Hughes Darren: Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill — Third Reading 
Hughes Darren: Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:668;Page:15344] 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Labour) 
: 
 I rise to take a call on the third reading of the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill somewhat unexpectedly. I was so entranced by the Keith Quinn - like quality of the commentary from the senior Government whip— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Come on Keith is my constituent. Don’t insult Keith like that. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: Does the member think he was less Keith Quinn more Murray Mexted? Is that what the member is saying? I think it was a great tribute to the  
50 Years of New Zealand Television 
 programmes that were screened earlier in the year that the member had such instant recall of that particular game in 1961. It had a big impact on him 49 years ago. 
Although we are all very keen to be supportive of the Rugby World Cup and to make sure that it goes smoothly the truth is that this legislation is not needed for the success of that tournament next year. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Not all of it. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: The parts opposed by the Labour Opposition are not needed. That is the truth. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: That’s right—Part 4 is definitely not needed. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: Part 4 is the part that we have struck our opposition to. The member opposite Chris Tremain was full of praise for trade deals which is a bipartisan matter where the current Government is able to pick up the work of the previous Government and it is doing a fine job in that respect. 
It is a testimony to the failure of the negotiation skills of the Minister for the Rugby World Cup Mr McCully that firstly this bill has taken so long to go through Parliament and secondly it is not passing through Parliament with unanimous support. This should be the sort of legislation that all parties across the House want to agree on. I do not know of anybody in Parliament who does not want the Rugby World Cup 2011 to be a fantastic success and an amazing event for our country—both the staging of the competition and of course the result in the final game. We all have a very strong view on that. The inability of the Minister for the Rugby World Cup to simply get an agreement on a bill like this bodes very very badly for the organisation and planning of the wider tournament from a governance perspective in 2011. 
The Associate Minister for the Rugby World Cup—because of course in New Zealand we must have two Ministers responsible for such a tournament— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I agree. With McCully as the Minister he needs a hand-holder. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: When Murray McCully was given the primary portfolio it necessitated the appointment of an associate in the form of the Hon Gerry Brownlee who has really brought the grunt to that portfolio. He could probably have intervened and worked with other parties which he is very good at doing to ensure that Part 4 was amended in a way that had parliamentary support. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: He could have propped him up. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: He would be the ultimate prop in that respect if he could support Mr McCully. But for reasons beyond all of us Mr McCully has never been good at doing that. Mr McCully’s consistent strength is to not only divide the opposition but also divide his own colleagues. There is a consistency in his form and in his play. 
The Labour Opposition is saying that the aspect in Part 4 that refers to the liquor licensing provisions of the bill confers on the Minister far too much power and there is far too little oversight. The Hon Trevor Mallard the former holder of the Rugby World Cup portfolio in the days when it did not require two Ministers but just one had the opportunity to put forward some amendments— 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: He had Mr Cosgrove. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: Mr Cosgrove was the subsequent Minister in that portfolio. He was a stand-alone Minister as well. It was not until the change of Government when we were going to shift officers from the back line to the front line—almost literally I suspect—that we saw we had to double the number of politicians responsible for the Rugby World Cup. This is the result. This third reading tonight is the result of two Ministers’ work in trying to unite Parliament and they have failed to do so. 
Mr Mallard’s amendment would have put some worthy oversight around the provisions. We are now passing into law a bill that states that when an independent authority makes a decision that decision can be overturned by a Minister without any reference to any other authority and without any parliamentary oversight whatsoever. People know that there has been criticism of this House for its unanimous vote to confer powers on the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery. People were concerned that there was not enough oversight in that legislation. 
Charles Chauvel 
: No he’s been very responsible. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: A lot of parliamentary safeguards have actually been built into that law in response to some of that criticism which all parties were cognisant of. My colleague Charles Chauvel asserts that Minister Brownlee has been very responsible in his use of that legislation. I think the consultation has been good. But in this legislation there are less safeguards for the public and there is less parliamentary oversight than there are— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Fewer safeguards. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: Fewer safeguards I am told by the shadow Minister of Education exist in this legislation than in the Canterbury earthquake legislation. That legislation was written in a hurry in response to certain events in our country for a recovery effort that all of us wanted to see made without hindrance or delay. There was a rationale for that legislation. For this legislation there is no reason why so much power should be given to a Minister. 
