GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) : We are debating Part 2 of the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill, and in particular the establishment of the Rugby World Cup Authority. The Labour Party supports the establishment of this authority because we see that it is a reasonable mechanism by which to hear urgent matters that may arise in the build-up to the Rugby World Cup. However, as we have stated several times during this debate, we have grave concern about the fact that, having established this authority, the Government is then putting in place a process by which the Minister for the Rugby World Cup, Murray McCully, in consultation with Gerry Brownlee and Nick Smith can override, vary, ignore, and do whatever he likes with that decision. The example I was giving when I spoke before was the question of wet-pour facilities at Eden Park. I note that some material obtained under the Official Information Act actually shows that Gerry Brownlee was refusing to listen to the advice from the police about health and safety concerns over not having wet-pour services for alcohol at Eden Park.

From our point of view this raises a grave concern about the approach that Ministers are taking. A Minister has received advice from the police—the people charged in our community with protecting community safety—that they believe that wet-pour facilities are essential for the health and safety of New Zealanders. If that advice is simply ignored by the Minister, what sort of case does it set for the authority being established in Part 2 of this bill? The authority will give consideration under clause 9. An example of the kind of thing the authority would do is to grant liquor licences. It would go away and it would seek advice—in this case from the police. The police came back and said they believed wet-pour facilities needed to be provided at Eden Park. The Minister got that advice and said that he does not really consider it to be significant, and he is not going to go along with it. That is the concern we have, because the establishment of the authority is a useful process.

To see the kinds of people who are going to be appointed to the authority, we look at clause 11 of Part 2, “Membership of the authority”. The membership of the authority will have someone “who is a current, former, or retired Judge or a lawyer of at least 7 years’ standing”. That implies a quasi-judicial type of role for this authority, which clearly is required, given that it will have to look at the potential amendment of Acts of Parliament. A serious job is being given to this authority, and serious people are being brought in. Under clause 11(2)(b), there needs to be another member of the authority “who is a lawyer of at least 7 years’ standing to be its deputy chairperson.”; then “In appointing members, 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”. The clause then lists some of that required experience.

Being on the authority will be a serious job, and serious people will be undertaking that job, yet in Part 4 the Government is trying to put a process in place that will fundamentally undermine that work. So from our point of view, when we look at Part 2, we see a part that on the face of it we can support but that is undermined by other parts, and that is disturbing to us.

The process by which the authority will work is then laid out in clause 12 of Part 2, and that is through appointing panels. Again, in looking at the case raised specifically by the police wanting wet-pour facilities to be established, the kind of panel we would establish in relation to that would no doubt have police involvement. Those people whom the authority would have brought in to determine what they would do about those sorts of issues would talk to the police.

But Gerry Brownlee on three occasions has had the police go to him, and I have the notes from each of those meetings here. On each of those occasions, Gerry Brownlee declined to go along with police advice about their health and safety concerns; rather, he said he did not feel that the Rugby World Cup 2011 justified putting in place that activity. The police then said they believed that the activity would be a legacy investment that the Rugby World Cup 2011 should put in place for the health and safety not only of New Zealanders but also of visitors to our country.

Part 2 of this bill certainly provides for the authority to make decisions about liquor licences. That was a decision related to the question of the provision of liquor and the provision of licences, and that was an example of the Associate Minister for the Rugby World Cup deciding that he wanted to ignore that decision. He will be one of the people whom Murray McCully, as Minister for the Rugby World Cup, turns to in order to decide what to do about the recommendations of the authority established in Part 2 of the bill. Gerry Brownlee has shown himself to be one of those people who are not interested in what the police have to say about safety, or about how the Rugby World Cup should operate in terms in liquor licences, and I have no confidence that that would not happen over the issue I have referred to.

I think that the authority has probably been given the powers it needs to do its job, with the exception of what is happening in Part 4. I congratulate the committee, which has made a number of minor changes in Part 2, particularly in relation to the functioning of the administrative secretariat in clause 15. The functions have been varied somewhat in order to allow the secretariat to provide advice to the authority, which, again, is useful because the authority will have to act quickly. It needs all of the people around it that it can get. I think that it is important to note once again, in this debate on Part 2, that Labour supports the Rugby World Cup 2011 strongly—

Nikki Kaye: No, you don’t.

GRANT ROBERTSON: We certainly do. Nikki Kaye can interject across the Chamber. I say that this side of the Chamber supports the Rugby World Cup 2011, and we have done so from the beginning, I tell Ms Kaye.

JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) : One has to wonder at Labour’s priorities when its members stand up in this Chamber and deliberately act as spoilers of the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill.

Jo Goodhew: It’s all they’ve got.

