KEITH LOCKE (Green) : I move, That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Governor-General Bill that it have the power to consider and, if it thinks fit, adopt the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 173. The amendments relate to the term of appointment of the Governor-General and the processes of appointment. The reason I have moved the instruction is to clear up any doubt about the relevance of this Supplementary Order Paper to the bill, the Committee stage of which is to be considered very shortly. I understand that I am not to debate the Supplementary Order Paper now, but one of the two new clauses on it relates to the term of appointment of the Governor-General, which relates very directly to the whole question of annuities, the number of years of service to qualify for those annuities, and the different rates of the annuities. So it is directly relevant to the bill. I think that with a bill called the Governor-General Bill the process of appointment outlined on the Supplementary Order Paper is very relevant. I do not wish to debate it beyond saying that, but I am sure that those members who listened to the first and second readings would see that the content of my Supplementary Order Paper is very relevant to this matter.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) : I rise to speak to the motion on the part of the member. I think there is a lot of sympathy on this side of the House for the general cause that he is trying to promote, but it is also fair to say this is late in the process. Also, the motion is part of a process that does not involve the Government Administration Committee, which members on this side would think was a very important part of a discussion about republicanism. Perhaps the member later on, when he has his right of reply on this instruction to the House to consider something to be part of the Governor-General Bill, can give a level of assurance that submitters would be able to debate it. He might have a process that after the Committee stage sends the bill back to a select committee for submissions, or some other process.

I think members around the House consider this issue to be serious. Although on occasions I myself have used shortcuts in order to get things into legislation or to have consideration of particular debates, I think it is fair to say this issue is a major issue, and is one that concerns many New Zealanders. I understand there is a fairly even balance in the approach that people take to it. But it is certainly one where it is appropriate to have a due process whereby New Zealanders have the right to come to a select committee and have a debate on it. I know that the member has previously brought legislation to this effect to the House; it has been considered by the House and rejected. More is the pity when that rejection occurred, because although some of us thought that the member’s bill was not quite in a form that we could support, I think most of us on this side of the House are of the opinion that a debate is worth having on the issue. In fact, if we can shape something up to the form that we need, it will be a very important debate.

Having said that, I say I am slightly surprised to get the call at this stage, because I thought that on a relatively important issue like this the Minister who is in charge of the House would take a call to indicate the Government’s position on it. [Interruption] There is a Minister; she is hiding. I think the member was looking to see whether a Minister was in the House. Kate Wilkinson might be described as head down and bum up, working on her papers, but she is in the House.

I say to the member that from my understanding and experience he is procedurally correct in his approach. I have some pretty severe doubts as to whether without this motion his recommendations would be within the scope of the bill. I think a ruling from the Chairman of the Committee would not be to that effect. Therefore, the member is attempting to avoid any doubt. It is more often done by Ministers when they have Supplementary Order Papers that they want to bring into debate on bills after they have been through the select committee process. In fact, it is possible to do this with a bill that is at a select committee. It is possible for a notice of motion to go to the House—normally, again, a Government notice of motion—that says that notwithstanding the relevant Standing Order, a Supplementary Order Paper that would otherwise be outside the scope of the bill can be brought within the scope of the bill, and a select committee can consider it. I think that is more often done to a bill that is currently before a select committee, when Government members want to make a pretty substantial change but at the same time want to provide the opportunity for there to be hearings and for submitters to be brought into the debate so that there can be discussions.

I am looking forward. I warn the member’s colleague Kevin Hague that if he takes the next call, the debate is finished. I ask him not to do that, because I think some other people have some views on this particular matter and may want to contribute to the debate. But Mr Hague could do that.

The interim position of the Labour members on this particular motion is that we will not support it, because it looks as though the process may be abused. But we are not beyond convincing, if the member has in his back pocket an arrangement that gets all of this back to the select committee. But the mere mention of the words “Governor-General” in the body of legislation would not normally bring it to the point of being the hook on which a referendum on republicanism, or anything significant like that, could hang. Although we are generally supportive of the cause, we are not supportive of that sort of abuse of process.

I always try to be friendly to my mates in the Greens, but generally they are sticklers for process. There is a blog by Metiria Turei; there is something called Frogblog, which comments quite a lot in the new media on the question of parliamentary process, and which is very, very critical of both National and Labour when there is any question that that process has been abused. I look forward to “Frog” blogging on Keith Locke’s amendment of this type. Again, I may be misjudging the member. He is not normally one for secret agendas; he is normally a person who is opposed to secret agendas. He has done quite a lot of work over time in trying to expose secret agendas, or to stop other people’s methods of finding secrets. But it may be that he has an agenda, and I hope that if he does, it is not one that stays secret for too much longer.

KEITH LOCKE (Green) : I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I raise a point of clarification. I think that it is important in order for this discussion to proceed properly for members to know that Supplementary Order Paper 173 has nothing whatsoever to do with republicanism. It is just about the way in which—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker): The member is seeking to introduce, by way of a point of order, material into the debate. There is no such thing in the Standing Orders as a point of clarification. A point is either a point of order about the process of the House, or it is out of order. I advise the member that that is out of order.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) : I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. May I just apologise to the member. One of the problems with the sudden method that the member used was that we did not know what the hell he was talking about.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker): There are no points of order for clarification. There are no points of order for lamentable and heartfelt apologies that should have been given before. This is a debate.

CHRIS TREMAIN (Senior Whip—National) : I rise to take a brief call on Supplementary Order Paper 173 in the name of Keith Locke from the Greens, to let the House know that the Government will not be supporting this Supplementary Order Paper. New clause 4A represents a significant departure from the way that the Governor-General is currently selected. In the new amendment that is being proposed: “The Governor-General is appointed by the Sovereign on the recommendation of the House of Representatives. The recommendation must be agreed to by at least 75% of all members of Parliament.” That, indeed, is a significant departure from where we currently sit. This proposal has not been through a select committee process, or even been discussed or debated by MPs in the House. On that basis and for a number of other reasons, the Government will not be supporting this recommendation.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) : On this occasion I agree with the Government and with Trevor Mallard as to process. The bill that we will consider today does not deal with the way in which the Governor-General is appointed. There is considerable merit in what Keith Locke has put forward in terms of ideas about how the process for the appointment of the Governor-General could be improved, but that matter is not for this bill. Indeed, it is also fair to say to Mr Locke that similar submissions were made in respect of the bill when it was before the Government Administration Committee, on which I was serving. The clerk of the committee provided advice to the committee that amendments to that effect were beyond the scope of the bill, because the bill does not deal with methods of appointment.

I would like to further describe my concerns about process. I am not a process junky, but I recognise that some of the long-established processes we have in this Parliament are to protect against substantial changes being made that might not be properly thought through. I am not accusing Mr Locke of not properly thinking this matter through; I am actually taking the point of principle.

There are various ways in which our select committees are meant to act as a check on what happens in this Parliament. This is all the more important in New Zealand because we have a unicameral Parliament. If Parliament gets it wrong, there is no higher House through which legislation passes; no higher House can check on legislation and turn things back if we make mistakes. That is why in New Zealand we are very, very reliant on the scrutiny of proposed legislation in the select committee process.

There are a number of ways in which that scrutiny can be usurped, to the detriment of New Zealanders, and one of them is a select committee putting into legislation amendments that are beyond the scope of a bill. We oppose that, because people do not have an opportunity to submit on them. If an amendment is not within the scope of the original bill, then interested New Zealanders, who might have a view in favour or against the sort of thing that Keith Locke is now proposing, do not have the chance to submit upon it, and to tell the committee—and, through the committee, this Parliament—what the pluses and minuses of the proposal are.

As Annette King said earlier—and it is the next issue I was going to mention—if we agree to this, I say Mr Locke, then how are we to resist inappropriate attempts by the Government to do similar things in respect of its legislative agenda when it wants to tack bits on to legislation that has gone to a select committee and then come back to the House, or, indeed, to do so at the select committee? We would disagree with that as an Opposition.

There already are, in my opinion, too many things being done to undermine the effectiveness of some of these processes. The open government we have in New Zealand—

Jacqui Dean: Yes, talk about the electoral finance legislation.

Hon DAVID PARKER: Well, the electoral finance legislation is probably quite a good case in point, because that went through a full select committee process. There was no truncated process there.

The rule of the Government now seems to be to use its numbers to change a reference to a select committee by truncating the period for the select committee process and truncating the period for public submissions at the select committee. The Government did so for the super-city legislation—a phrase that I do not like; I will refer to it as the Auckland city reorganisation legislation—and it has done so for other legislation. The Government has used urgency inappropriately. It has used urgency repeatedly and inappropriately to effectively push legislation through different stages in a very truncated period of time. That stops the fourth estate, stops the Opposition, and stops interest groups from getting up opposition to policy that could be opposed over a longer period of time to proper effect so as to protect New Zealanders against inappropriate change. Another example is the Official Information Act.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker): I advise the member of Speaker’s ruling 80/3: “This is a procedural motion … it is a narrow debate. The only matter under debate is whether the committee should have the power to examine and adopt this Supplementary Order Paper.” That is the only matter for debate. What may or may not have gone on before could be very interesting, but it is proscribed for this debate. I invite the House to remember that it is a narrow debate about whether the select committee should have the power to consider this Supplementary Order Paper.

Keith Locke: I seek leave to table a submission to the select committee, presented by Lewis Holden and Dean Knight, specifically proposing—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker): I say to the member that the kawa of this House is that those sorts of things should be done at the end of a member’s speech. The Hon David Parker is speaking. I have pulled him up on a matter of order. I want the Hon David Parker to be given the opportunity to complete his speech, and when he is finished the member is welcome to seek leave at that point. It is just a courtesy to the member who is speaking.

Hon DAVID PARKER: Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. Indeed, Mr Locke is correct that a similar submission was made to the select committee, and that is the reference I was making earlier to the advice we had in relation to just that suggestion that it was beyond the scope of the bill. The instances that I was talking to were why we should take care not to agree, in this procedural motion, to take a step that effectively undermines the protections we normally have in this House against inappropriate process.

I was giving instances of that, and the only other ones I would give are in respect of how the Official Information Act can be ignored, and, indeed, how minority reports can be blocked by the Government. All these sorts of things are encouraged if we vote for this motion, because this motion suggests that we should put aside the normal processes, ignore what is normally within the scope of the bill, and ignore our parliamentary traditions, which go to open government, the Official Information Act, select committee length periods, minority reports, and agreeing only to things that are within the scope of the bill.

I think there is considerable merit in the idea that we should move to a more transparent process for the appointment of the Governor-General. The Governor-General ought to be appointed with the support of this House rather than just with the support of the Government. Indeed, I think that Governments through the years have tried to make appointments that are appealing to both sides of the House. I have no problem with the substance behind the motion—because that would just be a case of writing down a process that would ensure that there is some cross-party agreement as to the future appointment of Governors-General. But in terms of the process point, we in the Labour Party are going to support the proper process here. We feel that the Government currently is taking advantage of us at select committees, and we do not want to give it cause to be able to do so by agreeing to an inappropriate process motion here.

