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:14869] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I move  
That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill that it have the power to consider and if it thinks fit adopt typescript amendments to clause 51 in the name of the Hon Trevor Mallard. 
 That amendment is very very important. Although it may well be that there will be no decision to rule it out I think it is important that we have a belt and braces approach and ensure that the Committee has the ability to discuss it and that there be no question of it being ruled out. The amendment is designed to ensure there is a system put in place whereby a Minister is unable to adjust a recommendation of the Rugby World Cup Authority such that he or she ends up approving something that is not otherwise approved by that authority. In relatively simple terms the amendment is to ensure that there are proper checks and balances placed in the system. 
I will use an example. In the case of an urgent application post-August it would mean that under the current legislation there could be a full hearing of an authority. We could have witnesses council people and all sorts of experts— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: I need a bit of clarification from the member who is on his feet. It is my understanding that this amendment is in order; therefore it does not need an instruction of the House for it to be debated. It is in order. Please acknowledge that there has been a change of presiding officer while this has been happening. I need to understand what the member is doing because it is my understanding that the amendment is totally in order. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I think you are almost certainly right Mr Assistant Speaker but I have also checked this. Notwithstanding the fact that it is likely to be in order that does not prevent this motion being moved in order to make absolutely certain of that. There is no restriction on this motion. It is something that has been checked through very carefully over the last 24 hours and I have had an absolute assurance that this motion and the next few that will come before the Committee are in order. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: I am just trying to think through the precedent of what the member is actually doing. The discipline of this House is that it lives by precedent. It would occur to me that although this step might be in order it may set some precedents that take the House in a direction that the House does not want to go in. Having given the member an assurance that his amendment is in order and will be acceptable to the Committee of the whole House I am perplexed as to why the member is seeking this particular course of action. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I think members on the other side of the House are well aware of the reason for us doing this. There has been quite a lot of discussion between members from both sides of the House on the way that this bill is being handled. It is my understanding that although this is unusual and may even be unprecedented it is within the Standing Orders. I think you are right; it is probably identifying a loophole within the Standing Orders and could well set a precedent that people may want to close off through a change to the Standing Orders but that does not mean that it can be ruled out. 
Chris Tremain 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Given that you have ruled that the amendment that the Hon Trevor Mallard has put on the Table for debate is within order and will be debated as part of clause 51 within one of the parts of the bill this afternoon and this evening it seems to me that the Hon Trevor Mallard is attempting to trifle with the House’s time and to delay our progressing to the bill. I think that is trifling with the House’s time and I ask you to rule that this be out of order. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Speaking to that— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: I will listen to the member then I will respond. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Yes sure. I think that what the member should know is that one of the honourable roles of the Opposition is to delay. It is a longstanding precedent. The term “filibuster” is well known in both United Kingdom and United States politics. When bad law is being made one of the roles of the Opposition and one of the very few tools of an Opposition that does not have the votes to stop particular legislation is to make sure that it is subject to a debate that is as extensive as is possible in order to ensure the best possible examination of it. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: Standing Order 172(1) states: “An instruction may be given to a committee of the whole House extending or restricting its powers …”. What the member is seeking to do is not actually extending or restricting. He has assured me that he has done some work in the last 24 hours. I have not had the opportunity to do that work. These are the options open to me: I can rule that the member is having a debate that is not necessary and therefore it is out of order I can let the debate take its full course or I can perhaps indicate to the House that a closure motion might be considered at some near time in the future when a considered decision from the Speaker might be the best way forward. But I will allow the member to finish his speech. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think a problem has now developed. It probably has been caused by the fact that there was a change of Speaker. Mr Speaker accepted this motion. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: That is what I have done. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I am pleased to hear that because it is very very important. The amendment that has been discussed is important and by way of extension I just want to make it very clear that in my opinion this does make an extension because it provides both belt and braces in this arrangement. [ 
Interruption 
] Well Peter Dunne is the person who probably understands belt and braces better than anyone else. As I indicated earlier the danger that we are facing is that there is a full hearing of an authority which takes a decision to decline a particular application. It says that no that should not happen. It might for example be the demolition of a historic building. On the basis of the evidence a decision is made not to demolish that historic building. The way the bill is at the moment and without consideration of my amendment a Minister could then say: “It does not matter what the judge said it does not matter about the fact that there was a hearing I am going to allow my mate’s house to be demolished.” They might have a party central or a little “party not central” there for a period of time but afterwards the section becomes available for building on in a way that would not otherwise be the case under current planning legislation because a demolition would not previously have been allowed. It goes to the ability of a judge to make a decision and whether the House should be considering that they have the ability to consider it. 