JACQUI DEAN: Well, I just think that it speaks volumes for the commitment of Labour members to the Rugby World Cup, and I think probably it says that Trevor Mallard—who is no longer the Minister for the Rugby World Cup, Labour having lost the Treasury benches—is throwing a bit of a tanty and doing all he can to spoil the progress of this bill.

New Zealand wants the Rugby World Cup, the Government is behind the Rugby World Cup, and the New Zealand Rugby Union and all the sub-unions around the country are firmly in favour of this Rugby World Cup. Who is acting as the spoiler? Trevor Mallard and his band of little merry men are acting as spoilers for this legislation. I say “Shame on them—shame on them!”.

There are a couple of points that I will pick up here. In terms of liquor licensing, the amendment about liquor licensing that was indicated—

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Part 2.

JACQUI DEAN: Oh, thank you, Mr Chair. Seeking to introduce new material into the debate after the select committee process—and I am referring directly to the provisions in Part 2—is contrary to whatever Labour members have said in the past about introducing new material and truncating the Committee process. Labour is merely trying to spoil this process. Trevor Mallard has his nose seriously out of joint because he is no longer the Minister for the Rugby World Cup, and this is just his little tanty to try to slow down the Committee process. He is being aided and abetted in a shameful way by the members of the select committee who, I understood, when we met in consideration of Part 2, acted constructively all the way through the select committee process. In fact, all the way through the consideration of Part 2 we had good, robust debate when going through issues such as the membership of the authority, which the member opposite has just stood up and decried. Well, that is news to me, because during the select committee process we had good discussions on that and general agreement—

Jacinda Ardern: No, we didn’t!

JACQUI DEAN: I do not see any minority report being brought before the Committee in relation to any of the provisions in Part 2. Let us call this what it is: Labour members are filibustering, they have their noses out of joint, and they do not support the Rugby World Cup. I think that that is a terrible shame, and an indictment on the Labour members of how low they are prepared to go to act as spoilers of what should be wonderful legislation to enable a wonderful, marvellous Rugby World Cup event. I hope they come to their senses and start supporting this bill, and supporting the spirit of this bill, as does the Government.

IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North) : I appreciate the opportunity to enter the debate on the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill for the first time in the Committee of the whole House, and to speak to Part 2, which refers to, and deals with, the establishment of the Rugby World Cup Authority. It is a pleasure to follow Jacqui Dean, who was interested in broadening out the debate. I appreciate that she wanted perhaps to go a little beyond Part 2, and I am happy to speak to some of her concerns about why there was no minority report from the Opposition members on the Government Administration Committee with reference to Part 2. That is because the Labour members actually support Part 2. What we are concerned about is the fact that there are good provisions in Part 2; however—

Nikki Kaye: Why wasn’t there a minority report?

IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Nikki Kaye asks why there was no minority report. She can continue to interject, and I am happy to respond to her interjections, but perhaps she would let me get to my point. The reason that there is no minority report for Part 2 is that the Labour Opposition actually supports Part 2, but Part 2 is undermined by the provisions in Part 4.

Part 2 establishes the Rugby World Cup Authority as a body corporate and sets out its functions and powers, which include determining all applications, making recommendations to the Minister, and granting urgent applications. That is a good role for the authority, but the problem is, of course, that Part 4 completely undermines the authority. We may as well not even bother to have the authority, because Part 4 says the Minister can just override it and ignore it. So we speak in favour of this part, but we highlight the fact that other clauses of the bill undermine it. Jacqui Dean brought this issue into the debate; she wondered why Labour had a problem with this bill, and it is because this part, which is a good, valuable part of the bill, is completely undermined.

I will refer specifically to the amendment to clause 9(2) made by the select committee. One of the things that the authority had to take into account in the original wording was “the safety of individuals participating in or attending the Rugby World Cup 2011;”. That has been amended by the select committee—and I think it is a positive move—to read: “public health and safety are protected as far as it is reasonably practicable during the period of the Rugby World Cup 2011”. That amendment made by the select committee is important, because it acknowledges the fact that the event, the Rugby World Cup, will have an impact on New Zealand as a nation and on our community as a whole, not just, as the original wording said, on “individuals participating in or attending the Rugby World Cup 2011”. It is a positive change. I think it is fair to say it is an unusual change for this Government to support, given the use of the term “public health” and the Government’s general abhorrence for public health.

But what concerns me is that although Part 2 has that provision in it and the authority should be making recommendations to the Minister about what, in practical terms, can be done to ensure public health and safety, and although the authority will no doubt be taking advice from organisations like the police, the Fire Service, public health services, and district health boards—all those organisations will be able to feed into the process and advise the authority, which can then advise the Minister—the Minister can turn round and say: “No thanks. It is too difficult and too expensive. We will assume there is no issue of public health and safety.”, in the interests of expediency or of securing profits for sponsors. It could be any reason; in fact, the Minister does not particularly need to give a reason. In that way, Part 4 undermines what is a very, very good clause here in Part 2 of the bill. As I said, I think the amendment to clause 9(2) is a good amendment, because it recognises that the issue is about not just safety but also public health. When we have a gathering of people, as we will do with a tournament like this, we have to think beyond just safety issues in terms of alcohol or driving.

NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central) : I am pleased to take a call on the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill. Firstly, I think we have seen Labour’s true colours in regard to this legislation. We are seeing that those members are clearly trying to undermine good legislation going through the House in support of what will be the largest sporting event that New Zealand has ever held. It will be a time when 4 billion people will be watching us, with 2,000 media. Frankly, it is quite embarrassing, because members opposite sat in the select committee and went through a reasonable process—and members on this side of the Chamber have talked about that process—but then those members did not put in a minority report. They have far too much time on their hands, and Mr Mallard has stirred them up, taking them down a little garden path. My concern is that we have had a very, very clear process there, but there was no minority report. My colleague said it very well by saying that we need to call members opposite for exactly what they are doing. They are filibustering, and they are showing a lack of support for New Zealand by not supporting this legislation.

We are very clear that this Part 2 of the legislation is about setting up the Rugby World Cup Authority, but we are hearing a lot of contradictions coming from the other side, as well. Yesterday those members said that they supported the process for the establishment of the authority. In fact, Mr Mallard even said yesterday that he supported the fact that Mr McCully was consulting members opposite regarding that membership. But we just heard from Mr Lees-Galloway that—actually, no—because of the provisions about urgent consents, it is Labour’s position that it does not support the legislation, at all. Complete contradictions are coming from the other side of the Chamber. We know what is happening here. We know that this is about wasting New Zealand taxpayers’ money, and we have just seen it via an hour of filibustering. That is not good for New Zealand, particularly when we have had pretty hard economic times.

I come back, again, to Part 2 of the legislation. We on this side of the Chamber want to be very clear that we are supportive of the authority that is being set up. A very reasonable process has been undertaken in relation to Part 2. There is a very clear process about the membership of the authority, in terms of consulting the Minister of Justice, the Minister for Economic Development, and the Minister for the Environment. They are all elected people. Again, it comes back to some of the arguments that have been raised by the Opposition, in regard to not having an urgent consent process whereby there is a power of veto by the Minister. We on this side of the Chamber would prefer to have elected representatives, rather than unelected people, accountable. That goes to the core and heart of a number of the discussions that have happened so far.

I say that we on this side of the Chamber support New Zealand, support the Rugby World Cup, and support this legislation going through, compared with a Labour Opposition that is filibustering, that is wasting the Committee’s time, and that does not support the Rugby World Cup. Those members show a lot of contradictions in terms of what they are saying. We are supportive of the Rugby World Cup, and I commend this legislation.

JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) : It is my absolute pleasure to set the record straight because, very unfortunately, several members of the Government have tried to mislead those who might be watching this debate on the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill. I am happy to restate that Labour absolutely supports the elements of Part 2—in particular, the establishment of the Rugby World Cup Authority. A robust process has been set out there. But I must restate for the benefit of those who may be watching that we do oppose the notion that carte blanche powers should be given to a Minister—powers that are unnecessary. To somehow translate that objection as Labour being against rugby—in fact, I heard the statement that Labour is against New Zealand—is, I find, a stretch.

We are trying to make good law. That is our obligation in this Committee. It is our job to make sure that we do that well. We absolutely support the Rugby World Cup, which is why we want to make sure that robust procedures are in place to make sure it happens. In my mind, I am much more comfortable with the way that the authority has been established, the membership of the authority, the procedure of the authority, and the decision-making role that it will play than I am with decisions being deferred or taken out of that authority’s hands at the whim of the Minister, which is essentially what this bill allows. I am against that, and Labour is against that.

But I will go over some questions I have for the Minister in the chair, the Hon Anne Tolley, who is obviously acting on behalf of the Minister who has responsibility for this bill. My first question is about liability. We are dealing with a circumventing of process and procedure for which the authority has been given powers as set out in this legislation. If, for instance, a Minister takes the ability to make a decision outside the hands of the authority, where does the liability for that decision lie? Does it then lie directly with the Crown, or does it then fall to the authority, which may have made a counter decision to that of the Minister? That is one of my questions on the issue of liability, because we are dealing with quite contentious issues.

The Rugby World Cup is an event that has the potential to have significant health and safety issues attached to it, and that could potentially become litigious. I note in Part 2, clause 12, that the ability to question the chairperson’s exercise of his or her discretion before the courts is removed. I imagine that holds for all of the authority’s decisions. In terms of litigation, the power to pursue that via the court is removed; does that power then exist if a decision is made by the Minister? That is a question I put to the Ministers themselves in relation to the issue of liability. It would be useful to have that clarified.

