Lees-Galloway Iain: Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Lees-Galloway Iain: Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:668;Page:14909] 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North) 
: 
 Throughout the debate this evening members on the Government benches have been throwing around a few labels and I think that Part 4 of the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill gives us an opportunity to perhaps introduce a few labels for this Government. “Undemocratic” is a label that sits very comfortably on this Government. It is thoroughly undemocratic. “Dividers” is another label that sits very comfortably on this Government. “Arrogant” is a third label that I think sits very comfortably and it is all here in Part 4. 
The Government is undemocratic because it sets up perfectly good processes in law in other parts of this bill—perfectly good processes—for dealing with applications. It sets up an authority that can hear representations and can hear all sides of the story. It has more than one member so its members can offer different views and advice to one another. The Government sets up that democratic robust system and authority and then in Part 4 it completely undermines the whole thing and invests all the authority in one person—a Minister. It will probably be either the Minister for the Rugby World Cup or the Minister for Economic Development and the current Minister for Economic Development is well versed in undemocratic processes. 
Jacqui Dean tried to say it was more democratic to vest all this authority in one elected representative as opposed to a group of appointed officials. Well in that case I ask why we do not just do away with the judiciary. Why do we not just do away with courts judges the judicial process natural justice and the rule of law? We could get rid of all of those things and rely on vesting all power in a single albeit elected person. I think people call that a dictatorship. That obviously is where the Government would like us to go and if we have more examples of what we have here in Part 4 then that sort of undemocratic process is where we will end up. 
The second label that sits comfortably on this Government is “dividers”. Government members have been incredibly divisive throughout this debate tonight. They have sought to label the Opposition and bizarrely they have not been prepared to even countenance the Hon Trevor Mallard’s one amendment to Part 4. There are numerous clauses in Part 4; there are a huge number of clauses in here. The Hon Trevor Mallard wants to make one addition to clause 51 that puts a small handbrake on the Minister’s power. It is an opportunity for there to be consensus; it is an offer of a compromise position. 
I think that amendment is a very mature response from the Opposition benches yet Government members just absolutely refuse to engage in an intellectual debate. They refuse to tell us why they are opposed to the amendment offered up by the Hon Trevor Mallard. They refuse to tell us why they have so much confidence in Part 4 as it is written at the moment without making that amendment. They simply sit there and hurl abuse at the Opposition for trying to offer an option that we could come to a compromise on and build a consensus on. We could move on as Government members want us to do. We could move on with this legislation right now—right now—if Government members would just get down off their high horses drop their arrogance for a second and countenance the idea that the Opposition can put up a good idea and make an offering to this bill that is useful. 
It is just one clause. Jacqui Dean asked why there was no minority report. Well putting to one side the fact that Sandra Goudie the member sitting next to Jacqui Dean does not actually take kindly to minority reports—she likes to trample on democracy and votes them down—there probably was not even a point in putting forward a minority report on Part 4. Clause 51 is one singular clause. I ask what the point is of having an entire minority report for one amendment to one clause which can simply and efficiently be dealt with in the amendment that we have put forward this evening. That would be the mature response from this Government but instead we have had childish insults hurled across the Chamber tonight in an effort to try to paint Opposition members who are simply saying this part vests too much power in one individual. 
It is pure arrogance that the Government is not prepared to look at the amendment that Mr Mallard has offered up. If it is not adopted we may as well cut almost every other provision in this bill. We could probably get rid of Part 3 altogether most of Part 2 could go and frankly Part 5 could just about be cut out altogether if we leave Part 1 as it is—sorry Part 4; Mr Mallard is looking at me oddly—because that basically overrides everything else that is in the bill. [ 
Interruption 
] Yes I was getting there. The good solid processes that are already in the bill are thoroughly and completely undermined by Part 4 and it could be so so easily fixed. It could be easily fixed. We could finish this debate tonight if the Government could get down off its high horse for a second and deal with that issue. 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: They’ve dug in. 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY 
: Steve Chadwick is absolutely right. Government members have decided to dig in and take the difficult option rather than seeing sense and just working with the Opposition for once. Part 4 is in dire need of amendment and the option is still available for the Government to see sense and join with the Opposition in reaching a consensus position. 
Of course I suppose it is not really a particularly great surprise that Government members have taken the undemocratic approach. We have seen it down in Canterbury with regard to Environment Canterbury. There is also a question mark over the powers that have been vested in the Government following the earthquake. That was an emergency situation— 
Aaron Gilmore 
: You guys voted for that. 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY 
: —and we voted in favour of the legislation because it was an emergency situation but there are certainly some question marks around it. But again what actually happened with regard to the Canterbury legislation was that the Government engaged with us to a certain extent and we were able to reach a position where there was some handbrake on that unbridled power. 
Why does it not do the same thing this evening? I ask that of the Minister in the chair the Hon David Carter. We have not had a single call taken by any of the Ministers who have occupied the chair this evening. I ask what the reason is for not engaging with the Opposition on this amendment. That question lies before the Minister in the chair and before any member on the Government benches who wants to take up that challenge. Government members have not been able to articulate in any meaningful way whatsoever this evening why they are so opposed to a mature and sensible amendment that would simply modify the legislation in a way that would make New Zealanders comfortable with it and make the Opposition comfortable with it so that we could actually make some progress on this bill.