I have another point I would like to make and I do not think I am doing this by way of a point of order. I think I am doing it by way of debate although it does do it by way of referring to the comments that you Mr Assistant Speaker Roy made when you were on your feet. It is not for the Speaker to rule whether something is in or out at the Committee. It is a matter for the Chairman. The Speaker cannot give an assurance because it is not his role to give an assurance on something that he must rule on when sitting in the Chairperson’s Chair while he is sitting in the Speaker’s Chair. In fact I think there could be some question of conflict if Speakers attempted to take that sort of approach. Although I do not think there are many men who are more honourable than you are as far as the House is concerned and we do of course rely on your word I think we have to be very clear that the role of the Speaker is different from the role of the Chairman and in fact the only— 
Chris Tremain 
: Is this a speech or a point of order? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: No I think it is entirely within order. The only circumstance where the Speaker— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: I have told the member to continue with his speech. This is not a point of order. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: No. I made it clear it is not a point of order but I am referring to your comment just to make it clear. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: The member should not litigate my ruling. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: No I am not litigating; I am adding to it. I am saying how much I trust you. The point I am making is that the House is unable to be given assurances by the Speaker in this matter because the role of the Speaker will be to consider the matter if in fact the Chairman in error ruled it out. That then would be a case for bringing the Speaker back to the House in order to debate the issue. I think you could see that it would be more than slightly incongruous for you Mr Assistant Speaker Roy to rule on a matter as Speaker and then to rule on it as Chairman. There is the possibility of ruling on your own ruling as Chairman. I think that sort of approach is the one taken in the Fijian Parliament or some other place where democracy is non-existent. That is probably the only place where that would occur. 
I want to make clear that the Labour Opposition is very firm that it is important to have this debate. I know that my colleagues are very keen to outline to you why they think a belt and braces approach is necessary on this particular legislation. I might say also that because there has been a lot of debate about this matter of power within the select committee and within the media and because there has been a lot of discussion about the powers in the Canterbury legislation following the earthquake the issue of the limits of ministerial power are very much alive in New Zealand now. That is why it is important that this debate is held on this subclause. 
At this stage and without going into the substance of the debate because I think we will get to the debate on Part 4 today or possibly after the adjournment I say that this is very important. I am slightly ambivalent on this argument myself but I think there is a certain lack of trust in the current Minister and the way that he might exercise the powers. I think it is fair to say that the Minister has a growing reputation which has been highlighted by my colleague Phil Twyford inter alia of being involved in micro-management across portfolios. I think it is fair to say that the fingerprints are not always left there but there are a few greasy marks on the piece of paper. There are signs on the piece of paper of a Minister becoming involved in areas that he should not be involved in. That is why we think it is important that a Minister should not get the power without any consideration from the Regulations Review Committee. I know that my colleague Lianne Dalziel is involved in that committee and certainly Chris Hipkins is involved in that committee. If the decisions of the Minister were for example reviewable by a committee of this Parliament then I am sure— 
Chris Hipkins 
: Sounds like another amendment. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Well I think there will be an amendment; there will be amendment after amendment and we will take about 10 minutes to deal with each of them as the day goes on. But if these are not to be considered by any court because there is not time and not to be considered by the Regulations Review Committee then it is important that the Minister not be left with this power. I want to remind the House of what we are doing. We had someone who is an experienced judge—with a panel—hear the evidence and make a decision but at the end of that the Minister said that declining that position— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: The member’s time has expired.