Otherwise, I think this bill sets out quite clearly the criteria by which the authority must consider various decisions that are within its ambit, and I think those criteria are very, very robust. I see that the select committee made one change in particular, highlighting the importance of ensuring that “public health and safety are protected as far as it is reasonably practicable during the period of the Rugby World Cup 2011.” It then also sets out a range of other criteria. I wonder whether the Minister could point out whether it is intended that the Minister would use the same criteria given to him or her, if the Minister exercises the power given to him or her in Part 4. Will any of those requirements that we are asking the authority to take into account—to which the select committee has given a lot of consideration—be taken into account by the Minister, as well, to fulfil that set of obligations, or does the Minister have different criteria altogether?

I also thought it was useful that in clause 9(2)(e) of that part, it is pointed out that one of the criteria is “the desirability of maximising the benefit to be derived during or after the tournament from things done in preparation for, and in support of, the tournament.” I have another question for the Minister there. Because the select committee has split it out—instead of referring to the Rugby World Cup as a whole, the provision refers just to the tournament—does that criterion not apply for the ancillary events that I notice the select committee has split out? Does that mean that the authority does not need to take into account the desirability of maximising the benefit derived, when we are talking about ancillary events? Is there a separate set of criteria for those?

CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) : I am very happy to take a call on Part 2 of the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill, and from the very beginning I say that I am quite excited about the Rugby World Cup coming to New Zealand. It will be a major event for this country and I am looking forward to it. I am also very broadly supportive of the establishment of the Rugby World Cup Authority, which is what the second part—

John Hayes: So why is Mallard off the leash?

CHRIS HIPKINS: Mr Mallard also supports Part 2, “Establishment of Rugby World Cup Authority”. I will talk about some of the powers that the authority has, some of the considerations about membership, and, in particular, how the authority will be supported.

Part 2 establishes the Rugby World Cup Authority as a body corporate. It sets out its functions and powers, which include determining all applications, making recommendations to the Minister for the Rugby World Cup, and granting urgent applications.

One of the issues that the Government Administration Committee took into consideration and had some significant discussion on was how best to support the authority in exercising its powers and in making decisions. Effectively, we are taking some of these functions and powers off local authorities, and, for matters related to the Rugby World Cup, transferring them to this authority. But the expertise and the local knowledge, which is quite critical in many of the decision-making processes that will take place, will still reside with those local authorities. So the question is whether a secretariat should be established that would specifically serve the Rugby World Cup Authority, or whether it would be better to draw on local expertise and knowledge from within the existing local authorities. Of course, I tend to go with what the bill has ended up with, which is that it is better to draw on the expertise and knowledge of the existing local authorities. However, the question then becomes whether we can meet the objectives of the bill, which are to speed the process up and make sure we do not have undue delay. Can we do that if we are relying on the local authorities to provide the process and secretarial support?

In the case of larger local authorities such as the Wellington City Council or the new Auckland Council, they are likely to have significant resources behind them, and it will not be a problem for them to supply good-quality, robust secretarial support to the authority and to meet those constrained time frames and time pressures that the authority will face. However, if we move to a much, much smaller local authority, that will not necessarily be the case. Even Hamilton, which is not tiny, but which is not a big local authority either—

Sue Moroney: It’s the fourth-largest city in New Zealand.

CHRIS HIPKINS: —the fourth-largest city in New Zealand—may not have the staff and the support available to support this authority to meet the time frames that it is required to meet. There will have to be a balance between relying on local authorities to support the new Rugby World Cup Authority and providing additional advice and support.

I think it is important that we understand what the functions of the administrative secretariat will be. As I have said, the administrative secretariat will have to be supplied by existing local authorities. Clause 15 sets out what is required of the local authorities and clause 15(4) sets out the functions of the administrative secretariat. I think the important provision here is clause 15(4)(ba), which states: “to provide advice to the Authority, in accordance with its requirements, for matters relevant to any determinations of the Authority:”, and then clause 15(4)(bb), which begins “to act on the instructions that the Authority gives”. Ultimately, the local authorities, the councils, will still be the ones that have to implement whatever decisions the authority makes. So although the authority gets the power that currently resides with the local authorities, that does not simply mean the local authorities do not need to be involved. Whatever decisions the Rugby World Cup Authority makes, the local councils will still be ultimately responsible for implementing them.

Having the administrative secretariat supplied by the local authorities will certainly assist in making sure that that process works effectively, but we should also acknowledge the resource constraints that that will potentially place on some of the smaller local authorities that may have to deal with that issue.

