Mallard Trevor: Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Mallard Trevor: Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:668;Page:14905] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 We have come to the most substantive part of the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill. Certainly it is by far the most contentious. With due respect to my colleague from the Greens I say that from a Labour perspective it is by far the most contentious and the part we have undertaken to oppose. Our support for the bill depends on my amendment being agreed. Part 4 outlines procedures available in circumstances of urgency. The nub of what it does and I will get to the detail of it is that it grants the Minister appointed by the Prime Minister—in this case almost certainly Mr McCully—the ability to override a large number of pieces of legislation of his own accord. That is something that he or she would be able to do— 
Charles Chauvel 
: Sovereignty at last. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Well I think describing Mr McCully as a sovereign is probably not an appropriate way of putting it. 
It is impossible to overstate the anger on this side of the House at this unconstitutional arrangement. We were pushed very hard over the Canterbury legislation and I think there is debate now as to whether we were more flexible than we should have been in the granting of powers to the Government. But what is clear is that these powers which go to one Minister in this case are much more extensive than those in the Canterbury situation. As an example the decisions of a Minister made under Part 4 are not regulations. There is no requirement to gazette them. They cannot be examined under the order— 
Charles Chauvel 
: The Regulations Review Committee. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: They cannot go to the Regulations Review Committee because they are not regulations. A decision could be made to set aside a whole body of case law—years and years and years of case law. An authority that is being specially set up to consider that particular question could hear evidence and hear the experts and make the decision to say no but the Minister could still say yes. I will get to some examples soon. I want to make it clear that I am not happy about any power being given to a Minister to override the decision of an authority headed by a judge. My view is that Parliament should have those rights but individual Ministers should not. 
I have offered a compromise to the Minister. The compromise is that the Minister can be a brake on the decisions. If a positive decision is made by the authority that the Minister on the advice of other Ministers decides is wrong he or she should have the ability to say: “No we won’t proceed with that.” That is the compromise. I am uncomfortable with a compromise but that is the compromise I have put on the Table. The thing I think makes New Zealand look like Nigeria is that a Minister can grant his mates approvals after a judge in a properly formed authority has said no. 
John Hayes 
: That’s not true. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: That member sat on the Government Administration Committee and it is absolutely true. There can be a hearing there can be a recommendation on the part of the authority to decline an application but a Minister can override that and can approve that application—for one of his friends for consideration; we will never know. That sort of approach will make New Zealand look like Nigeria. Part 4 is the most important part of the bill and one on which there will be the most discussion. I will be interested in the contribution from John Hayes in particular who denies that the Minister for the Rugby World Cup has the right to overrule a tribunal. 
John Hayes 
: You’re right; I do. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: He does. He denies the right. Well I say to Mr Hayes that it is in the bill and he sat on the select committee. He was there for the hearings and he was there for the deliberations. Frankly if it is the understanding of Government members that the Minister does not have that power then they will have no problem voting for my amendment. If it is their understanding that such a power does not sit in the hands of the Minister then the appropriate thing for them to do is to vote for my amendment or in fact to question whether Part 4 is needed at all. 
I would like to challenge members opposite to give us just two examples of where they think it is appropriate for a Minister to override a decision of the authority—case-like examples. I say to the former deputy leader of ACT that I am shocked at the position that ACT is taking on this legislation. I am surprised that the party that stands up for property rights is allowing the property rights of neighbours to be overruled like this. If a proper application on which evidence has been given is rejected the Minister can say that yes that old villa that historic place or that building that is subject to a protection order can be bowled over. The Minister can make that decision under this legislation and neighbours’ property rights are just wiped. They do not have any because of this approach. 
I thank the Maori Party for the fact that it has looked carefully at this issue and decided to support the amendment and quite rightly so. Under this legislation the Minister would have the right to bowl over a marae to dig up a wahi tapu and to put bulldozers through a burial ground. All of which would be stopped by ordinary law but the Minister has the right to do that under this legislation because he is not subject to any of the normal laws or any of the normal protections that pertain to this area. 
I know that Government members will vigorously defend the Minister and I want them to give us an example or two. I am not breaching the confidentiality of the select committee in talking about its meeting this morning because it was held in public. One of our members asked Mr Maarten Wevers whether security issues could be a reason whether security issues could be dealt with using Mr McCully’s powers under this legislation and she was told no. There is a separate process a proper process involving a judge whose decisions cannot be overturned by a politician and security issues will be dealt with in that way. So I want to know why a house that cannot be demolished under current legislation that cannot be demolished under the Resource Management Act that cannot be demolished under the non-urgent provisions and that cannot be demolished under the urgent provisions under a decision from the authority can be demolished if the Minister claims the right to have that property demolished against all of the evidence. There can be no good reason for that and I say to members opposite that they should feel ashamed as they grant this power.