Dean Jacqui: Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Dean Jacqui: Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:668;Page:14907] 
JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) 
: 
 Trevor Mallard has just shown the weakness of his argument in arguing that the Minister for the Rugby World Cup has unbridled powers. He has done that by the very example that he brought up saying that the Minister would demolish a historic building. Well leaving aside the fact that very few historic buildings are left in Auckland anyway after 9 years of the previous Labour Government I ask members just to think about the circumstances in which a Minister wanting the best for a Rugby World Cup would demolish a historic building. Is that an argument that carries any weight at all? Is that an argument that in the wildest realm of possibility holds any kind of weight? We just need to go through the scenario. 
Here is my scenario for Trevor Mallard: we are 2 days out from the Rugby World Cup there is a match on and somebody walks into the boardroom and says that such and such a road’s traffic has not been stopped—we need some real example so we will use road closures. Fifty thousand people are coming to watch the game but a road has not been closed to traffic. What will be done about it because there might be the need for some bollards? Under the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill as proposed a decision is made to get by without the road closure. But it is not the panel of judges and commissioners who have to wear the consequences of that decision. The people who have to wear the consequences of that decision are the members of the Government. We have to ask ourselves whether we want appointed people or elected people making those big critical decisions—and that I suggest to the member opposite is absolutely the nub of the argument here. 
I also argue that there is no unbridled unfettered power in this bill as described by Trevor Mallard. In fact if Trevor Mallard had decided to take a calm look at clause 4 he would have seen that rather than having unbridled powers to demolish historic buildings in fact a number of protections are described in Part 4 for the urgent powers to be given to the Minister. 
It is also worth noting just while I am at it that the Government Administration Committee did not recommend any significant changes to those powers nor did the Labour members on the committee choose to put in a minority report. That is very telling; that says to us that the committee considering this bill was happy with its provisions and it was just Trevor Mallard—just the former Minister for the Rugby World Cup—who was unhappy with this provision. Even then that former Minister for the Rugby World Cup Trevor Mallard had the opportunity to put in a minority report—such a report was discussed within the select committee—but did he? He did not. Trevor Mallard was asked whether he wanted to put in a minority report on the issue that concerned him so much. At the select committee I asked the member whether he wanted to do that. The answer was “No. I do not wish to put in a minority report.” It was up to him to put it in; he declined to do so. This issue in relation to Part 4 is merely Labour members saying: “We can’t have what we want. Therefore New Zealand can’t have it either.” If the Labour members on the Government Administration Committee really valued democracy they would have taken the opportunity given to them to put in a minority report and give their view but they decided not to do that. I think that is particularly telling. 
In reference to Part 4 I think the only thing the people of New Zealand care about tonight is that the Government supports the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill. That is what people see. They see that the Government is fully behind this bill. The people of New Zealand understand that this Government fully supports the Rugby World Cup not just for the big games but also for the tournament and the opportunities that will be there for all of us throughout New Zealand. 
But what about Labour? It is filibustering on this bill because it does not want the Rugby World Cup to be a success. That is very telling. In speech after speech Labour members have been pulling holes in this bill which at the select committee they were in full agreement with. I wish the members of the select committee not just the ring-ins would stand up and give a view on the bill because I have to say that throughout the course of the select committee consideration there was broad agreement on it. But once the former Minister for the Rugby World Cup Trevor Mallard got hold of this bill everything went downhill. The Labour select committee members have been taken down a path of filibustering on the bill. 
The other thing that the people of New Zealand are thankful for tonight is that Prime Minister John Key has saved the film industry for New Zealand. That is a great success for New Zealand. So there are two things that this Government is achieving for New Zealand: the Rugby World Cup and the New Zealand film industry. This Government is focused on success for New Zealand.  
The Hobbit 
 is one part of that—no thanks to the unions no thanks to Helen Kelly and no thanks to the Labour Party—and the other one is the Rugby World Cup which thanks to this Government and the hard work of the Government members on the Government Administration Committee will be a raging success despite the poor efforts of Trevor Mallard.