So the position of the Labour Party is that we oppose this motion. These procedural motions appear, on the face of it, to be rather dry things, where we think: “Well, there’s not much harm in that.” But when we think through the underlying issues here, we see there are important matters of principle and precedent. I have mentioned the principles, but the precedent effect would be of concern to the Labour Party, and, I would suggest, to the Greens also.

As Trevor Mallard has said, the Greens often take the process point, and often appropriately, I have to say. During the two terms of the Labour Government when I have been here, the Greens often stopped us from using short-cut processes because they controlled whether we could get a majority for those short-cut processes. The Greens stopped us doing that. At times it was a bit frustrating for us when we were in Government, but, actually, I look back and I compare that with what happens now under the National Government, and I think the Greens were right.

These processes ought to be protected, because the way in which we consider legislation in this House has been built up through precedents for over 100 years, and those precedents are borne of experience as we try to protect New Zealand against inappropriate lawmaking. Inappropriate lawmaking can be caused by hasty lawmaking or by agreeing to matters that are essentially beyond the scope of a bill—and this is beyond the scope of the bill. It would serve the political ambition of the Greens and their reasoned position as to why they want to change the way in which the Governor-General is appointed, but it would not be appropriate to do that in a bill that has not been subject to wide public submissions on that issue.

Mr Locke is correct that two of the submitters, I think, raised the point at the select committee, but they were ruled out as being beyond scope by the clerk of the committee. The clerk was correct to rule them out of scope; I did not think there was any doubt about that. The fact that those two people submitted does not mean to say that the people who read the bill when it was publicly advertised thought: “I don’t need to put anything in my submission about how you appoint the Governor-General, because that is not what this bill is about.” Most of the people who submitted, or who might have submitted had it proposed to change the way in which the Governor-General is appointed, are ignorant of the fact that this bill could be used to do so. That in is itself means that it should not be done this way.

This is an important constitutional point. The Governor-General is the Queen’s representative in New Zealand. How the Governor-General is appointed is a matter of important constitutional note. If we are going to change that, we should do it directly through legislation on that topic.

KEITH LOCKE (Green) : I seek leave to table the submission by Dean Knight and Lewis Holden to the select committee on this bill, which proposes exactly the two points—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker): Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection.

KEITH LOCKE: I seek leave to table the second submission, referred to by the previous speaker, by Derek Round, which proposes a method of appointment by 75 percent of Parliament.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker): Leave is sought for the tabling of the document by Derek Round. Is there any objection to that? There is objection.

CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) : I am happy to take a call in this debate on whether the contents of Supplementary Order Paper 173 in the name of Keith Locke should be able to be considered during the Committee stage of the debate on the Governor-General Bill. I think it is really important that the House and those listening in and watching on TV are aware of what the Supplementary Order Paper actually does, because none of the speakers so far have talked in any detail about what it does.

Chris Tremain: I actually did.

CHRIS HIPKINS: Chris Tremain mentioned what it does probably in more detail than most other speakers have done so far. I think it is really important that we know that Keith Locke is not trying to pull a swiftie here and slip republicanism into a debate that has nothing to do with republicanism. These are matters that could, if we took a very wide-ranging approach to the scope of the bill, argue were within its scope. That issue was debated at the Government Administration Committee. When the submitters put that forward, we had some discussion about whether those submissions should be deemed to be within the scope of the bill.

It is important that we talk about what the amendments on Supplementary Order Paper 173 are. The first substantive amendment is the addition of a new clause 4A, which deals with the appointment of the Governor-General. That is the one that basically requires that when the Governor-General is appointed, a 75 percent vote of the House of Representatives confirms that appointment. The question then becomes whether that is something that is within the scope of this particular legislation. I will now talk about new clause 5A, because the points I want to raise are relevant to both clauses. Additional clause 5A specifies in law that the term of appointment for the Governor-General is a 5-year term. The term should not exceed 5 years, and a person who has been appointed as the Governor-General cannot be reappointed as the Governor-General. The question is whether those two changes—providing for a specified term, and requiring a 75 percent vote of Parliament to confirm a Governor-General’s appointment—are within the scope of this bill.

The bill deals with annuities for Governors-General, but there is no fixed term for a Governor-General. It deals with payments on conclusion of office, for example. The idea of the term of a Governor-General being specified is relevant to the payment of annuities and so forth, which are matters contained within the bill. It is not too big a stretch to say it could actually be considered as part of the debate on this particular legislation. As Keith Locke mentioned, both of these issues were raised during the select committee process. As David Parker pointed out, they were ruled to be outside the scope of the bill. In that case, there are other process options that a member of Parliament could choose to take.

I have the select committee’s report on this bill here. There is no minority report in the select committee’s report on the bill. That, of course, is one option that is available to members if they feel significant issues have been raised that are outside the scope of the legislation that is being considered by a select committee. Members retain that option to put forward a minority report within the select committee’s report, arguing that additional issues had been raised during the select committee process that are worthy of consideration, and alerting the House to those things. The select committee works on a very cooperative basis. It is chaired by the Hon David Parker, and I can imagine that there would not have been any issue if a member chose to raise that particular matter and alert the House to it. I think that is an important part of our constitutional arrangement—that right of select committees to alert the House to matters that fall outside the strict scope of legislation that is being considered. That did not happen in this particular case.

The question becomes whether this is a case for which there should be a specific exemption. Is this something that there should be an exemption for, and should we therefore widen the scope of the bill? I am a little uncomfortable about doing that, because having sat through the select committee hearings on this particular bill I think several submitters put forward quite compelling cases for doing so. I should point out that I personally am very sympathetic towards the two amendments. Two of the submitters argued that yes, in fact, those amendments should go ahead. However, the other submitters to the select committee did not get the opportunity to comment on that, because it was not in the original bill. So before the House was to consider those amendments at the Committee stage, I would prefer that they went back to a select committee so that the public could have a say. It may be that there is a different appointment process for the Governor-General that someone in the public may wish to submit on, and maybe a 5-year term is not be what people want. People may have a more compelling argument for a 4-year term, a 6-year term, or some other term.

I think, given the significant constitutional nature of these amendments and the extent to which they change the role, the appointment process, of the Governor-General—if we make it a fixed-term role, that would change things—it is important that any such change be subject to a pretty rigorous examination process. The problem with doing so in the Committee of the whole House is that the public would not have a chance to have a say on it, and members would not have a chance to get their heads around it, and do any additional research and so on. We are talking about the Committee stage effectively being over and done with, potentially, in a day. That does not give people much time to give the matter the depth of consideration that I think something of this constitutional significance should be subject to.

I think it is really important that Parliament as a whole treads very carefully when it comes to amending constitutional issues.

Hon Annette King: The Government could send it back to select committee.

CHRIS HIPKINS: As Annette King has pointed out, if the Government were of a mind to consider this issue, it could send the bill back to a select committee. I indicate as a member of the Opposition that I would be very comfortable with this bill going back before a select committee with such provisions in it. As I said, I think they are very worthy provisions. I agree with Keith Locke on many things about republicanism, but also about the role of the Governor-General, which is a separate issue. It is really important that we do keep those things quite distinct. This is not a republican issue. This is to do with the Governor-General, the appointment of the Governor-General, the annuities paid to a Governor-General, and the term of office of a Governor-General. That is within the scope of the bill, in terms of the annuities and what the Governor-General is paid. But I argue that the issues are on the margin, and they are just on the other side of the margin in terms of whether they are within the scope of this particular legislation.

So with some reluctance, I do not support the resolution put forward by Keith Locke to allow Supplementary Order Paper 173 to be considered by the Committee of the whole House. There are other avenues available to the member, and I indicate that I would be very supportive of him should he choose to pursue those avenues.

PHIL TWYFORD (Labour) : I find a lot of merit in Supplementary Order Paper 173 in the name of Keith Locke. We have heard the two key provisions on it being explained by colleagues over the last half hour or so. The first deals with the appointment of the Governor-General, and would require a 75 percent majority in this House for any recommendation to go to the Sovereign for the appointment of the next Governor-General. As a fellow republican with Keith Locke, I appreciate the sentiment behind this. It is not that this Supplementary Order Paper is about republicanism; it is simply about the appointment of the Governor-General. But implicit in this Supplementary Order Paper is the idea that we are a democracy and it is appropriate that this House, as the assembly of the elected representatives of this nation, should have a say in the appointment of our head of State. That seems to be entirely consistent with the thrust of the Governor-General Bill, which we will debate this afternoon, and which is fundamentally about modernising the arrangements surrounding the Governor-General. I commend the member for this Supplementary Order Paper.

As my colleague Chris Hipkins has pointed out, new clause 5A on the Supplementary Order Paper deals with the term of the appointment of the Governor-General by setting it out in law that the Governor-General is not to be appointed for a term greater than 5 years. That effectively puts in place a term limit: a person who has been appointed as the Governor-General cannot be reappointed as the Governor-General. A clear line can be drawn between that and the provisions in the bill. Clause 8 of the bill deals with the annuities, and it states that if the Governor-General has held office for a total period of less than 2 complete years he or she must be paid an annuity. Of course, the bill also sets up the Remuneration Authority as the body that will set the level of that annuity.

Although I think the case can be made that this Supplementary Order Paper should be debated today, I am mindful that colleagues have already made the case that such a significant change to the way that the Governor-General is appointed deserves to have the benefit of a proper and serious process of public and parliamentary scrutiny, in accordance with the fact that this would be a pretty significant change to our constitutional arrangements. We have heard from Mr Locke that a couple of the submitters, Lewis Holden and Dean Knight, came along to the Government Administration Committee and submitted in some detail on this very issue. But I am persuaded by my colleagues that that is not enough, and that the bill would have to be changed and then run through a select committee process in which members of the public could come along and have a say on this matter. I like what my colleague Chris Hipkins had to say, and if there is a procedure that would allow Mr Locke to propose that the House send the bill back before the select committee with this Supplementary Order Paper to be considered by the public, then I would certainly be keen to support that. I express the hope that my colleagues on the Labour side of this House would also support that provision.

This is not a republican Supplementary Order Paper, but it is a democratic one. It is worthy of consideration; I think it has a lot of merit. I hope that we can find a way to ensure that this bill is sent back before the select committee, so it can consider the content of Mr Locke’s Supplementary Order Paper.

KEITH LOCKE (Green) : Previous speakers have spoken about—and I think Trevor Mallard himself did talk about it—my right of reply as the mover of the motion. I consulted the Clerk and found out that technically I do not have a right of reply, but given the fact that I was commendably brief in my first speech, and given all the issues that have been raised in terms of the course of action to be followed, I seek leave to be granted 2 minutes to sum up this debate before the vote.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker): Leave is sought for Keith Locke to have 2 minutes in reply before the vote. Is there any objection? There is objection.

KEITH LOCKE (Green) : I seek leave to move a motion that my Supplementary Order Paper 173 be referred back to the Government Administration Committee for consideration before there is a further debate on this bill.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is objection.

