a recommendation to the Governor-General there has to be agreement by at least half of the parties in Parliament. The second caveat on it is that at least 75 percent of all members of the House have to be represented. Why are we trying to do this? We are trying to set a standard time of 2 months and a standard hoarding size which has never been applicable before and to remove from some of the local authorities the ability to put restrictions on what can be on political hoardings. If we are to remove the restrictions that others may have then we have to state what will be on them so we are doing it in the positive way. That in my estimation is a temporary fix because the election is coming up very shortly—[ 
Interruption 
] Some time between now and then—and I do not have another electoral matters bill that can go through the House before the next election. If one were to be introduced tomorrow and referred to a select committee it would sit waiting in that committee for at least 6 months and it simply would not be possible to give effect to it before the election. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Fix it. 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: We are going to fix it now. 
Secondly I would say that once we have gone through the election we will have a review of the Electoral Act and the regulations will I suggest become law at the following election. So after the next election we can regularise this matter in a more structured way in primary legislation. I am not the happiest person at having to do it by regulation but there is another safeguard—a safeguard that is currently lounging on the Opposition benches in the form of the chair of the Regulations Review Committee. If the Government is to put in vogue regulations then I would expect that when the matter goes to the Regulations Review Committee Mr Worth’s eagle eye will spot anything that is offensive to the National Party and bring it back to the House immediately. 
Darren Hughes 
: Why doesn’t Nick Smith have confidence in Richard Worth? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: The junior Government whip has a very good question. It seems to me that the National Party does not have confidence in Mr Worth being able to scrutinise this legislation. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Don’t be stupid! 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: If that member thinks I am dumb then he is unbelievable. It is all right to be accused of being dumb but I would hate to be accused of being unbelievable—or to be found to be unbelievable. 
This measure is something that has been negotiated with all the other parties in this House and I am very sorry we could not negotiate it with National because it was found to be untrustworthy. I handed a very preliminary draft to Mr Worth in confidence. Within minutes the deputy leader of the National Party Mr Gerry Brownlee attempted to table it in the House. It was given and accepted on the basis of confidence— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Stop cheating. 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: There was no question about it. I say to that member that if something is accepted on the basis of confidence and it is found that that confidence cannot be respected then it should be handed back. The confidence should not be betrayed. I make the point to the member that there are moral issues involved here. One is integrity—personal integrity. When one accepts something in confidence one accepts that. [ 
Interruption 
] The member Nick Smith keeps barking out that I would not know what integrity is. He is the member who went before the High Court against someone else and the High Court did not believe him. The High Court found Dr Nick Smith to be unbelievable. The National Party has put itself out on a limb because it was found to be untrustworthy. People who give things in confidence expect things to be dealt with in confidence. I say to each of the other parties here in the Chamber that we can negotiate and sort out these issues but the National Party has wound up on a limb on this particular issue because it was found to be untrustworthy.