One of the things we have been arguing very strongly is that this move has to be based on principles. There is a lot of pressure on the country next year to make sure that this event is well organised. We want it to be. Everyone wants it to be a success. Our fear this time in addition to our perennial 4-yearly fear that we will not uplift the cup is that the tournaments— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Four-yearly is not perennial. 
Charles Chauvel 
: It’s quadrennial. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: Quadrennial—I am sorry; I am not up with this street lingo of “quadrennial” that is all the rave at the Wainuiomata Shopping Centre when the member is doing his constituency work. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: No well I’m not a master of Latin. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: Well that is true. Of course when one is pre - Vatican Council I guess the Latin language comes a lot earlier to those followers of Catholicism. But that blessing is not shared by all of us. 
When the Rugby World Cup comes along we are always worried about the result—of course we are—but our additional worry this time is whether we can be organised enough to put on a good tournament. The idea of having legislation to ensure that some aspects of the planning are streamlined is not without support in Parliament. I think that a lot of people would have approached that matter favourably but what has caused this bill to be so delayed has been the obstinancy of Minister Murray McCully in not listening to anyone other than himself. He has not listened to the amendments and he has not accepted the hand of bipartisanship. As a result his legislation has been held up. We are trying to make the point that legislation should not be handled this way when there is an opportunity to change it. 
The amendment from Trevor Mallard would have stipulated that the Minister cannot grant an urgent approval that has not been granted by the authority. The authority is governed under its own statute for a very good reason. It is settled law and it would have made sense for there to be some consistency when a ministerial decision has been made. 
What makes this even more difficult for Parliament is that Parliament will almost certainly not be sitting during the Rugby World Cup for a number of reasons. First Tories never go past a free ticket to a game. Secondly—[ 
Interruption 
] Some truths are always self-evident. Of course we know that there is one free ticket going now because somebody over there who would have been invited will not be any more. It is probably two members actually and we can guarantee that they would have taken the maximum entitlement in that respect. 
One reason Parliament might not be sitting is that a general election will have been just held if the Government goes to the polls in August next year. John Key may well do that if he does not trust Murray McCully’s organisation of this tournament because the biggest fear that the Prime Minister would have is not that we do not win the Rugby World Cup—everyone in this House thinks we will do that—but that the games are not organised enough and that it will be a shambles in Auckland. He will be worried about Murray McCully’s judgment as so many leaders have been although it is normally when they are former leaders that they worry about his judgment. Parliament will not have met for the first time. The alternative reason is that if the election is held in November Parliament will have been prorogued for the campaign. 
When these decisions are made by the Minister there are no safeguards built into the legislation and Parliament will not be sitting. Either the next Parliament will not have been called together or this Parliament will have finished. We are investing a lot of power in Murray McCully. 
If members opposite think that that is not a worthy question to ask then I suggest that they go and see how Bill English feels about investing too much power in Murray McCully. If they do not get on with him and I would understand that then they should go and ask Jenny Shipley whom they can contact at Pansy Wong’s electorate office. They can ask her what she thinks of investing too much power in Murray McCully. If Jenny Shipley is unavailable then those members could go and see what Mr Bolger thinks about that. There is a lot of form in this area about whether Murray McCully can take on with regard to— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: He gets on pretty well with Tau as well. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: No he would not get on well with Tau. He gets on so well with Tau Henare that he organised Tau Henare’s coup against himself for the Mauri Pacific party. That is how good Murray McCully is when it comes to political coups. He got political suicide in that respect. 
We have opposed this bill all the way through this House because of the fact that the Government would not negotiate on Part 4. The Government is trying to vest too much power in the Minister and if that happens in this particular bill then we are concerned that that will happen in bill after bill. We simply do not believe that that is correct in terms of parliamentary procedure and also we worry intensely that by giving so much power to the individuals concerned mistakes could be made and we want nothing to put the Rugby World Cup at risk in 2011.