Mallard Trevor: Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill — Second Reading 
Mallard Trevor: Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:667;Page:14583] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I think that speech finished in a rather optimistic way because if Minister Mapp had been at all well-briefed he would have known that the Opposition is not supporting the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill. We are certainly supporting the Government to make this Rugby World Cup the best Rugby World Cup that we can have but there is an outstanding issue that goes to the emergency powers that the Government is giving the Minister. In our opinion that is undemocratic and it is wrong. I will get into more detail on that. Unless there is an undertaking to reverse it this bill—parts of it will be supported—will be opposed at the second reading and those— 
Nikki Kaye 
: Why did you support the Canterbury bill? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: The discussion around the Canterbury issues has highlighted the emergency powers. It is fair to say that we have more time to consider this bill. We have more time to consider it and as a result of that we will not be supporting it. 
But I do say that my thanks go also to the officials. It is fair to say that we had a very good group of officials including parliamentary counsel working on this bill. It is also fair to say that with the leadership of the chair of the Government Administration Committee being my colleague David Parker but also with the active cooperation of members of the Government and the Opposition on this legislation with the exception of the one issue we have worked through the bill and come to compromises although it is also worth pointing out to the Government as I have done to the acting Leader of the House that this bill includes a number of conscience provisions and there are some issues that need to be dealt with there. 
Before I get on to the main issue I should signal the inconsistency of the arrangements that have been made in this bill between the liquor and the gaming areas. I will use cruise ships as an example. The fact that cruise ships will be required to apply for this type of licence if they want to serve liquor but they will not be allowed to have gaming licences and the fact that hotels will be allowed to extend their hours for liquor but not for gaming is an indication of the inconsistency in this legislation—an inconsistency that I think is subject to a conscience vote. I am a slightly simple person and I have a lot of friends who are involved in Sky City but I think the efforts of the Sky City people in their lobbying and in their restrictions against anyone else but them being able to gamble during the night hours and the fact that people on the large number of cruise ships that will be parked the thousands— 
Hon Dr Wayne Mapp 
: That’s the situation now. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: The member is absolutely right but we are extending drinking hours but not extending gambling hours in the same institutions that will be open for drinking. So now people can gamble for the same hours in which they can drink. We are extending the drinking hours but not the gambling hours. We are giving cruise ships for example the opportunity to apply for these special licences but not to apply for gambling licences. So there are inconsistencies. As I have indicated in a slightly cynical way I think we saw the lobbying powers of people who are involved in the gambling industry. 
Chris Hipkins 
: They’re not watching the rugby. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Well one could also say that when the rugby has finished everything should close automatically at that time. I do not think that anyone has made that argument. That would destroy quite a few good parties but the member will learn more about that as he gets a bit older and reaches the age where he is allowed to go to hotels. 
I will focus on an issue that the Opposition takes very very seriously. I say to everyone who is watching this debate and who is looking to the Opposition response that this bill—notwithstanding what I said before about drinking gambling and other things that will lead to this bill taking quite a long time to go through from the Opposition’s perspective—would go through very quickly if one clause were sorted out. That clause relates to the ability of the Minister to override the authority that is set up under this bill in the later stages before the Rugby World Cup. I might say that an ability of a Minister to override an authority to grant a consent is something that I would not get too upset about but in this particular case the Government has determined that the Minister will have the authority to override a decision of the Rugby World Cup Authority which is headed by a judge with a deputy who must be a lawyer of at least 7 years’ experience. The Minister can approve an application that has been turned down by the Rugby World Cup Authority. My view is that that is just wrong. If we have a quasi-judicial process that has been set up and that authority conducts hearings of opponents for and against an application and makes a planning decision the idea that a Minister can override the decision is wrong. For example the Minister could say that a historic home could be demolished. The Minister has the right to do that. The Rugby World Cup Authority can say no but the— 
Jacqui Dean 
: That’s just so lame. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: The member says that it would not happen. 
Jacqui Dean 
: I said: “That’s just so lame.” 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: The member says: “No way!”. Why then is there a power given for that to happen? More important can we have one example from the next Government speaker just one of an emergency situation where a Minister’s use of this power would be appropriate? I ask for one example where a judge and the rest of the authority have decided that it is inappropriate to use this emergency power yet the Minister Mr McCully can say yes. I have asked that question on a number of occasions and no one has been able to give me one example of where it is appropriate to do this sort of override of process. Let us remember there are a lot of Acts involved. The example I keep on using relates to a historic house that might be near to a fan zone or in a fan zone and the ability of the owner to demolish in circumstances when that would not otherwise be the case. But there could be— 
Nikki Kaye 
: What about a road closure? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: As far as a road closure is concerned the Rugby World Cup Authority is still required to have a hearing of all the evidence. The authority headed by a judge and a deputy who is a lawyer with 7 years’ experience will hear evidence from town planning experts and roading experts. The authority will consider all the evidence and the authority might say no. So how can it be that the Minister has more knowledge than them? How can it be that Murray McCully knows more about roads than people with roading experience people with planning experience the judge and the lawyer with 7 years’ experience? I think Nikki Kaye has to think of another example that she could bring up to say why Mr McCully should be trusted with the ability to demolish houses all over Auckland—with no appeal no right to go to court no right of review and no right to a hearing before a court. Mr McCully can make a declaration at 12 o’clock and at 5 past 12 the bulldozers could move in and do that job. That declaration would be over the recommendation of a judge and a properly formed authority. 
That power given to the Minister forms a tiny part of this bill but I am one of very few MPs left in the House who can remember Muldoon’s emergency powers legislation and his use of those emergency powers to control wages and do things that were wrong. I have explained to the people who are in charge of the Rugby World Cup why Labour is taking this approach. They understand it; they know that as soon as the Government gets the provision right we will flag the bill through.