KEITH LOCKE (Green) : I seek leave to divide the vote on this motion, because it is clear from the debate so far that there is much more agreement on the relevance of new clause 5A on my Supplementary Order Paper, relating to annuities and the term of office of the Governor-General, and is support for that amendment to go forward to the Committee of the whole House as a Supplementary Order Paper. So I seek to divide the vote on my motion so that the motion is taken in two parts: the first part to be in relation to the Committee of the whole House considering new clause 4A, in relation to the means of appointment of the Governor-General, and the second vote to be on new clause 5A, in relation to the term of appointment of the Governor-General being 5 years.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker): I do not think the House can take leave for that, for this reason. I do not believe that a procedural motion of this nature is divisible. A Supplementary Order Paper itself would be divisible, but a motion to give the Committee of the whole House the power to consider and adopt, if necessary, a Supplementary Order Paper is, in my opinion, indivisible. It would be inappropriate to seek to have the motion so divided. Either the motion is up or it is down; it is not in halves.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) : Although there was quite a bit of questioning on this part of the bill, it is one of the parts that was, essentially, improved by the very good work of the Government Administration Committee, and I compliment David Parker for his chairing of that committee. I say also that as far as this part is concerned, useful contributions were made by Government members of the committee. Except in some areas of interpretation, there was a degree of unanimity on this legislation.

I also, at this stage, thank the officials and parliamentary counsel who were involved in the drafting of the bill—and possibly apologise to them for what they are about to go through. I know that the Minister in charge of the bill, Mr McCully, is very interested in this debate, and I will call the real Minister down to the Chamber soon so that he can answer questions. I am hoping for an indication from him to officials that it is pretty unlikely that they will be required for detailed work as we go through this legislation, because it is my understanding, having looked on the Table, that there are no Government amendments to the bill, and the one Opposition amendment is something that is—

Chris Tremain: That’s good. We should be able to be through it quite quickly, then.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: No, no. I am indicating to the Minister that if he were a kind and generous Minister he would say to the officials that it would be cruel and unusual punishment for them to stay here today and tomorrow dealing with this particular legislation.

It is fair to say, in dealing with Part 1 on a clause by clause basis, that clause 3 is now drafted in a way that is much more easily understood than it was earlier. In changing the wording from “seventh quadrennial international rugby world championships tournament” to “Rugby World Cup 2011”, the committee, in doing its work, has the focus back on to tidier legislation that is easier to understand. I think that as the people in the various parts of the Auckland Central electorate study this bill—as they study it in Ponsonby, probably late at night, with the local member—they will be more easily able—

Hon Nathan Guy: Speak for yourself.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: The only time I ever see the member out is late at night. Having “Rugby World Cup 2011” means it will be easier to understand, and I thank the member for her contribution in making that change.

A lot of clauses were changed by the select committee—and I think it is good to have preliminary provisions describing a bill and making clear to people what is coming later—but clause 2 is one of the few clauses—

Hon David Parker: It’s not in Part 1.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Sorry, subclause (2) of clause 3—I apologise to my colleague—is one of the few subclauses in this part of the legislation that has gone through unchanged. It outlines what comes later, though probably not in quite the sort of detail that some of us would like, especially in relation to the obnoxious Part 4 clauses that I will not get into now. But if we are to be clear in subparagraphs (i) and (ii) of paragraph (2)(c), it would have been better, as part of those subparagraphs, to make it clear that the Minister, although subject to a recommendation of the authority, is not really subject to it, which is probably an important point to ask about. Subparagraph (ii) of clause 3(2)(c) states that this Act, under Part 4: “empowers the Minister, subject to a recommendation of the Authority, to grant urgent approvals for activities … that, for good reason, were not foreseen;”. The question I have asks whether the Minister is in fact subject to a recommendation of the authority. The answer is that he is not.

The question now is whether the subparagraph is false and misleading. In fact, I apologise to the Committee: I sat on the select committee but had not really focused on that particular subparagraph as we were working through the bill. But there is a question about whether the Minister is subject to the recommendation of the authority. “Having received a recommendation from the authority” is probably the right wording, but I do not think—

Hon David Parker: We like this wording.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Well, if it were true, the litigation would be interesting but the buildings could be gone. It might make some interesting case law. I am not a lawyer, but from memory I think that the specific might override the general. It could well be that the specific in Part 4 overrides the general in Part 1. My learned colleague David Parker is nodding; I think he is nodding because he is agreeing rather than going to sleep. It would be my view that, if the legislation got to a court, the lines in clause 3(2)(c)(ii) of Part 1 are misleading—

Jacqui Dean: Nonsense.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Well, the legal expert from Temuka tends to indicate that she knows better than my colleague, who has been a member down there for some time.

The other paragraph, paragraph (d), of clause (3)(2), which refers to Part 5, refers to the “temporary process under which the authority may grant Rugby World Cup liquor licences.” Again, I am not certain that that totally covers it, because restrictions about gambling arrangements, or changes to gaming licences, within that part are made as part of that clause. Again, it is a question of whether we should be worried about having a description that is short of the full description—of what actually happens—or whether we should go with the flow. For the Minister in charge of the bill, Mr McCully; for his Associate Minister, Mr Brownlee; and for the Minister in the chair, Mr Thompson—

Grant Robertson: Coleman.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: —Mr Coleman—as far as they are concerned, it is pretty good to have preliminary provisions to work on there.

But I think the more interesting parts of this part will be the limitation to applications of this Act and certain other Acts. We will be focusing, and I will focus in my next series of calls, on this particular part, and on whether the limitations to the application of this Act and certain other Acts are in fact appropriate. I think that that is where the debate about override will come.

JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) : I might start with a geography lesson for Trevor Mallard. Clearly he and other members of the Labour caucus do not know the South Island terribly well. Their presence down there is not notable. In fact, Temuka is part of the Rangitata seat held by the most excellent Jo Goodhew, who is doing a wonderful job down in Rangitata. My own electorate of Waitaki goes round that area, and contains a lot of the middle of the South Island. In fact, a member in the Chamber had designs on that electorate, but seems to have given up. Perhaps that is another story for another day—[Interruption]—although we can talk about it now.

In the Committee stage of the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill I will continue the theme of the geography lesson, which is so clearly needed by the members opposite.

Hon Trevor Mallard: How many games are there going to be in Waitaki?

JACQUI DEAN: I thank the member so much. Trevor Mallard asked me the most wonderful question. It leads me on to what I want to talk about in my contribution. The question really highlights the ignorance of Trevor Mallard, who lives somewhere in the North Island—goodness knows where; his constituents certainly do not. The question was: “How many games are going to be held in the electorate of Waitaki?”. I will tell the member what is going to be held in the electorate of Waitaki, and that is the Golden Oldies Rugby Festival, which will be part of the Rugby World Cup festival celebrations. That is good news. That is good news for regional New Zealand, and that is exactly the spirit of this Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill. So I thank Trevor Mallard, who is woefully ignorant about the geography of the South Island, as is his colleague who has given up on the electorate of Waitaki. I can tell members that I am committed to the Waitaki electorate, and I am very excited about the opportunity that the Rugby World Cup presents to the provinces of New Zealand.

Those of us who are committed to the provinces are taking full advantage of the opportunity that is being given to us through the Rugby World Cup, and that has its voice in the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill. I will start in the northern part of the South Island, in Nelson, which is the electorate of Nick Smith, who is a most excellent member of Parliament for Nelson, and has been for many years. He has been working closely with his local authority, the Nelson City Council, which is really on top of its game in terms of the Rugby World Cup and the opportunities it presents. I visited Nelson last week—many National members of Parliament visit Nelson; we are a very busy caucus—and I was able to visit the city council. It is grasping the opportunity of the Rugby World Cup. It is speaking to its community, it is speaking to its business community, and it is hosting a couple of teams—and I invite Trevor Mallard to name those teams.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Which ones?

JACQUI DEAN: No, he does not know. But I can tell the Committee that those two teams are Italy and the United States of America. I am sorry that Trevor Mallard is so out of touch, but, clearly, on this side of the Chamber we are not. Nelson is taking full advantage of the opportunities that have been presented to it.

I will go a little bit further south now to Waitaki and to the town of Ōāmaru, which is my home town, where we are hosting the Golden Oldies Rugby Festival. It will be the Waitaki Wasps versus the rest of the world. If that is not a small community taking full advantage of the opportunities that the Rugby World Cup is presenting, then I do not know what is.

Chris Tremain: And this man wants to put it all at risk.

JACQUI DEAN: Well, I cannot speak for the Opposition, but I can say that Government members of Parliament are fully behind the Rugby World Cup, are fully behind the opportunity that the Rugby World Cup presents, and are fully behind the intention of the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill.

Opportunities are being presented by this legislation to the North Otago Rugby Football Union, which is a small but, I have to say, very successful rugby union, on account of its contesting the Meads Cup against Wanganui next Saturday. I would not mind wagering a chocolate fish with anybody that it is going to be successful. It is one of those small rugby unions that are taking the mettle—

Hon Trevor Mallard: Chester wouldn’t eat it!

JACQUI DEAN: Yes, well, I am very willing to wager a chocolate fish with Mr Borrows at any time, because he is another member of Parliament who is fully committed to his own electorate, which is Wanganui.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) : I am going to address Part 1 of the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill and, in particular, I will deal with limitations to the Building Act. The Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill sets out the ways that normal rules are being suspended or modified for the Rugby World Cup 2011. Part 1 lists the various Acts that are affected, and also lists those that are not affected. Amongst those that are affected is the Building Act, and this is an issue that we delved into in great detail at the Government Administration Committee. The underlying problem that seeks to be addressed here is that there will be a one-off influx of some 50,000 people; I think that was the estimate—

John Hayes: 85,000.

Hon DAVID PARKER: I am told 85,000 by John Hayes. Between those two numbers, there will be a large number of extra people in Auckland, and we do not have enough visitor accommodation for them. We do not have enough hotels and motels to accommodate between 50,000 and 85,000 extra people in Auckland, and it certainly would not be economic for providers of accommodation to build extra accommodation in order to provide for them for that one event. That would not be economical for those who would be building that accommodation. Therefore it would not happen; therefore we would have a shortage of accommodation unless we open up some other existing accommodation for temporary use during the Rugby World Cup 2011. That is what this legislation attempts to do: it attempts to prescribe what we should do to facilitate that, whilst having some safeguards.

The normal rules that apply to visitor accommodation are quite stringent. Because we need to have our visitor accommodation normally meeting the needs of people with disabilities, we have rules relating to ingress and egress; if it is a multi-storey dwelling, we now generally require lifts. That, obviously, is not practical in respect of some of the multi-storeyed residential accommodation, which currently does not have to have lifts.

Jacqui Dean: They have lifts.

Hon DAVID PARKER: I am sorry, but I tell Jacqui Dean that that is not correct. Not all multi-storey buildings used for residential accommodation and that are suitable for—

Jacinda Ardern: I live in one.

