Twyford Phil: Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill — Second Reading 
Twyford Phil: Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:667;Page:14593] 
PHIL TWYFORD (Labour) 
: 
 Labour does not need convincing that there is a great deal at stake for New Zealand in the Rugby World Cup 2011. We do not need persuading that there will be a television audience of close to 4 billion people or that this is important for Brand New Zealand as the previous speaker put it. Labour would be supporting the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill at its second reading if the Government had seen fit and seen sense and had removed the provisions that we shall perhaps call the “Murray McCully Provisions” in this bill. Part 4 is the sticking point here; it is the part we object to. We do not believe that the Government has made the case that the Minister should be given unfettered power to override the recommendations of the Rugby World Cup Authority. 
At least when John Hayes was speaking he acknowledged that there is a substantive issue here. I was horrified to hear Jacqui Dean earlier deny that there was even a provision in this bill that gives the Minister power under the urgency provisions to grant an urgent approval or to decline an application against the recommendations of the authority. In case Jacqui Dean is listening to or watching this debate I want to point out that Part 4 of the bill goes for page after page setting out the process and criteria that should be used by the authority in considering urgent applications. At the end of that part after nearly six pages of process and detailed prescription about how the authority should go about considering these issues it states: “A decision of the Minister under this section is final.” Just a few lines before it states: “The Minister may grant an application for an urgent approval in full or in part or decline the application.” potentially in complete disregard of the work that has been done by what will undoubtedly be a highly qualified panel that constitutes the authority. As my colleagues have pointed out it will include either a retired judge or a lawyer of at least 7 years’ standing. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Two of them. 
PHIL TWYFORD 
: Two of them. Undoubtedly they will be people who are experienced in town planning and other relevant disciplines. 
There is a reason why this is important. There are good reasons why in our system of Government Ministers do not exercise unfettered power. They are bound by the  
Cabinet Manual 
 and they are bound by convention their relationship with public servants their reliance on the advice of officials and their obligation under law to make decisions in a reasonable way. These are all important checks on executive power. This Minister Murray McCully perhaps more than anybody in this Parliament has demonstrated why we have those rules and conventions. They are there for a good reason and it is called accountable Government. In 1999 we had a Minister of Tourism who was the subject of an investigation by the Audit Office. There were allegations that members of the Tourism Board had resigned in protest at ministerial intervention and at the suggestion that the Minister had sought to gain control of the promotional activities of that Tourism Board in order— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Who was the Minister? 
PHIL TWYFORD 
: Well the then Minister of Tourism was the Hon Murray McCully. It was alleged that he had subverted the activities of the Tourism Board so that he could “build a feel-good factor for the election.” Three members of that board resigned in protest and $900000 was paid out to those three people. 
The Audit Office found that there had been politicisation and unwarranted political interference in the activities of that board. I quote Victoria Main from the  
Dominion Post  
on 3 May 1999 when she said: “The Audit Office report raises questions about two highly unorthodox units the Office of Tourism and Sport and the Tourism and Sport Ministerial Advisory Board that the bureaucrat-hating Mr McCully set up as sources of independent advice.” Well if there was an example of why Ministers should be bound by the conventions of accountable Government and be required to justify their decisions against the impartial advice of public servants this is one such case study— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Judges in this case—even more important. 
PHIL TWYFORD 
: —that is right—and this is one such Minister. 
There are plenty of other examples and examples that have happened much more recently. We have a Minister of Foreign Affairs who regularly disregards the advice of officials in the administration of our taxpayer-funded overseas aid programmes of half a billion dollars and who repeatedly rejects their advice until he gets the advice he wants. 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: He bullies them. 
PHIL TWYFORD 
: He bullies them and he micro-manages the details of a half-billion-dollar Government programme. We saw recently the awarding of a $78000 contract to the former National MP Mark Blumsky. The awarding of that contract by the Minister of Foreign Affairs was without a tender. That is highly unorthodox; it is highly unusual. Almost every significant contract let in the overseas aid programme is tendered yet this one which went to a political crony of the Minister was not tendered. That raises serious questions I think about the commitment of this Minister and this Government to the basic conventions of accountable Government. 
I can give members four or five examples that we have seen over the last 18 months of the cutting of multi-year funding commitments to aid projects in the Pacific with no policy rationale and on the basis of there being no written advice from officials. We saw the cutting of nearly a million dollars a year from the Council for International Development the peak body of the country’s international development non-governmental organisations. A similar amount of money was committed in a multi-year contract to the Global Focus development education programme based here in Wellington. More recently there has been the cutting of a major commitment to the Foundation of the Peoples of the South Pacific International for doing disaster risk reduction work in the Pacific but no written advice justified that. It is a classic example of meddling and micro-management and of a total lack of accountable Government. 
It is precisely the kind of behaviour that should give this House pause for thought before the Government pushes through these urgency provisions. So far Government members have failed to come up with one compelling scenario that would justify why these extreme powers are being given to the Minister in this case. This is the Minister who only a few months ago did his utmost to bowl the heritage sheds on Queen’s Wharf in Auckland and it was only a knock-’em-down drag-’em-out fight led by Mike Lee and the Auckland Regional Council that convinced the Minister that he should listen to public opinion and negotiate an acceptable compromise. 
Under the powers in this bill he could override the advice from a highly qualified and eminent panel of commissioners on the authority. He could go ahead and demolish a heritage structure on his own whim without any official advice to justify it. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
PHIL TWYFORD 
: I just want to summarise the concerns I was speaking about before the dinner break. Labour would be voting for this bill at its second reading if the Government was to see sense and remove the extraordinary power that it intends to put in the hands of the Minister for the Rugby World Cup the Hon Murray McCully. He has demonstrated more than almost anyone I could imagine in this Parliament that Ministers should not be given unfettered executive power and that they need to be held accountable. Trevor Mallard has put an amendment on the table. If the Government sees fit to support it we will vote for the bill.