Worth Richard: Electoral Matters Bill — In Committee 
Worth Richard: Electoral Matters Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:622;Page:17259] 
RICHARD WORTH (National—Epsom) 
: 
 We should not let the Government get away with its explanation of Supplementary Order Paper 310. Just for starters I point out that this Supplementary Order Paper arrived at the National Party caucus this morning. There has been some suggestion that this is a negotiated position and that National has been fully involved in the development of this Supplementary Order Paper. 
Darren Hughes 
: The National Party knew about this weeks ago. 
RICHARD WORTH 
: Not so. This Supplementary Order Paper arrived this morning. There has been no opportunity for consultation and no opportunity to look at what the ramifications of some of these clauses might be. As the Minister—if he is frank enough to acknowledge this—might say there have been significant changes between this Supplementary Order Paper and an earlier draft Supplementary Order Paper that was before Parliament. 
But it is actually much worse than that. I believe that the Minister perhaps unknowingly misled Parliament when he read from the Justice and Electoral Committee’s report on the Electoral Matters Bill. What was said then and what the Minister failed to properly identify were these words about electoral hoardings from all members of the committee: “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. We propose that minimum levels”—and I emphasise “minimum levels”—“could be set where appropriate for size content and display period.” 
Now three points immediately emerge from that particular passage. First of all we are talking about guidelines. Second we are talking about minimum levels and third we are talking about three elements: size content and display period. But what do we find in this Supplementary Order Paper? First of all we find that these provisions are not guidelines. They are proposed regulations. Second we can try to see whether minimum levels are referred to in this Supplementary Order Paper—but they are not. There are no minimum levels being contemplated at all. They may be maximum levels. 
Then when we look at the three elements I identified—size content and display period—we find that a significant rewording has occurred. We are now by this particular Supplementary Order Paper to contemplate regulations covering design layout shape and colour—a quite different set of parameters. So it is mischievous for the Minister to contend that in what emerges in this Supplementary Order Paper there is an accurate reflection of what the committee unanimously decided. It is quite wrong for him to assert that in some way there has been an inconsistency of position in what National is saying in respect of this Supplementary Order Paper. 
But there is a further and very significant point—that is it was within the contemplation of those who sat on the select committee that we would be talking about guidelines for hoardings in a more general way than is currently proposed by this bill. But what we are looking at is quite clearly partial treatment of politics and politicians and that should never be the case. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Preferential treatment. 
RICHARD WORTH 
: That is preferential treatment says Dr Mapp behind me and that is quite right. What has been exposed in connection with the signs and hoarding controls—whether they are bylaw controls or controls proposed through district plans—is an inconsistency in council districts. That inconsistency in some cases requires applications to be made by way of non-notified consent. In other cases applications should be made by way of notified consent. It is wrong in principle that politics and politicians should be preferred yet that preferment is what the Minister has set out to do in this case. There has been no opportunity of course for the select committee to look at this Supplementary Order Paper and the thrust of what is proposed I would suggest goes far beyond what should reasonably be contemplated in the short period of time we have in which to consider Part 1 in the Committee stage.