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:14912] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I say with a bit of risk that I do not entirely agree with all of the comments the preceding speaker David Shearer made notwithstanding the fact that he is on my side of the Chamber. It is my view that Part 4 of the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill is necessary. There is no doubt in my mind that there has to be an approach for granting urgent approvals. I have given the example of a building. There might well be an occasion when it is appropriate to have a building bowled quickly. There is also the transport issue. As a result of a foul-up at the opening of the Rugby World Cup the decision might be made to implement some road closures later on for the semi-finals and the finals and an urgent process would be necessary. I do not think there is a debate about the need for having an urgent process; it is just about the way that it is shaped. 
In particular we can look at the differences in approach between clauses 52 and 53. Clause 52 is “Effect of declaration made by Order in Council” and clause 53 is “Effect of urgent approval granted by Minister”. They are quite different clauses. I see no problem. I cannot remember whether you Mr Chairperson Barker were involved while you were a Minister but on occasion I was part of very hurriedly put together Executive Council meetings to pass Orders in Council; statutory management is the obvious example. There is an ability for a Government if necessary to get three Ministers together in order to form an Executive Council to pass Orders in Council. But I think in undertaking that process we ensure a sense of collective responsibility and make sure there is a check and a balance on a particular individual Minister rather than letting them run without the checks that are in this bill. 
I point out that some useful changes have been made in this bill especially around the terms and conditions including the payment of a bond. Unlike the deposits for the Part 3 declarations the bonds for the Part 4 declarations are such that there can be a deposit not only around the cost of the hearings but also to secure the costs of any remediation of work that is done and to make sure that the conditions of the urgent approval are met. That is relatively unusual in New Zealand law; it occasionally happens with oil companies. Because this is a very unusual power I think the Government Administration Committee did a good thing in making sure there was a bonding arrangement and therefore some of the rorts could not occur. 
The Rugby World Cup Authority in making its recommendations and the Minister in granting an application—as happens—have to look to a number of factors. One factor is the need to secure public safety as well as to avoid control or mitigate any adverse impacts of a permitted Rugby World Cup activity on the environment. Those additions were made by the select committee. The select committee saw that it was exceptionally important in these urgent cases which will be irreversible. This is the key part of the legislation. With everything else in the legislation there is time for appeal there is time for a reversal and there is at least on points of law an ability to get to a court. But clause 51(4) makes it clear that a decision of the Minister under this section is final. Using the example that we have used on a number of occasions a decision could well be assigned by a Minister at 11:59 and at 12 o’clock the bulldozers start to move. There is no ability to intervene or to use court processes in order to review or hold the decision. That provision therefore is very very serious. 
I think we need to focus as well—and I would be interested in the opinions of Government members and possibly the Attorney-General’s—on clause 53(2). That clause is designed to make clear that any right that is based on one of these approvals does not give any right based on the use of the land after the expiry of the approval. It is all very well and good to say that a right does not give someone any rights afterwards but if one has demolished a building in order to make a fan space then there obviously cannot be if it is a historic building a requirement to replace the building in the form that it was. So a lot of these decisions end up being very very final. 
I also say that I think the Minister got it right in the introduction of this legislation after discussions with the Labour Opposition in having requirement under clause 51(1)(a) and especially (b) to consult relevant Ministers. When a Minister gets a declaration from the authority there is then a requirement on the Minister to go to their colleague the Minister for Economic Development in this case Mr Brownlee and then to go to any relevant Minister of the Crown. I think that would generally be the Minister for the Environment or the Minister of Conservation. They are the two who I think are most likely because they are the Ministers who hold the powers. There might be occasions where the Minister for Biosecurity might become involved; I would again be interested in the view of the Minister in the chair the Hon David Carter as to whether the Minister of Agriculture might be consulted if there is a biosecurity issue. In other cases there might be a commerce question or a competition question. I would be interested in the views of Mr Power on whether he envisages becoming involved in this consultation. 
There is the question of whether in Subpart 2 “Miscellaneous Provisions” clause 52 is misplaced. I wonder whether this clause should be earlier in the legislation. The implication is that it relates to Part 4 when in fact it relates to Part 3. There could well be confusion with the Act later on. I would be interested in opinion on whether it would be better drafted in an order where the regulation explanation clause—it is not the regulation-making one; that is in clause 48 which is earlier in the bill—sits in the appropriate place. 
This is the second of my sets of calls. I finish this call on the same basis as I did my first and that is with a challenge to Government members to give us a specific example of where they think a Minister of the Crown should have the right on his or her own accord against the view of a judge and a panel—it is not just a judge; it is also an expert panel—to override those decisions.