Hon DAVID PARKER: Jacinda Ardern lives in one. There are many multi-storey buildings in Auckland. I am not talking about 20-storey buildings here, but I am talking about multi-storey buildings that are suitable for use as temporary accommodation for visitors during the Rugby World Cup 2011 but would not meet the normal planning and Building Act controls for transient accommodation for visitors. The committee grappled with the issue about what we should do to limit the application of the Building Act that would otherwise apply. We did that by inserting clause 5A. We said that there are some circumstances when normally it would be illegal to have temporary visitor accommodation provided on a commercial basis to visitors, but that that accommodation should be exempted from those normal rules in order to facilitate visitor accommodation.

In respect of clause 5A, one has to understand a bit of background in order to understand its meaning. The provision does not apply to single-storey dwellings; we learnt from officials that single-storey dwellings are not within the definition of what is caught by clause 5A(1)(a)(i). They are already exempt, so we did not need to do anything for those dwellings. If the Minister in the chair, the Minister of Immigration, thinks that I have got that wrong, he can correct me, because I am not 100 percent sure in my recollection of that, but that was my understanding. I think that the definition of “household unit” from the Building Act somehow exempts single-storey units. In any event, multi-storey buildings generally are caught, and we wanted to provide for the ability for multi-storey buildings to be used for short-term accommodation. There are lots of apartments where people live from day to day; if it is safe enough for them to live there from day to day, it is safe enough to have some temporary accommodation in them during the Rugby World Cup 2011 without lots of red tape around that.

What controls did we put in? We thought that there should be some obligation to take a bit of care, so we provided two of what I thought were pretty practical things. The first was that we wanted apartments to have a smoke alarm. It does not have to be a fancy, computerised smoke alarm linked throughout the building, but at least someone should have to go to the trouble of putting on the ceiling a $15 smoke alarm with a battery, so that if there is a bit of smoke in the apartment, a big loud noise goes off, and the people in the apartment know to get out. It seemed to me to be a pretty practical, cheap thing to require those apartments to have. It would not be a legal requirement for people to have an alarm in their own home, but something that they should have in any event, and if they are going to let out their house, then they must provide it. An alarm costs $15; installing one does not seem too big a step for people to take in a multi-storey apartment.

The second control we put in was that apartments ought to have an evacuation plan. That is not a difficult thing; that is what one sees on the back of every motel door. It just shows the route that one has to take out—

Hilary Calvert: Do you ever look at them, David?

Hon DAVID PARKER: Is anyone going to look at them? Well, some people will, and if there was a fire, I tell Hilary Calvert, and there was not an evacuation plan, and we in Parliament had authorised temporary accommodation without either smoke alarms or an evacuation plan, I suggest that someone would be looking back after the event and criticising us in Parliament for being just a wee bit too fast and loose with the abolition of rules. I think that the two rules we have applied, which are the need for a smoke alarm and the need for an evacuation plan—the likes of which one sees when one goes into a motel—are pretty practical. On that basis we have facilitated what will be a sensible source of residential accommodation for between 50,000 and 85,000 visitors to Auckland during the Rugby World Cup 2011, and in other parts of the country. This solves a problem that would otherwise have been difficult—that is, the ability to accommodate that number of people.

In some of the other changes to this part of the bill, we made it clear that the definition of “ancillary events” should change. A doubt arose from legislation relating to liquor licensing laws. The definition in clause 4 of this bill used to read: “ancillary events means events, whether or not sporting events, wherever they occur, that are reasonably closely connected to the Rugby World Cup 2011”. There was a decision—it might have been of a liquor licensing authority of some kind—that said that a replay or even a live playing of an event at a separate physical venue might not be reasonably closely connected to the Rugby World Cup 2011, and therefore, would not have the benefit of these temporary exemptions from normal rules. We made it clear that we understood it to be the intention of Parliament that an event like the live public screening of a game was an ancillary event for the purposes of this legislation. That change seems sensible too.

Various other changes were made to the definitions in clause 4. In clause 5 we made it clear that the Acts that this legislation does not apply to include the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act. We did not think that that should be overridden by the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill. We also clarified the definition of “transport legislation” to include the Land Transport Management Act 2003, which I think had been omitted in error. Other changes to the definitions included a change to the definition of “facility”. That was a flow-on from some other changes that were made to the definition of “Rugby World Cup 2011”, which the Hon Trevor Mallard made reference to in his first contribution.

In terms of the balance that we tried to strike here, we wanted to make sure that the police have powers to learn about things during the process. We tidied up the notice provisions. In Part 1, new clause 5B(2) provides that “the following persons or bodies may apply to the Minister to declare by notice in the Gazette that an activity or a facility to which subsection (1)”—of clause 5—“applies is a major maritime event for the purposes of … the Maritime Transport Act 1994:”. That is to make clear some of the things that will happen around the waterfront, particularly in Auckland, where there will be cruise ships used as temporary accommodation. There was a desire by the authorities to have it made clear that they could claim some right to manage safety issues. There was a need to make it clear that the authorities had the ability to regulate maritime safety around these areas.

JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa) : The difference between members on this side of the Chamber, who are aspirational and have a vision for New Zealand, and those people over there is that they are stuck in the fine print of detail. They are stuck in the nanny State. The chair of the Government Administration Committee, David Parker, has been sitting there, grasping every little detail. He has been and looking at Part 1 of the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill and saying we have to do this, that, and the next thing. They are losing sight of the fact that Part 1 of this bill will regulate the greatest event that has ever occurred in New Zealand’s history. It will set up a global brand for New Zealand export markets. It will set up a vision for the world for all of us. That chair of the select committee is locked in clause 5A or 5B, dealing in detail with fire alarms and other total irrelevances—absolute irrelevances.

You have to look out on the horizon and ask what in Part 1 of this bill—

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I am not sure if you were entirely focused, but the member was giving you some advice as to what you should do. I think you were slightly distracted at the time. I am sure that if you were not you would have brought him back to at least referring to members of the Labour Opposition, rather than the Chair.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): I say to the member that he would be wrong to assume that the Chair is distracted, or to make any assumptions about the Chair. The Chair can be focused on many things. I tell the member that I listened attentively, and I heard the member refer to “you”. I was not particularly offended by it. I thought the member was expressing some views with passion and force, and that is not bad; we have some energy going. I invite the member to continue.

JOHN HAYES: Thank you very much, Mr Chairperson. One of the things that has been bothering me for some time—and I have looked around to see if we have a grief counsellor in the Chamber—is that we are dealing with one of our number who is totally aggrieved that he will not be the Minister for the Rugby World Cup. He cannot get over it, and now—I am not allowed to say he has left the Chamber—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): Certainly not.

JOHN HAYES: I did not say it. I am really concerned. In the second reading Trevor Mallard raised the possibility of a conscience vote on aspects of the Rugby World Cup legislation relating to gambling and liquor legislation, as he felt there were inconsistencies between the arrangements in the liquor and gaming areas. I think it is important to note that National is not changing the intent of all criteria for the Sale of Liquor Act; we are simply creating a faster process for approvals because we have a vision to move this country forward. Given the volume and the time constraints for this huge event that are presented by the resource consent process and other processes we have in this country, we have to find a way of speeding up the process and of turning on a world-class event.

I am deeply sorry for the member of this Committee who is desperate to somehow return to the status of boss of the Rugby World Cup. I have news for him: he is not going to get there. Part 1 can never ever provide for that member to get back there.

The legislation is not inconsistent in the approach that has been taken to liquor. It is not necessary for the public’s enjoyment of the Rugby World Cup to allow access to gambling. Our committee decided during its deliberations that people did not need access to gambling machines while they were watching the Rugby World Cup on television. The restriction of the operation of cruise ship casinos while in New Zealand waters will be no different from the restrictions that apply to other forms of accommodation that will host visitors for the Rugby World Cup. There is a prohibition on new casino licences in the Gambling Act 2003 and the bill does not override that.

I very briefly come back to the member who would have loved to be the Minister for this event. I say to him that we need a process that will most likely never ever be used, but if in this huge event for New Zealand, which will market New Zealand to the world, we have to unblock problems—problems of detail that the committee chair outlined—we need a mechanism in place to deal with them and address them quickly. It will not be a one-man band making these decisions; it will be a designated Minister, who, in consultation with another designated Minister and a responsible Minister—for example, the Minister of Police if it is a policing issue—will get consultation and will probably also consult Cabinet.

This legislation will not be used lightly. It is not designed to drive a bulldozer through the structure of our legislation in New Zealand. This country must turn on a world-class event and this legislation has been set up to do exactly that. Thank you.

JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) : It is my pleasure to follow on from John Hayes, in particular, on the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill, and point out the irony of his statement accusing the Labour Opposition of getting into the detail and losing—I do not know what it was—

Grant Robertson: The big-picture focus.

JACINDA ARDERN: The big-picture focus. On one hand, it is obviously the Committee stage, and it is incumbent upon us to get into the detail on this occasion. But also, I think that perhaps his statements are indicative of why this bill has far too many broad, sweeping powers entrenched within it. It is because that Government has been unwilling to iron out the detail in the here and now. I am sure the Government Administration Committee may have tried, and I know that my colleagues would have tried to rein in some of the powers that have been granted to the Minister for the Rugby World Cup to try to make them perhaps more appropriate, but obviously we can all count, we know the numbers, and back here we are again, with the Government trying to avoid a discussion about the detail. It is not good enough to simply gift broad, sweeping powers as a default or a fall-back for an unwillingness to get into the detail.

I refer specifically to Part 1, because that is the part that we are debating, despite John Hayes’ contribution. The statement there in the explanation of Part 4 states that Part 4 “empowers the making of regulations, subject to a recommendation of the Authority, to declare an activity, facility, or class of activity or facility as a Rugby World Cup permitted activity in circumstances of urgency that, for good reason, were not foreseen;”. I wondered whether the Minister could take a call and explain to the House what kinds of things we might see classified under Part 1—what kinds of events or subjects. Surely, with the term “not foreseen”, there has to be a level of anticipation as to whether something is going too far or whether it is necessary. I simply do not believe that there has not been some discussion on the kinds of circumstances where such a power would be acceptable and necessary. The Minister simply refers to something being unforeseen, and if that were the case in all of our legislation, then we would have a very broad brush indeed in our laws—in some of them we do have that, and that has been under this Government in particular.

The second part of the explanation of Part 4 points out that it “empowers the Minister, subject to a recommendation of the Authority, to grant urgent approvals for activities and facilities in circumstances of urgency that, for good reason, were not foreseen;”.

The one other point I want to make is that we are currently in October. We are in very close proximity to the Rugby World Cup being upon us. If we cannot currently encapsulate in this legislation all of the circumstances that we might deal with, then obviously something is going badly wrong in our planning. So if that is what these clauses are about, then we need a little bit of honesty from the Minister about the fact that we might be a bit behind and we need to have some enabling legislation. Let us at least have some honesty about that. If that is not the case, let us at least have a discussion on some of the hypothetical situations that the Minister sees as being consistent. We know that those using this legislation will interpret it by looking back on the discussion that was had in this Committee and on the words of the Minister to find some kind of guidance as to what is acceptable. Some really subjective language is used in these clauses, and I think people will seek some guidance from the Minister and from this Parliament. So I think in that regard it is important that the Minister take a call. If that does not happen within Part 1, then I know that my colleagues are very keen to discuss those particular clauses at greater length.

