Shearer David: Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Shearer David: Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:668;Page:14911] 
DAVID SHEARER (Labour—Mt Albert) 
: 
 I have spoken on the other parts of the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill but Part 4 is the crux of why we are debating this bill. We largely support the other parts of the bill as my colleagues have made very clear. There are some technicalities but it is Part 4 that we find abhorrent. The reason for that is very simple: the Minister has unbridled power to basically run roughshod over all of the procedures that would otherwise be in place. 
We went through Part 2 which sets up the Rugby World Cup Authority. This authority comprises a senior judge of some 7 years’ standing; other members of the authority are also senior. It has the ability to hear in a very very short time concerns and applications that may arise. We support that. We are setting up a special authority to enable those applications to be heard. Nevertheless we believe it is important for the Rugby World Cup to have that facility just in case it is needed. Part 3 sets up all the procedures. The procedures are set out in some detail as well as the difficulties that could arise to make sure that the authority is able to hear the submissions—again so that the proper procedures and the proper democratic process can be followed. 
We come to Part 4 and we are more or less throwing Parts 2 and 3 out the window. We are giving the Minister pretty much unbridled power to do whatever he or she likes. We have to ask ourselves why we need Parts 2 and 3. Why do we not just have Part 4? Part 4 could have done what was essentially already there without the need to go through this debate. This debate is about Part 4 and the ability of the Minister to exercise that power. 
We have an alternative. Mr Mallard has put up an amendment. It is a reasonable suggestion and would remove that power. We would be able to go back to an authority that has our full confidence and has full standing and to a set of procedures that are tight and robust even given the short time span in which the authority would be able to hear a case. I do not quite understand why we need to give a Minister that sort of power. 
As my colleague Iain Lees-Galloway said this is not the first time. We have had this situation with Environment Canterbury. We had it with the earthquake which we supported. In some ways we uncomfortably supported it but we nevertheless supported it. But this is part of a long list of things that we are finding progressively undemocratic such as the number of Official Information Act requests that we have submitted that take weeks to be answered and the number of times we have had to appeal to the Ombudsman to ensure that those requests are responded to. We are still waiting weeks for those. This is perhaps a step too far. 
John Hayes 
: Welcome to Opposition. 
DAVID SHEARER 
: John Hayes may try to interject but it is true. During the lunch break today I was talking to a number of journalists who are having the same problem as we are. We want to get information. It is our right as an Opposition to be able to do that. It is our right as an Opposition to delay this bill. We believe that Part 4 is essentially undemocratic and it is not in the interests of New Zealand. 
Just to rub salt into the wound Labour is the party that brought the Rugby World Cup to New Zealand. This is the party that had the vision to get out there and argue to get the Rugby World Cup brought to New Zealand. Then we hear a whole bunch of members on the other side of the Chamber saying that somehow we are unpatriotic because we do not support Murray McCully having unfettered power through this bill.