STUART NASH (Labour) : I was in my office listening to the television when I heard one of the National members stand up and say that Labour is anti-rugby. At that point, I thought I had to come down to the House and defend the honour of my Labour colleagues. The reason I have a dodgy shoulder and a stuffed hamstring at the moment is that at my age I am still pulling on a rugby jersey and representing this House on rugby fields around the country. I love rugby. Every Saturday I take my son to play rugby, but I am not unusual. This weekend will be based around rugby. It reminds me of a league player who was asked whether he liked the game of league and would die for it. He said that he did not know whether he would die for it—go into a deep coma maybe, but not death.

I have looked at the part of the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill that provides for the make-up of the Rugby World Cup Authority. I love rugby but I also value democracy. Democracy is a fundamental principle that underpins everything we do in this House, and that is what the authority represents. When I look at the make-up of the authority, I understand why Labour is supporting Part 2. The chair of the authority must be a retired judge or a lawyer of at least 7 years’ standing. The deputy chair must be a lawyer of at least 7 years’ standing. This is not an authority that has been just thrown together, made up of people who are passionate about rugby; this is an authority of people who have vast knowledge and competency in organising events, in law, in local town planning, and everything. Clause 12(1) states “When any application is received by the Authority under this Act, the chairperson must appoint—(a) a panel…”. Clause 12(2) states the panel “must comprise at least 3 members including, as presiding officer, a lawyer of at least 7 years’ standing (who may be the chairperson of the Authority).” Clause 12(3) states “the chairperson must have regard to the need for the panel to have available to it sufficient members with the knowledge, skill, and experience relevant to the particular application before it.” The process is very robust, and the authority will not say it does not like rugby, it does not like New Zealand, and it will hold up the Rugby World Cup event, for whatever reason.

The reason the authority is being put in place is to ensure that due diligence is undertaken, that due process is followed, that the event is not a shambles, and that we do not ride roughshod over the taxpayers and the citizens of New Zealand. That would be undemocratic. To have a clause in this bill that states the Minister can make decisions without input from any other person is so undemocratic as to be abhorrent. I love rugby but I also love democracy.

I come back to the point made by my colleague Mr Hipkins. Napier will be a proud host. I am thinking the final might even be played in Napier! The bill says the Minister will appoint members of the authority in consultation, etc., but it must have people who understand the local requirements of the region to which the application before it refers. The process is very robust. As it is, it bypasses the standard legal procedure of this House, but it is a very robust process. I cannot understand for the life of me why the Government would want to bypass the authority. It is set up, it is supported by Labour, and it is an authority whose members are supported, I think, by the Minister for the Rugby World Cup in consultation with three of his colleagues. The process is so robust as to be almost watertight.

I also see that clause 9(2) states that “the Authority must, to the extent relevant, have regard to—(a) the desirability of making proper preparation for the Rugby World Cup;”. That is what we are all about. The authority needs “to ensure the efficient, safe, and lawful conduct of the Rugby World Cup;”. Efficient, safe, and lawful conduct? Goodness me! We are all for that. Every single member of Parliament supports that. Clause 9(2) also refers to “the desirability of supporting the appropriate delivery of services by or through Rugby New Zealand 2011 Limited;”. Every single member in this House supports the authority. It is what is needed to ensure that the Rugby World Cup event held in New Zealand is a very, very successful venture. It will be successful—of that I have absolutely no doubt.

Jacqui Dean: Labour doesn’t support it!

STUART NASH: To hear that member say Labour does not support the Rugby World Cup 2011 is a dreadful statement.

JO GOODHEW (Junior Whip—National) : I move, That the question be now put.

PHIL TWYFORD (Labour) : I want to respond to the comments made by the member for Auckland Central. I have never heard such self-righteous cant in the last 2 years in this House as we heard from Nikki Kaye in this debate. She did not so much wrap herself in the flag as in an All Black jersey in her enthusiasm to accuse Labour members in this Parliament of not supporting the Rugby World Cup, of not even liking rugby, and of being unpatriotic. How pathetic! Members on the Government benches are threatened by the fact that Opposition members would dare to criticise one part of this bill. I emphasise that it is one part of this bill. We have made it crystal clear at the Government Administration Committee, in public statements, and in the entirety of this debate so far that we are voting for every part of the bill, bar one. We have made that clear in the first reading, in the second reading, and in the entirety of the Committee stage to date. We support this bill; we support the Rugby World Cup; and any attempt to make this an argument about patriotism and whether we support rugby and the Rugby World Cup is absolute nonsense. The member for Auckland Central should know better.

The member for Auckland Central said that it was embarrassing to see Labour make all these criticisms of the Murray McCully provisions in this bill. She asked why Labour has not put up a minority report. Nikki Kaye should ask herself why any Opposition member would not put up a minority report. It is because members on the Government benches are making a habit of voting down and rejecting minority reports.

Nikki Kaye: That’s not true.