I want to move on to some other changes that the Government Administration Committee made. I was not a member of that select committee, and I look to those members for guidance as to some of the interpretation over what has been included and the changes that have been made. I think it makes very good sense for the committee to have separated out some of the definitions and, in particular, to have split off those events of the tournament that are very specific to the matches themselves from the ancillary events that will take place. I wonder whether the Minister or other select committee members could talk about some of the differences in the way they expect those two different activities to be treated.

NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central) : I am very pleased to speak on the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill. I say to members on this side of the Chamber that I feel empowered, and I will tell them why I feel empowered. It is because when I look through Hansard I will see a contribution from the Hon Trevor Mallard that talks about the great contribution that members on this side of the Chamber made to the legislation.

He also mentioned the contribution that I make. He mentioned the hard work I do late at night for the people of Auckland Central. There have been many nights when I have been working hard for an electorate that is integral to the Rugby World Cup, and I have seen the lights off in the Labour offices two doors away from my electorate office in Auckland Central.

Jacqui Dean: Really?

NIKKI KAYE: Yes, I have. I have seen the lights off in the Labour offices. But we are here because we believe that we have to ensure there is a legislative environment for the people who will be coming here for the Rugby World Cup. There will be 85,000 visitors, we will have 4 billion people, potentially, watching us, and there will be 2,000 media representatives, and we need to ensure not only that we have accommodation for these people but that we show them such a good time that they spend their money here in the future.

So one of the aspects of this bill—and I refer to Part 1—is accommodation, which is particularly relevant for Auckland Central. We know that unless we get these provisions in the bill right, then people will be paying extraordinary prices for accommodation. So I am very pleased to have been part of a select committee process that, very clearly, made it easier to provide temporary accommodation. The Government Administration Committee made a couple of changes to the bill to ensure that certain multi-storey dwellings can be used for temporary accommodation without the owners having to go through all the rigmarole that they would normally have to go through. We were very clear, though, that those people will have to do two things: the first is to ensure that there will be a smoke alarm, and the second is to ensure that there will be adequate evacuation procedures. But I think it is a very good thing, not only for the people of Auckland Central but for New Zealand, to be able to accommodate as many people as possible via temporary accommodation. So I am very pleased that the select committee made those changes.

The second aspect of Part 1 that I want to talk about is the changes we made to the definition of “ancillary events”. When the select committee got this legislation we saw that it was focusing just on core sporting events. We said that there might be New Zealanders, either people within Auckland or within other parts of the country, who would want to go down to their local pub and watch a game. We wanted to know that local pubs would have the ability to go through a special licensing procedure and put on a special event. So I am very pleased that the select committee made changes to Part 1 in that area as well.

I am pleased that we will be delivering for all of the many visitors who are coming not only to Auckland Central but to New Zealand. We have made a lot of progress. Stadia have been completed—the Eden Park redevelopment looks fantastic—and we have sold, I think, 500,000 tickets. We are on track from an infrastructure perspective. Both Part 1 and the rest of the legislation are about ensuring that we are able to put in place a legislative environment that will make sure that this Rugby World Cup is the greatest thing that has happened to New Zealand. Thank you.

GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) : It is a pleasure to follow on from Nikki Kaye, the hard-working MP who is always in her office burning the midnight oil. The lights might be on, but there is no one home—no one home. Jacinda Ardern is out in the Auckland Central electorate meeting constituents, talking to business associations, and the lights are on in Nikki Kaye’s office but no one is home.

I am happy to take a call on Part 1 of the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill, and, in particular, on the purpose of it. I think all members on this side of the Chamber want the Rugby World Cup to be a success. I was working in Helen Clark’s office when the bid was successful, and it was a hugely encouraging and great time to be a New Zealander, when New Zealand won the right to host the Rugby World Cup. There was a huge amount of work done by people in Rugby World Cup Ltd, in the Ministry of Economic Development, and in towns and cities around New Zealand to get New Zealand ready for the Rugby World Cup. On this side of the Chamber we are more than happy to support legislation that will make the Rugby World Cup a successful event. For the large part, this bill does that.

But in some critical ways it does not. In Part 1 and in the purpose and overview clause, clause 3, we can see where those problems emerge. Although Mr Hayes might not want us to look at the detail of this bill, it is important. That is our job in this House, I say to Mr Hayes: to look through pieces of legislation and to ensure that they are appropriate laws to be passing. This is serious legislation, and I want to credit the Government Administration Committee for the time it took to get this bill right. It is important to know that if we are giving additional powers, or changing powers, under different Acts of Parliament, we are seriously considering what those changes will mean, and, much more important than that, what safeguards are required in order that New Zealanders’ health, safety, and well-being, are protected.

That was my concern when I first took a look at the purpose and overview clause—clause 3. Clause 3(1) states “The purpose of this Act is to enable applications to be determined expeditiously for activities or facilities reasonably necessary for the proper conduct of the Rugby World Cup 2011.” The key phrases in that clause are “expeditiously” and “reasonably necessary”, and they need to be in balance. Of course, we want things that need to happen to happen, and happen expeditiously, if we find ourselves close to the Rugby World Cup and not able to put on the event that all New Zealanders want us to put on. But it must be what is reasonably necessary to be done, and it is quite clear that the select committee has worked its way through the rest of this bill and asked whether we have that balance, between expeditiousness and reasonably necessary, right. The concern I and a number of members on this side of the Chamber have, when we come to Part 4 of this bill, is whether the process that has been set up to look at things that need to be done urgently has those rigorous safeguards in it. The conclusion we reached was that, as the bill is written, it does not.

At this stage the bill puts in the hands of the Minister, Murray McCully, an amount of power that is out of proportion to what is required for what is reasonably necessary, under the purpose of this bill. We have already heard from some members opposite that Mr McCully will have to consult with Mr Brownlee, and, possibly, with other Ministers, but, despite having set up a whole process under Part 2 and Part 3 to have an authority that will look at applications, at the end of the day the Minister can still do whatever the Minister wants under this legislation. On this side of the Chamber we are not prepared to let that kind of overarching, sweeping power take hold. Members on the other side of the Chamber need to be able to answer why it is that a single Minister—admittedly, one listening to the authority if he feels like it, or, if he feels like it, listening to another Minister—has such power over the additions and alterations to legislation. Although the purpose of the bill is reasonable, when we work our way through to clause3(2)(c) in particular, we have major issues about whether there are sufficient limitations on the powers of the Minister.

I will pick up on a number of other clauses within Part 1, as well. I accept that the Government Administration Committee, as Nikki Kaye has just said, did reasonably extend the definition of the Rugby World Cup to take in ancillary events. But, again, that is all the more reason to make sure we have sufficient safeguards in place, because now we are talking about a wider scope. That is good, because the Rugby World Cup is more than the games that will take place on the field. But it therefore behoves us even more to be clear about the bill’s restrictions and the safeguards. As I said before, in relation to Part 4—which we will come to later in more detail—we on this side of the Chamber do not believe those safeguards are there.

As Jacinda Ardern said, it would be good to hear from members opposite of some examples where they believe sweeping powers, placed in the hands of one individual, will be necessary.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Even two examples.

GRANT ROBERTSON: Two examples would be all right.

Phil Twyford: How about knocking down a heritage building?

GRANT ROBERTSON: That is right. That is the concern on this side of the Chamber. What will it extend to? We have not heard from the Government, at all, about what that would be.

I do not want to make this about personalities, but the Minister in this situation is Murray McCully. Mr Hayes does not like people to meddle in the detail. Well, Mr McCully is known for meddling in the detail—goodness, is he ever! Whether it is from the Ministry of Tourism or the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, there are a few stories to be told about Mr McCully meddling in the detail. There are legitimate concerns on this side of the House about the extent to which Mr McCully will be down in the flax roots trying to change things around.

The other parts of Part 1 that are interesting in that regard are the limitations to various Acts in clause 5. My colleague David Parker has already talked about the inclusion of a number of bits of legislation that this bill does not limit or affect. That is good. It is a useful thing. But it begs the question of the Acts that it does affect. When we look at the lists, we see that the select committee included the Burial and Cremation Act, the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act, and the Coroners Act, in addition to things like the Food Act, the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act, and the Health Act. These are important Acts to protect, but there are a lot of things that are not there. A lot of power is being placed in the authority, and then in an overriding way the Minister has the ability to limit or affect that.

It is all very well for members on the other side of the Chamber to say to us that we are not supporting the Rugby World Cup and that they are getting in behind it. We are all getting in behind the Rugby World Cup, but we need legislation that effectively enables that event but protects the health and safety of New Zealanders, and upholds the whole reason why we are in this House: to make laws that are good for New Zealand, and to protect the rights of New Zealanders. We have seen from the Government, a few times in its term in Government, the overriding of this House, be it in Auckland with the Auckland governance legislation, or even with something as simple as national standards, which it rode roughshod through the House. We will be analysing this bill in detail, because we want to make sure that an event is held that is not only good but that New Zealanders know takes place with their health and safety in mind, and with the health and safety of those people who come to New Zealand to visit in mind also.

Mr Hayes said earlier tonight that up to 85,000 people would be coming to New Zealand. That is a huge influx of people. We obviously have to make changes to enable that to happen. We can support those changes. But it also means that it puts more pressure on New Zealand and on our laws. We need safeguards in place that make sure those laws are working.

I do not have much more to say about Part 1 at this time, except to note that I think the select committee has done a good job on parts of Part 1 in updating it, extending out the definition of the Rugby World Cup, and making sure there is some clarity around other definitions in this bill. But what really concerns members on this side of the House is clause 3, the purpose and overview clause, because although we certainly support the idea of moving expeditiously on what is reasonably necessary, we do think that the process that has been put in place, which has been outlined in clause 3(2)(a), (b), and (c), unfortunately does not give us the balance we are looking for. It puts too much power in the hands of the Minister and it takes power away from the authority that has been set up specifically to advise the Minister. On this side of the Chamber we want to see change to Part 4, as noted in clause 3(2)(c), for us to be able to support this bill.

But that is in no way an indication of our support for the event. That remains unstinting from when it was first awarded to New Zealand. We have continued to support that. We worked cooperatively on this bill at the select committee but we are not prepared to sit here in this Committee tonight and give Mr McCully the kinds of powers that Part 4 of this bill does.

