Mallard Trevor: Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill — Third Reading 
Mallard Trevor: Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:668;Page:15330] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I think it is fair to say that it is more in sorrow than in anger that the Opposition is opposing this legislation. It is fair to say that notwithstanding some temptation over the last year or so the Labour Party has attempted right through the process both in Government and in Opposition to work with National to have as close to a bipartisan approach to this Rugby World Cup as is possible even to the extent as we worked our way through the bid process of including the then Leader of the Opposition Dr Brash as part of the team that was involved in the final determination of the shape of the bid and including him in the bid document itself as an endorsing party. We have worked hard right back to the time when I was involved in the bid for the bid—if people understand that; the money that was being put together in order to finance the bid—to make sure that right through there was quality consultation because we knew that it was important that this was not seen as something that was politically divisive as far as New Zealanders were concerned. We knew there was a big investment and an enormous opportunity and that is why we reached across the House in the time we were in Government in order to attempt to build a consensus. So it is with some sadness that we have come to the point that we have. 
There is acceptance on my part and on the part of the Labour Party that the legislation is necessary. The vast majority of this bill as it was introduced showed I think it is fair to say the degree of roughness and readiness that the Minister in charge of the bill is a bit renowned for but the Government Administration Committee did a good job and with one major exception the legislation is acceptable to the Labour Party. I would go further and say it is necessary. There is no doubt that especially but not only in Auckland the current systems for liquor licensing and resource consents could end up with a hodgepodge of uneven decisions made in the run-up to the Rugby World Cup if legislation of this type was not in place. So it is necessary. 
Therefore—and I focus for a second on the select committee—I want to say that the committee worked very well. I commend my colleague David Parker for his chairing and also members of the Government. I think it is fair to say that a lot of work was done within the committee very much on a bipartisan basis. There were ideas from both sides that were worked into the bill and disagreements on the majority of issues were just as likely to be between people on the same side as across the table but we worked through those processes. I think we have better legislation as a result of that. We knew that was important because the world will be looking at New Zealand at that time. It is very much a case of not knowing what one does not know so it is important to have legislation that works between now and 1 July through what might be described as not the normal process but the new normal process for consent-type arrangements and then there does need to be something in place for things that are late-breaking. Having that sort of process is vital in getting things right. It is very important. 
I do say though that the issue that causes us to oppose the bill is the taking by the Government for the Minister of powers that we think are judicial powers and powers that should be reserved to the process and the authority that has been set up—as I will get to soon even the possibility of having some sort of compromise arrangements. I am slightly critical of the Law Society. The Law Society is an organisation that I think should have been across this legislation much much earlier than it was. Its late comments on the legislation although absolutely appropriate and accurate should have been made much earlier in the process. I think that at some stage the Law Society—and we have to work our way through how that happens—needs to focus earlier when inappropriate powers are being taken. Sometimes there is a lot of publicity or a discussion. I think that as parliamentarians we mainly came to a point of view on the Canterbury legislation that in retrospect leaves us with some questions. But in this case the taking of the power by the Minister was clear on the face of the bill right from the beginning. I think it would have been appropriate for the Law Society to look at the bill and work its way through it. 
I will give an example—one of many and one that I have given to the House before—of something that is late-breaking. The example is of an application that is made after 1 July to dismantle or demolish a home that may or may not be historic but that could not be handled and would not be acceptable under normal resource consent conditions. So there is a property right maybe for the owner certainly for the neighbours and maybe for the community around it. Under this legislation the authority set up to consider it can recommend that it not proceed but the Minister can make a decision that it should proceed. I think that— 
Jacqui Dean 
: I don’t think you’re right there. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: The member whose name I have forgotten—which one is she? [ 
Interruption 
]—Jacqui Dean. The member Jacqui Dean is shaking her head and says that that is not possible. Well it actually is possible. It is absolutely possible that the authority can say no the Minister can say yes and the house can be demolished. That could be an enormous financial advantage to one of the parties. In my opinion that is not the sort of decision that should be taken by a Minister. It is something that is properly taken by a judge or in this case— 
John Hayes 
: A Minister is politically accountable. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Yes a Minister might be politically accountable but my view is that that is the sort of political decision-making around individual advantaged people that has led to corruption internationally. New Zealand has a very proud history of keeping Ministers out of those sorts of decisions. That goes back I think probably to 1912. We have developed a system whereby we keep Ministers out of that sort of decision making and I think that is the right thing to do. 
I place on the record of the House that I went to the Minister and offered him a compromise. I said that we would support this legislation leaving in his power of veto over the decision of the authority to approve something. So he could block something that would otherwise have happened under this legislation in the late phase and say “No that is wrong. That is unacceptable.” but he could not overturn a negative decision. He could not turn a negative decision into a positive decision and in the example I gave allow for the demolition of a property that could not be demolished under the Resource Management Act. He chose not to do that. I think that was wrong. I think it is very sad that he chose to sacrifice a bipartisan approach to the legislation—something that we wanted to do—in order to retain that power for himself. I think that showed very poor judgment. It showed a poor understanding of the constitutional separations that have grown in New Zealand which are important to the fabric of our society and to the avoidance of both corruption and the perception of corruption. I think that is breaking down and it is very very sad that this sort of event is one where it breaks down further. I say to the National Government that it might come to regret that in the future because what it does is add to the perception of the Government not caring about matters that lead to perceived corruption in New Zealand. We should not have that as part of this legislation.