PHIL TWYFORD: It is absolutely true. We saw it at the Law and Order Committee and we are now seeing it at other committees, too. The Government is so defensive and insecure that it cannot brook any dissent from the Opposition in the form of minority reports, which, after all, are a mechanism that this House has developed over many years to allow the Opposition to have its say and to have a dissenting opinion. In this case we are talking about only one part out of—how many parts are in this bill?

Sue Moroney: Seven, I think.

PHIL TWYFORD: There are seven parts. Labour has made it clear that we oppose only one part, yet the member for Auckland Central cannot tolerate the slightest criticism of her bill without going into paroxysms of outrage and self-righteousness by suggesting that Labour does not support the Rugby World Cup. I say to members opposite that they should listen to what the Opposition is saying. We oppose the granting of unfettered powers to the Minister for the Rugby World Cup to override the recommendations of eminent specialists who have been recruited into roles to administer the Rugby World Cup Authority. We think that is undemocratic and we are saying so. That is a perfectly justified opinion. Members opposite should take a deep breath and recognise that this is a debating chamber. This is where we carry out the democracy of our country and we scrutinise legislation. That is what this debate is all about. I am glad to see that the outrage on the part of members opposite seems to have dissipated and we can get on with debating Part 2 of this bill.

The select committee very usefully clarified some points in relation to the powers of the Rugby World Cup Authority. It made it absolutely explicit in the bill that, in relation to any powers exercised by the relevant statutory body that will be granting liquor licences and considering and issuing consents, the same powers would carry across to the Rugby World Cup. So there is absolutely no doubt about that in relation to the powers of the authority, which are contained in Part 2; it is a very, very useful amendment.

Part 2 also deals with the role of the administrative secretariat. My colleagues have already made the point very clearly that we are entirely happy with the powers of the administrative secretariat. They have been thoughtfully and usefully put together.

JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa) : I move, That the question be now put.

CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) : I am happy to take a call on Part 3 of the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill. This part deals with approvals and declarations. First, I want to set out what the scope of this particular part is. It sets out the scope of the applications that may be made and how they are to be lodged. The applications may seek approvals, declarations, or a change of conditions of an approval or declaration or of existing approvals granted under other enactments. In addition there is a provision for applications relating to events that are not connected with the Rugby World Cup 2011 but for which event organisers wish to test whether a proposed activity—for example, traffic management—is likely to be adequate for the same purpose in relation to the Rugby World Cup 2011.

I want to talk about that in particular, because here in Wellington, earlier this year, at the Westpac Stadium we had an event that was designed specifically to test whether the stadium, the security facilities, and all those who were going to be involved in hosting the Rugby World Cup events in Wellington were adequately prepared and ready. For example, Westpac Stadium wanted to put in place some changes around how traffic management worked. I think it is important that if it had required additional authority for, for example, road closures and those kinds of things, it would have needed a provision for that to happen, as there is under this legislation. Even though the Wellington event—I think it was an All Blacks test match—was not directly connected with the Rugby World Cup, it was important that it could be used as a tester to make sure that the systems being put in place for the Rugby World Cup were going to work.

This bill allows the authorities to determine that events not directly connected with the Rugby World Cup can be deemed to be like Rugby World Cup events for the purpose of testing things and making sure they will work. In order for that to happen, an applicant needs to establish that measures have been undertaken to obtain the necessary approval or declaration through the normal processes but that it is unlikely that it could be obtained in time. That is an important principle that runs through this legislation, and it is something we talked about a lot at the Government Administration Committee. It is really important that this bill is not seen simply as a short cut for sloppy management or bad practice.

Things will come up in the course of organising the Rugby World Cup that are unforeseen, that cannot be dealt with through normal processes, and that will, therefore, need a truncated or a shortened process. But that is not an excuse for people to simply put everything on hold and say: “We know that the authority is being established and that the Minister will have extra powers, so we just won’t worry about it yet. We’ll worry about it further down the track.” That is not the message we want to send to anybody who is involved with Rugby World Cup activities.

The message we want to send is: “Do it now if you can, use the regular processes, and don’t wait, but if you need to, then obviously these powers will be available.” So unless the enactment that would normally apply to an application makes no provision for public notice to be given, all applications must be publicly notified by the authority. I think it is important to stress that at this point.

We want to respect existing democratic processes and ensure that this legislation is not used in such a way as to curtail the rights of New Zealand citizens to have a say in quite significant approvals processes. Any submission must be made no later than 10 working days after the date on which public notice of an application is given. Ten working days is a reasonably truncated time frame, so it will be important that those who have an interest in these issues are keeping a close eye on what is going on.