DAVID CLENDON (Green) : I am pleased to take a brief call on the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill simply to once again voice the Green Party’s opposition to this bill, as we have opposed it from its introduction, and to touch on some of the reasons for that as we go through Part 1. As has just been noted, the purpose of the legislation is to expeditiously allow for reasonable facilities and activities necessary for the proper conduct of a rugby tournament. After all, that is what we are talking about. The Rugby World Cup, in its essence, is a series of rugby games that will be held over a number of weeks. There will be one ultimate winner, and we all share an aspiration as to who that winner might be. But I think we ought not to get too engaged in suggesting there is something incredibly complex, unexpected, or unusual about the task of organising a rugby tournament. Clearly it is a very large event, notably the largest sporting event held in this country, and for that reason it is different in scale but not in type.

We see further down that this bill will empower the making of regulations, establish activities and facilities, and so on “in circumstances of urgency that, for good reason, were not foreseen”. In earlier speeches I have challenged, and I continue to challenge, and question why significant elements, aspects, facilities, and activities will not be foreseen. From the point at which New Zealand was granted the right to host the cup to the date of the first game was a 6-year window of opportunity to get it right. We are quite good at sporting events in this country. We are quite good at managing events and at project-managing in this country. We have struggled from day one to understand why we need legislation that can be fairly described as Draconian to make up for the perceived lack in our ability to organise a sporting event. The word “Draconian” is often used, and is probably overused, but I believe that certain specific aspects or provisions of this bill richly deserve the term “Draconian”. I think some serious thought ought to be given to this. I am pleased that the Labour Party has come onside in terms of opposing the bill, based on its having gone at least one and, indeed, several steps too far away from reasonable public participation, reasonable fairness, and reasonable application of the power of this Parliament and of laws.

Part 1 introduces the point that later on there will be significant discussion about liquor licences. We have a quite robust Sale of Liquor Act in this country. As set out, it very readily facilitates one-off or special events—ancillary events, as were referenced earlier. Many of us have been involved in clubs, organisations, service clubs, and schools where we may have personally facilitated the application for, and the granting and fulfilment of, a special licence. It is not a difficult thing to achieve, and we fail to understand why the entire Sale of Liquor Act must be overturned, or put aside, to facilitate these apparently unforeseen urgent applications. We know when the games will be played. We know where they will be played. We can make reasonable assumptions about what sorts of events might usefully be organised and put on to support these games.

Again, we struggle with the notion that we need to overturn the Sale of Liquor Act and put in place much less participatory or accessible legislation that will limit people’s ability to have a say in what actually goes on. There is a question on that point. The interpretation of “public notice” in this bill states: “public notice—(a) means a notice published by the Authority on an Internet site to which members of the public have free access;”. That is a completely inadequate definition of a public notice. It puts the onus on members of the public to constantly monitor a particular Internet site in order to even know what is being proposed, possibly over the fence from where they live or work and where their families or communities live or work. There is an expectation that there will be multiple venues and multiple channels for a public notice where laws are to be changed, modified, or amended. Having a single posting on a single Internet site is completely inadequate and does not meet the test of fairness or access to participation.

KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National) : I stand to support the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill. The Government Administration Committee has dealt with this bill quickly and competently, and it has undertaken very carefully a consideration of the issues raised by submitters. I approve of the amendments proposed in the select committee’s report. I am confident that the bill will help to ensure that New Zealand provides an outstanding Rugby World Cup event next year.

The aim of the bill is to grant the consents and regulatory approvals essential for the smooth running of the activities related to the Rugby World Cup and for the facilities that will support this event. It is extremely important for New Zealand to host this event successfully and to take all the opportunities offered by such a large-scale event, which will, in turn, bring prosperity and opportunities to the business community and the chance to show the world that New Zealand is capable of holding such an event successfully.

Hosting an event on such a scale, which will see 85,000 overseas visitors and tens of thousands of New Zealanders attending games and watching the Rugby World Cup from different zones, will bring lots of challenges. Therefore, it is crucial that we have special legislation set up to enable the event to be a success and to ensure that we make the most out of the opportunities it brings. The administrative secretariat support to the Rugby World Cup Authority will be provided by the territorial authorities of each district in which an application is made. The ability to grant approval by the Rugby World Cup Authority will expire on 31 October 2011. All approvals under this bill are temporary and will expire no later than 31 December 2011.

I support this bill and recognise the huge opportunity that the Rugby World Cup will bring to our country.

PHIL TWYFORD (Labour) : I think my colleagues in the Chamber will know well by now that Labour would be supporting the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill if the Government was willing to entertain the amendment that the Hon Trevor Mallard has placed on the Table. It would prune back the urgency powers that this legislation would give to the Hon Murray McCully, which are a worry to everybody on this side of the Chamber. If anybody should not be given the kinds of urgency powers that this bill extends—

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): We are on Part 1.

PHIL TWYFORD: Yes, and I will talk generally about Part 1. Thank you for your advice about that, Mr Chairperson. My colleague Trevor Mallard pointed out that clause 3(2)(c)(ii) “empowers the Minister, subject to a recommendation of the Authority, to grant urgent approvals for activities and facilities in circumstances of urgency that, for good reason, were not foreseen;”. That is a very interesting phrase right there—this bill “empowers the Minister, subject to a recommendation of the Authority,”. Well, as we will find out as we go into more detail in this debate, the Minister’s powers are not subject to a recommendation of the Rugby World Cup Authority. This bill explicitly gives him the power to override, to ignore, the recommendations and the advice of the authority that is set up by this bill. That is the objection we have, and if it were not for that issue, we would support this bill.

In spite of the problems that my Green colleague David Clendon has set out with regard to this legislation, Labour is of the view that this legislation is needed. The risks and the benefits of this mega-event for New Zealand are such that we cannot afford to put it at risk. The scale of the event is so big that the influx of visitors will be reliant on a great deal of temporary infrastructure, and it is necessary for the regulatory framework to allow for expeditious processing, not only of consents—resource consents, building consents—but also in the area of liquor licensing. We will come back to that later in this debate and spend a great deal of time talking about the “Murray McCully provisions”, as they will undoubtedly become known.

In the meantime, let us look at the general purpose. In clause 3, “Purpose and overview”, the purpose is “to enable applications to be determined expeditiously for activities or facilities reasonably necessary for the proper conduct of the Rugby World Cup”. Colleagues who have spoken before me have pointed out that there was a lot of discussion at the Government Administration Committee. That is reflected in the interpretation clause, clause 4. The definition of “ancillary events” is a needed distinction to say that events like live public screenings, like those that will be taking place down on Queen’s Wharf under the Cloud, will be considered to be Rugby World Cup events, and will be subject to all the same kinds of provisions that this bill extends to the big games. So the bill applies not just to the games themselves—the sporting events—but also to all the other associated times and places where people get together to celebrate the event or to watch the games on a big screen.

We have also heard some discussion about the limits to the application of the Building Act. In Auckland, particularly, the influx of visitors will mean that multi-storeyed, high-rise apartment buildings will be pressed into service to house many of the, I think, between 65,000 and 85,000 visitors who are expected to flood into the country for this event. They will need to be housed, and it is very likely that high-rise apartment buildings will be used.

NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central) : I am pleased to be taking a call on the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill. I want to be clear: members on this side of the Chamber are very supportive of rugby, we are very supportive of the Rugby World Cup 2011, and we are very supportive of the legislation that is here before the Committee. Let me say very, very slowly that the New Zealand Labour Party is opposing this legislation. It makes me sad, because we had quite a collegial select committee process. I have looked through this legislation and I cannot see a minority report. So what happened? Something happened at the point that it came back to the House. We know there were some issues around the Canterbury earthquake provision and those members got a bit scared; we accept that.

However, let me make the point that the Rugby World Cup is the third-largest sporting event in the world. It is the largest sporting event that New Zealand has ever held, and it is really important, in my view, to put that into context. When 85,000 tourists will be coming here, we need to have the infrastructure in place. All of the Government Administration Committee members recognised that, inevitably, difficult situations might arise and we need to put some legislation in place to deal with that. We have gone there. We have sold 500,000 tickets. We have moved ahead with all the stadia. Now we want to put this legislation in place that will deal with unforeseen situations as they may arise.

I want to deal now with the members opposite who have been saying that this is all about wielding great power around the Rugby World Cup. Let me bring some of those members back to planet Earth. The fact is that this is the largest sporting event ever to be held in New Zealand. We are dealing with significant numbers of people. We are dealing with significant issues in terms of infrastructure and transport. We are saying that we do not envisage these provisions being used, and we do not want them to be used, but if a situation arose it is possible that we may want to have a provision or a process that says the Rugby World Cup Authority will put forward a recommendation. It might be that the Minister for the Rugby World Cup says we disagree with that, after consulting the Minister for Economic Development and other relevant Ministers. I think that is an entirely reasonable proposition, as do most of my colleagues. We have seen some of the situations that happened in Delhi. This is New Zealand Inc on the line. This is our reputation. It is the view of members on this side of the Chamber that it is reasonable and prudent to have a process within this legislation.

Ultimately, let me say that at the end of the day the Rugby World Cup event is scheduled to take place right before an election. We believe that if a situation did arise and the Minister did exercise those powers, then it is better that the Minister is accountable to the electorate, to the people of New Zealand, than to some unelected people on the Rugby World Cup Authority. I am pleased to be supporting this legislation. Members on this side of the House are very clear that we want to have a Rugby World Cup event that runs smoothly, so that we can show the world what a great country we have and that we can hold world-class events. We support this legislation and we are proud to do so. Members on the other side are playing petty politics. I am proud to support this legislation.

JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) : I will follow on from what was a completely misleading and disingenuous statement from the previous speaker, Nikki Kaye. I am disappointed that it was made by the member who purports to represent the area that will be hosting most of these games. If any petty politics were being played in any contribution, it was in that one. Members on this side of the Chamber have been absolutely clear, through every contribution they have made, that in principle—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. The member made an assertion that Nikki Kaye purports to represent the people of Auckland Central. We have rules around—

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): That is a debating point. [Interruption] The use of the word “purports” is a debating point.

JACINDA ARDERN: We have claimed consistently throughout the debate on the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill that we support the Rugby World Cup being successfully held and hosted in this country. In fact, it was under Labour that we first won the right to host the Rugby World Cup. It is completely disingenuous to claim that we do not support it. In fact, we have sought from the Government the right to support this bill in its entirety, if it would simply put constraints around powers.

The Government has been unable to explain to us how it anticipates those powers being used in the first place. There is talk about the unforeseen circumstances that the Government cannot anticipate, yet almost every clause in this bill enables, to a certain degree, dealing with most situations that may arise without the need to have an unchecked and unbalanced free-for-all for the Minister.

If the Government can explain to me the kinds of circumstances, the hypothetical situation, that it envisages may arise, perhaps I may have more sympathy for its arguments. But the Government has been absolutely unable to do this. We are so close to hosting the Rugby World Cup, so what could the Government possibly anticipate going horribly wrong? Either it does not want to admit that it is unsure about where it stands currently in the planning stages, or it is unwilling to make sure we have adequate checks and balances. And that is our role. It is hard for us to stand up and put forward an argument against this. We would like to see a bipartisan approach to this legislation, but the Government has been unwilling to give us that ability. That is the challenge I extend to the Government.

The claim is that the check, the balance, is that Murray McCully has to consult Gerry Brownlee before he enacts any of his unchecked powers. I find cold comfort in that, I have to say. If we let Gerry Brownlee undertake—

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Come back to Part 1.

JACINDA ARDERN: I guess I can say in my own defence that this is included in Part 1 because it specifically relates to clause 3(2)(c), but I do not wish to dispute the Chair’s ruling. I am happy to move on.

I have some other significant points to make. Grant Robertson referred, more broadly speaking, to the fact that these broad-brush powers extend to some quite broad-brush definitions. One in particular that I want to refer to is that the Government Administration Committee has made a change to the definition of “facility”. It means “works, a site, or a structure”. Previously it had an annotation that meant “undertaken or constructed for or in connection with the Rugby World Cup 2011,” That has been removed, and I can understand why. But that now means that we have a broad-brush approach to almost any facility that may not have been constructed for the Rugby World Cup but just exists and has some vague connection to it.

For instance, had the debate over the sheds on Queen’s Wharf been happening under these provisions, and had it not involved the Auckland Regional Council, we may have seen a completely different outcome from the very sensible decision that took into account the heritage value of those buildings. Under this bill I think we would have seen a completely different outcome. The Minister would, of course, have asked Gerry Brownlee first before he pulled them down.

There are some different definitions around the way that public notices are being used. I would be interested to hear whether a member of a select committee would be happy to expand on whether they thought that the usual way public notices are used with other legislation was not necessary, perhaps for timing reasons, or perhaps for the urgency of approvals around liquor licensing, for instance. Or is it intended that perhaps in future we do not use daily newspapers for these notifications as much? I am interested in whether we are prepared to set a precedent with this bill, or whether this was seen as very tightly constrained and specific to the Rugby World Cup. I would be happy for the Minister to speak to that point.

The final point I want to make concerns clause 5A, “Limits to application of Building Act 2004”. We had some reference from a Government member about the importance of making sure that accommodation is reasonable and accessible. Nothing in this bill, as far as I can see, does that.

Hon TAU HENARE (National) : I move, That the question be now put.

BRENDON BURNS (Labour—Christchurch Central) : Part 2 of the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill establishes the Rugby World Cup Authority. I want to make very clear and explicit that Labour supports the establishment of the Rugby World Cup Authority. Like my colleague Grant Robertson I was working for Helen Clark when we won the bid for the Rugby World Cup. It was a very exciting time, and it remains a very exciting time for New Zealand. We need a bill like this to facilitate what that event will bring to us. But that does not mean giving a Minister carte blanche to make the final decisions. That is why we are establishing, under Part 2, the Rugby World Cup Authority.

I say also as the MP for Christchurch Central, host to the AMI Stadium, which is the natural centre of rugby in New Zealand given the success of the Canterbury team and the Crusaders team, that the stadium will be hosting no less than seven games during the Rugby World Cup—no less than seven games—and that includes two quarter finals. That is very important for Christchurch, particularly at this time. It is very important given the economic boost it will bring, most especially because of the economic devastation that the earthquake brought to my city.

We are looking forward to the Rugby World Cup, but we will not do it in a way that gives carte blanche to a Minister of Mr McCully’s reputation. I will give an example of aspects of this bill that are still quite perturbing and disturbing. I note, for instance, that Part 2 gives the right to the Rugby World Cup Authority to award liquor licences. Then it goes on to say that in doing so and in exercising its functions under this Act, the authority must “ensure the efficient, safe, and lawful conduct of the Rugby World Cup 2011”, and “that public health and safety are protected as far as is reasonably practicable during the period of the Rugby World Cup 2011.”

I draw to the attention of the Committee the advice of the police on the issue of alcohol being served in stadia. For a 6-month period, from October last year through to March this year, the police conducted a very strong campaign, lobbying their own Minister, Judith Collins, the Minister for the Rugby World Cup, and the Minister for Economic Development. They said to those Ministers that very serious consideration should be given to providing what they call wet-pour beer facilities as part of the public investment being made in upgrading stadia for the Rugby World Cup. The logic of the police, as revealed in an Official Information Act request that I lodged with the Minister in March this year, is that they were having ongoing discussions with the Rugby World Cup management about the risk management of excessive alcohol consumption. The Rugby World Cup 2011 management was arguing that the cost was high, but the police had made very, very clear that worldwide the move to the provision of wet-pour facilities together with low alcohol or zero alcohol in the bowl area of stadia was happening and that wet-pour facilities were already available at Eden Park when cricket matches were being held. So cricket matches at Eden Park have wet-pour facilities.

However, the Government’s position remained adamant throughout the 6-month police campaign. It kept saying that this had to be because of the economic advantage that it brought. The police continued. They brought it up to the level of the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Rob Pope, who in a note to the Minister dated 9 December of last year advised the Minister that the police considered the legacy investment in the Rugby World Cup facilities should include investment in infrastructure necessary to allow wet-pour facilities. He asked that this briefing be forwarded to the Minister for Economic Development, the Minister of Justice, and the Minister, Mr McCully.

The rationale for the police’s position in supporting a wet pour—that is beer being poured into plastic glasses rather than the proposal that won the day in the final analysis, which was for beer to be served in cans—was, and I am quoting from the police’s own paper: “That the misuse of alcohol, violence, and disorder are associated with major events, and the police’s position is supported by international studies which clearly show the relationship between sporting events and offending and victimisation and that the provision of alcoholic beverages in foam or plastic cups tends to reduce the potential—

JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) : Speaking to Part 2 of the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill gives me the opportunity to congratulate my colleague the Hon Dr Nick Smith on the excellent work he has been doing in his electorate of Nelson, together with the host city of Nelson, for the Rugby World Cup. As I have previously outlined, the city of Nelson is hosting the teams from Italy and the United States of America. I congratulate the Hon Dr Nick Smith on the excellent work he has done as the local member of Parliament with the local authority to make this event happen for Nelson. That kind of commitment from a local member of Parliament is being replicated all throughout the South Island, at least, by colleagues on this side of the House, and also in the North Island by the many constituency MPs located in the North Island. It will ensure that the Rugby World Cup will be a raging success. I hope that Nelson has a roaring time hosting a couple of games and a couple of teams, and that it will make the very most of the opportunity it has grasped with the assistance of its local member of Parliament. It will make this Rugby World Cup a success for Nelson.

The Government Administration Committee spent a lot of time in consideration on Part 2 of the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill, which establishes the Rugby World Cup Authority. This authority is being given temporary powers, and I need to restate that they are temporary powers. I think at this point in time that it would be good to remind ourselves of the purpose of this bill, which seems to have escaped members opposite. The purpose of this bill—[Interruption] That got them going, did it not? Just like that, I talk about the purpose of the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill—those members are not in Government, and that makes them really cross. Anyway, the purpose of this bill, which we should remind ourselves of, is to allow consent and regulatory approvals for temporary activities related to Rugby World Cup 2011 to be considered expediently to align with the—

Hon Members: Expeditiously.

JACQUI DEAN: —expeditiously, expediently, whatever—we are in favour of it. Unfortunately, members opposite are a little ambivalent. But, however one says it, members of the Government side know exactly what it means. We want the Rugby World Cup 2011 to happen. We know that it will happen.

In the consideration by the Government Administration Committee, those of us who had an open mind on this bill spent a lot of time talking about not only the functions of the authority but also, and probably more important, the membership of the authority. If members go to clause 11, they will see that the Minister must appoint “a member of the Authority who is a current, former, or retired Judge or a lawyer of at least 7 years’ standing” to be the deputy chairperson of the authority. We then spent a lot of time thinking about the skills that would be required by members of the authority. Paragraphs (a), (b), (c), and (d) of clause 11(3) describe those members and, rather than describe the person, we have described the qualities. The members’ knowledge, skill, and experience relating to enactments relevant or likely to be relevant to those functions is what matters.

A key point is the matters that are likely to come before the authority. What matters are likely to come before the authority? It might be a road stopping. In fact, it is probably likely to be a road stopping, because there will be a desire to have a fan zone in the city of Nelson, or in the towns of Ōāmaru and Temuka, where I know that the excellent member Jo Goodhew is working very hard with her local constituency to make this event a great success. A road stopping is, one might think, a fairly minor matter, but it will be very crucial to the smooth running of this event. It is the kind of consideration that the members of this authority will need to be familiar with. Under clause 11(3)(c) and (d) the members of the authority must be familiar with the regions where the tournament will take place. Members of the authority must also be familiar with the judicial process.

A lot of attention was given by members of the committee to the functions that will be necessary for the smooth running of the Rugby World Cup. Finally, in my contribution to this part, I will talk about the administrative secretariat.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) : I thank the member opposite, Jacqui Dean, for her contribution. It is fair to say that it was a relatively broad contribution to the debate, and I thank her for broadening it in that way. The member’s Freudian slip or “McCully-like” slip—mixing up “expeditiously” and “expediently”—really got to the nub of this question. When she said that Labour members are unhappy because we are not in Government for the Rugby World Cup, she is absolutely right. I know that it would not be acceptable for Labour to put together a bill in this form. The reasons for that we will get to later on in the debate, but it is fair to say that the establishment of the Rugby World Cup Authority goes to the core of the bill.

At this stage I want to give the Hon Murray McCully some credit. It happens every now and again. The Minister in the chair, the Hon Georgina te Heuheu, smiles. She is deputising for that Minister and she knows that there are not a lot of things to give him credit for. She knows that better than a lot of people. Minister McCully has been consulting as to the membership of the Rugby World Cup Authority. He has lists of individuals and possibilities, which is good. When that matter becomes more formal, I will probably be allowed to tell my caucus colleagues about it. It is fair to say there is no suggestion, as yet, that the Minister is stacking the Rugby World Cup Authority with Tory hacks who are in it only for tickets to the games. It is fair to say that he has in mind some people of some reputation and a broad range of skills, including those in the environmental law area. I would be interested to know whether the Hon Nick Smith, the Minister for the Environment, has been consulted on this.

I know it may be putting the cart before the horse here, but, clearly, we need to pass this legislation before the formal consultation can occur. I am sure that Mr McCully will be working with Dr Nick Smith in the way that he is working with members of the Opposition—

Grant Robertson: Can he work with Dr Smith?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Apparently he likes working with Dr Nick Smith. It is one of those—

Grant Robertson: I’ve always said he was peculiar.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: I will not comment on that. The establishment of the Rugby World Cup Authority is something that goes to the core of the bill. Who was the member who was speaking just before?

Grant Robertson: Jacqui Dean.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Jacqui Dean indicated that the Government Administration Committee had made some detailed decisions on the shape of the authority, the functions, and the type of people that we had been looking for. I want to make a minor correction: the select committee did not make any decisions in that area, at all. It is fair to say that the Minister, again, had consulted relatively well with the Opposition before the legislation was introduced and, at least in that part, the type of skills that were necessary had been fairly well sorted out before the bill was introduced.