If the authority considers it necessary, or if a person with a right to be heard requests to be heard, a hearing will be heard no later than 10 working days after the closing date for submissions. By the time we have a 10-day notification period and, potentially a 10-day process for submissions to be heard, we are already up to 20 working days, potentially, for something that will be considered under this part. Any appeal must be brought not later than 5 working days after the authority has notified its determination, so we are now looking at a period of 25 days, potentially, for decisions to be made.

Although this part provides for some truncation of the process, it does not unnecessarily restrict the ability of people to make submissions and to be heard. There was some discussion at the Government Administration Committee about the notification provisions and whether, given the shortened periods, notification in the daily papers was required. For example, if we are talking about a 10-day time period for notification, depending on the timing of dealing with newspaper classified advertising deadlines, it might not necessarily be practical to advertise something in the way it would normally be advertised, by using the newspapers. The question then became whether it was possible for advertising to be done on a website, and so forth.

This part sets out the methods of making any application that is to be considered under it. It is important. It sets out that applications must be made in writing and in a form and manner prescribed by regulations or as approved by the authority. I think it is important that applications are in written form. People will not be able to ring up the authority, say they have a great idea, and ask for approval. There have to be robust processes for doing that. Making sure that an application is in writing is important. It has to be lodged for registration with the administrative secretariat and accompanied by any information the case may require and any deposit that the administrative secretariat may require.

The previous part, Part 2, which we have dealt with, allows the administrative secretariat to put in place provisions for the deposit, and a bond in some cases. That can all be part of the written application process that the secretariat and the authority may put in place. There were some significant changes to the way this section of the bill was structured by the select committee. The changes were mostly technical, so I will not go into those in great detail.

There is quite a significant clause—clause 19—that deals with the information that needs to be supplied with applications for approvals and declarations. So the House, in passing this legislation, is giving some quite detailed instructions to the authority on the process that we want it to be engaging in. I think it is really important that when we are truncating a democratic process, which we are doing in this case—by removing the power from existing decision-making bodies and giving it to the authority—we still have a very robust process in place for the authority that will be making those decisions and dealing with that.

I note, just to give an example, some of the things that clause 19 talks about in terms of the information that must be supplied. It refers to “all the information required under the enactment that would, but for this Act, apply;”. So if people are applying for a licence, permit, or whatever, they will still need to supply all the same information that they would need to supply under the existing Act were it not for this truncated process. That is a very important provision.

Clause 21A talks about the procedure in the event of overlapping applications to the statutory person, or body, or authority for the same activity, and I will not go into those in any great detail. Subpart 2 talks about jurisdiction, public notification, and the making of submissions. I think that is really important. Again, it is quite prescriptive in terms of the process for the notification and submissions to be determined, and also for the determination of an affected person’s status. All these things would be regularly covered by established systems and processes, were the normal processes to apply. Here we are talking about a truncated process—establishing something that will be operating for a very short period of time in, potentially, quite a pressured environment, given the time constraints on it.

I think it is really important, given that the authority will not have time to establish its own processes, systems, and body of precedent or case law, or whatever we want to call it, that the House be quite prescriptive about how we expect it to operate and function. That is what this part does. It sets out in great detail the provisions relating to notification, submissions, and consultation. For example, clause 25 specifies what the contents of a public notice must be, and it includes things like the nature of the application, including “the activity, facility, or test activity or facility for which approval is sought …”, and so forth.

JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa) : Chris Hipkins, the previous speaker, strung together a lot of highfalutin words, which gave the illusion that he was smart enough to understand the game, but I reflect and suggest that he was stupid enough to think that what he was saying was important.

Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I am generally pretty comfortable with robust debate, but I am not sure whether it is in order in this House—in fact, I am absolutely certain it is not—for a member to call another member stupid.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Is the member taking exception to that—

Chris Hipkins: I am indeed.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): —under Standing Order 116, “Personal reflections”?

Chris Hipkins: That is correct.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I ask the member to withdraw that comment.

JOHN HAYES: Thank you, Mr Chairperson. I certainly did not intend to—

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): No, I have ruled.

JOHN HAYES: I withdraw and apologise, and I certainly did not intend—

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): No, no.

JOHN HAYES: I withdraw and apologise.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): That is it.

JOHN HAYES: Part 3 of the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill provides for this country to organise and have the greatest contest that it has ever experienced in the whole period of New Zealand’s existence. Part 3 is quite critically important in allowing 48 rugby matches to take place in 13 locations in this country. We are trying to use Part 3 and the other clauses of this bill to create a “Stadium New Zealand”—a vision to help to move this country forward. The vision set out and prescribed in Part 3 will enable us to portray ourselves as a great country on the world stage.