My next point—it will probably be the subject of my third and fourth calls when I come back to it—concerns schedule 1, which is brought into play by clause 14. I am catching up with the modern ways of doing things in the Committee stage, so I ask whether this is where we discuss schedule 1 as opposed to the miscellaneous provisions at the end.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Correct.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Then I will get back to schedule 1, because it is an important schedule.

One of the areas where there was quite a lot of change made is in clause 15 on the functions of the administrative secretariat. I think that members are aware that that authority will sit in panels. The issue of the panels is dealt with in clause 12. Each panel will have at least three members, including, as presiding officer, a lawyer of at least 7 years’ standing, who may be the chairperson of the authority. That would mean that, as we would expect, a retired judge could be appointed, probably for the important decisions and maybe for the important Auckland panel, and we would expect that person to chair the more important hearings. The chairperson of the authority appoints the panels, and needs to have the relevant skills and experience to deal with the applications that are coming before it. Some quite big groups of applications will be quite similar. Without going into the detail of events that require liquor licences, which are later on, there is an expectation that groups of liquor licences will be dealt with as a block; those from a particular area will operate according to a consistent set of rules and police involvement, and will have their hearings together and get decisions. Those applications will be taken individually, but are more likely to be consistent with this sort of approach. But for that to occur, we need to have the panels and we need to have the administrative—is it secretaria? What is the plural of “secretariat”? Is it secretariats, secretaria, or secretariae?

Hon Member: Secretariats.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: It is secretariats. We are going to have to have a series of secretariats—[Interruption] It is not often that I can say that I miss Simon Upton in the Chamber. There is no doubt that “Hansel” would have been able to sort out that question. The other thing I have no doubt about is that “Gretel” would not have been able to.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): The member knows that he must refer to somebody by their proper name.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: I thought that applied only to current members.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): No, no. [Interruption] I am on my feet. I am dealing with a matter here. The member knows that he must refer to someone by their correct name. I ask him to do so in the future.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: I am sorry. For clarification, I was referring to my then fellow Waikato colleague. The Rt Hon Simon Upton distinguished himself by reading Homer in the Greek in the House for enjoyment when he was getting bored with debates. He certainly would have known—

Grant Robertson: John Hayes reads Homer Simpson.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: No, that is not true. Someone reads Homer Simpson to John Hayes. We would have worked out whether we have the plural of “secretariat” correct in the bill if Mr Upton was involved.

The other area where there is major change and where, I think it is fair to say, the Minister and those of us who were involved in the bill earlier did not get it right is in respect of deposits to be paid to the administrative secretariat. There is concern that some people will have a bit of a try-on with this; some people will try to slip through applications in the more general area, which we will come to in Part 3 of the bill, and even more so in Part 4, which relates to Minister McCully. The idea of the deposit arrangement is that the deposit is substantial, will cover all of the costs, and will be a deterrent to applications that are frivolous or try-ons, because people will end up paying not only their own costs but the costs of the other side as part of that arrangement. But under new clause 15A(3) there is an ability to refund the excess amount to the applicant.

PHIL TWYFORD (Labour) : I thank the member for Waitaki, Jacqui Dean, for giving us one of the most enjoyable moments of the day in the Chamber as she paused between self-flattery and boosterism to reveal that expediency is the underlying principle of the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill, particularly in its application of the McCully principle, which we come to in Part 4. Perhaps there is a typographical error in this bill that the drafters might like to consider. “Expeditiously” appears throughout the document and probably a find and replace should be done to replace it with “expediently”, if Jacqui Dean is right—and I am guessing she is.

I want to comment on clause 11 in Part 2, which deals with the membership of the authority. I say right up front that Labour is satisfied with the provisions that have been put in place around the structure and membership of the Rugby World Cup Authority. The Minister for the Rugby World Cup will appoint persons to the authority after consulting with three other Ministers: the Minister of Justice, the Minister for Economic Development, and the Minister for the Environment. He must appoint a member of the authority who is a current, former, or retired judge—that makes eminent sense—or a lawyer of at least 7 years’ standing to the chair of the authority. I have no doubt that we will end up with someone chairing the authority who is suitably qualified and has the weight of experience and has the expertise to bring to the role. A second member of the authority will also be a lawyer of at least 7 years’ standing to act as the deputy chairperson. So there is no doubt that we will have plenty of legal expertise in the leadership of the authority.

There is also a requirement under clause 11(3) that “the Minister must ensure that the Authority has available to it sufficient members with the knowledge, skill, and experience relevant to the Authority’s functions …”. So we have to assume that there will be people with the appropriate town planning experience and liquor licensing experience. We will have an authority made up of eminent people in their fields to lead and oversee the entire process of running the authority, deciding on applications, and so on. Given that this authority will be well-endowed with the kinds of skills, experience, and judgement we are looking for, why does the Government insist on going ahead with the Murray McCully provisions in this bill, which will allow the Minister to decide on so-called urgent applications and conceivably make decisions that will go against the advice and recommendations of this eminent authority? That is the question Government members have so far completely failed to address. They have not been able to give us one scenario that justifies these urgency powers that will be given to the Hon Murray McCully.

The chairperson will be appointing panels. That is how the work of the authority will be done—by panels appointed to consider applications and make determinations. A member of the authority who is a lawyer of at least seven years’ standing will be a member of each of these panels, and that is how the work will be done. It will be supported by an administrative secretariat, which has, I think, comprehensive terms of reference here. Its functions are laid out in clause (15)(4). Again, it underlines the question in our minds, which is why these excessive urgency powers are needed when we have a fully staffed authority with properly constituted panels, backed up by an administrative secretariat. Why does the Minister need the urgency powers?

DAVID SHEARER (Labour—Mt Albert) : I will come back to the issue of the purpose of the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill, and relate Part 2 to the purpose of the bill. Its purpose is to allow consent and regulatory approvals for temporary activities related to the Rugby World Cup 2011 (RWC) to be considered expeditiously. I emphasise, as my colleague did before, that it is expeditiously, not experimentally, expediently, excitedly, or any of the other “ex-” words that might spring to mind. It goes on to say the bill establishes the Rugby World Cup Authority as a consenting body for the purpose of determining applications for temporary regulatory approvals.

On these regulatory approvals David Clendon made the point, I think, that this Rugby World Cup has been a long time coming. We have actually organised it rather well. Somebody in my electorate, which has Eden Park in it—which will host a lot of the major games of the Rugby World Cup, including the final—will probably know that better than most people. We have had to refurbish Eden Park, which has caused huge consternation to the local residents in the area, and has been a subject of some battling and fighting for many, many years. That is one thing. Also, in and around that area transport has been completely remodelled. That has all been done through a judicial process, a consent-driven process—not necessarily to the satisfaction of everybody that is there, admittedly, but nevertheless it has happened. The roading has been completely remodelled. The railway station at Kingsland has been completely remodelled to handle the crowds.

The reason I mention many of these changes is that they have happened through a judicial process that has been agreed upon. That is exactly what Part 2 in this bill is looking at: a good temporary process through which people can be confident that they are being well heard by people who do not have a vested interest, and where there is complete accountability for the decisions that are being made.

Phil Twyford just went through some of these points on the powers of the authority that will be set up to do this work. Clause 10(1) states: “For the purpose of carrying out its functions, the Authority has—(a) full capacity to carry on or undertake any activity, do any act, or enter into any transaction; and (b) for the purposes of paragraph (a), full rights, powers, and privileges.” That seems to give a pretty broad brief to that authority to make the sorts of changes and alterations that, for example, we will perhaps need to see around the Eden Park area in my electorate—to look at the drinking and the liquor licensing situation in nearby Kingsland, for example. Part 1 goes on to say the authority will have the same functions, powers, privileges, and immunities in respect of every application made under this legislation as the relevant statutory person or body would have but for this legislation. There cannot be anything very much clearer than this legislation, in giving wide-ranging powers to a body that we should have full confidence in.

It was pleasing to hear Mr Mallard talk about the fact that Mr McCully has actually been sharing some of the names of the people who might be appearing on that authority as well, so this is a genuinely bipartisan approach.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Well, I wouldn’t say Michelle Boag’s quite in that category, but, you know—not that he’s mentioned her recently.

DAVID SHEARER: I do not want to comment on any individuals.

GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) : I will talk about Part 2 of the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill and, in particular, the establishment of the Rugby World Cup Authority. As other speakers on this side of the Chamber have said, Labour is happy with the notion of an authority, and is confident that the Government Administration Committee has been through Part 2 and has made some minor changes to the way that the authority will work, particularly in relation to its secretariat. I think that those changes are useful. As my colleague David Shearer was working through, it is important to get the right people on to this body. I tell Mr Shearer that I am sure he will get another 5 minutes too; I am sure that the Chair would happily hear more from Mr Shearer. I think that the functions of the authority as laid out in clause 9 are the ones that are necessary: in terms of going back to the purpose clause, what is reasonably necessary to be dealt with expeditiously, as opposed to expediently, as Jacqui Dean said earlier on. I think that within Part 2 we have a clause that, in general, Labour can support.

But Part 2 highlights some of the concerns that we have been raising about the extent to which the Minister has certain powers. In particular, clause 9(1)(c) states that one of the functions of the authority is “to determine applications made under Part 5 for Rugby World Cup liquor licences;”. I want to pick up where my colleague Brendon Burns left off at the start of the debate on this particular part. He was talking then about the material that he had got under the Official Information Act from the police. He was going through their exchange with Minister Brownlee about whether it would be possible for there to be wet-pour services at Eden Park, as opposed to bottles, cans, and so on, in terms of how alcohol would be provided.

The police put through a series of briefings in December last year, and through February and into March this year, arguing with the Minister the point that from a health and safety point of view, wet-pour facilities were needed. Deputy Police Commissioner Rob Pope listed in a briefing to Mr Brownlee in December last year that a wet-pour service is a safer option, because it limits the number of servings that can be carried by a patron, and it reduces the risk of injury—cans or plastic bottles present a particular risk, given the way that intoxicated fans use them. The police went on to talk about how this service would allow them to further control the amount of alcohol sold. As Mr Burns said, wet-pour facilities have been available at cricket matches at Eden Park, yet Mr Brownlee said he did not think this could be done. He said it could not be provided for in terms of the investment.

That is our concern about Part 2 of the bill. The authority is all well and good; it is a useful body. But if Ministers like Mr Brownlee, whom Mr McCully is to consult with, are not prepared to listen to the police’s very legitimate safety concerns about the selling of alcohol, how can we then have any confidence in giving such sweeping powers to those Ministers to override the authority that is established in Part 2 of this bill?

John Hayes: They’ve got the people’s mandate.

GRANT ROBERTSON: Well, I tell Mr Hayes that the police are here, trying to look after the health and safety of New Zealanders. They went to the Minister three times—I have three briefings here in my hands—and they said we needed to put in place wet-pour facilities in order to protect the people who will go to Eden Park. Mr Hayes says that is all right, because Ministers have the mandate of the people.

• House resumed.

• The Chairperson reported the Governor-General Bill with amendment, and progress on the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill.

• Report adopted.