Part 3 will help us to manage the 85,000 visitors to this country, who, hopefully, will leave a lot of money behind to support all sorts of small businesses: homestays, taxi drivers, bus drivers, and other people. On top of that, we will have a huge global television audience. That is what this bill is about. This bill, in Part 3, is about creating New Zealand’s greatest event ever. Instead of celebrating this, we are dealing with words like “truncated”. They are strung-together words that sound important, but I can assure members that they are not. They are big words. The outcome of what we have seen in the House earlier this afternoon was having members just trying to be like Helen Kelly and hobbits. Part 3 is about trying to set up the underpinning of the greatest event that will occur in New Zealand in our lifetime. The Opposition is trying to pull this apart with negative comments about Part 3.

This legislation will move this country forward. It will set up a Rugby World Cup Authority to help to do that. The authority established by this legislation will enable the granting of all sorts of applications for activities related to licensing, and the prescribing of the use of land areas for other events where the Rugby World Cup will be involved. Clause 31(6) prescribes that—

Sue Moroney: “Prescribes” is a big word.

JOHN HAYES: I draw the member’s attention to the bill. If she had taken the trouble to read it, she would find that the word “prescribes” is in the bill. For example, clause 31(6) states: “The Authority may prescribe any other conditions that it considers appropriate, including—(a) conditions that apply to any of the activities, facilities, or class of activity or facility to which the declaration relates;”. That is great jargon. What we need to keep very firmly focused on here is that this legislation will allow the greatest event to take place in New Zealand that this country has ever seen. I think it is critically important that this legislation allows our country to show itself off on the world stage in a way that leaves it full of credit and praise, that adds significantly to the economy, and that portrays New Zealand as the very highly organised host of a world-class, brilliant event. Thank you.

DAVID SHEARER (Labour—Mt Albert) : I will start by once again stating what Part 3 is all about. I take into account what the previous speaker said, which is that this bill is about enabling the greatest sporting event that New Zealand has ever put on to take place. I do not think this bill is doing that. That was done a few years ago when the Government of the day had the vision to go out and grab this opportunity. This legislation simply makes sure that the event can run smoothly, once the vision has been seen and accomplished.

Part 3 sets out the scope of the applications that may be made and how they are to be lodged. It is quite technical in nature. In many ways it sets out the process. As my colleague said, it is a more truncated or, if you like, shortened, abbreviated, or reduced process than we would otherwise have.

Phil Twyford: Shrunken.

DAVID SHEARER: Shrunken, minimalised, truncated—it could be seen in a whole lot of different ways. In fact, that member himself could be seen as somewhat truncated, shortened, or made smaller as a result of his recent operation. I have to say he looks much better for it. However, this legislation, truncated as it stands, allows the process to enable this Rugby World Cup to go ahead in a smooth and easy way. Part 3 sets out the scope of the applications that can be made, how they are to be made, and how they are to be lodged. The applications may seek approvals. They can seek declarations and a change in conditions of an approval, or of existing approvals granted under other enactments. The key point is that we are following a process, if we have to do this. As David Clendon said yesterday, we are quite good at putting on events like this. It seems that particularly in the transport area, which was mentioned specifically in Part 3, we have done a very, very good job in preparing ourselves. I do not think this legislation will be needed; nevertheless, Part 3 goes into a great deal of detail. If we do need to use it, at least it enables the process to be carried out with the fewest possible problems.

There is provision in Part 3 for applications relating to events that are to test whether a proposed activity—for example, traffic management—is likely to be adequate for the purpose, in relation to the Rugby World Cup 2011. This has happened in my electorate, which encompasses the Eden Park venue. An enormous amount of planning has been going on, in and around that area, particularly in the transport management area but also relating to the Kingsland railway station, which has been modified dramatically in order to take people to and from the venue.

I will touch on one point. We are now seeing, for the first time, people starting to take trains to go to these venues, both in and out of the city and from the west and the south, rather than using their cars. It is part of a general move that we are witnessing right across the Auckland region. The transport Minister may want to take note of that when he looks at the future of New Zealand rail.

Part 3 will enable the smooth running of activities in the period during which the Rugby World Cup will be held. I want to look at clause 31, “Determination of applications for declarations”. It states: “(1) In determining an application under section 16(2) or (5) or 17 for a declaration, a test declaration, or a change to the conditions of a declaration or a test declaration, the Authority must have regard to any adverse effects on the environment that would be, would be likely to be, if the application were granted, more than minor as determined in accordance with section 31A.” This section is extremely important, and again I use the example of the Eden Park venue. Two historic houses were removed in order to enable transport to flow more freely. To be perfectly honest, I think that was unnecessary. We are changing our environment—I am talking about the urban environment here—dramatically in order to cater for the Rugby World Cup, and I am pleased that some safeguards will be encompassed in this bill that will enable these environmental impacts, which would be classified as major, as they are certainly not minor, to be heard and to be used in an adequate way.

Clause 31(1A) states: “The Authority must not grant the application if the activity, facility, or class of activity or facility that is the subject of the application is prohibited by another Act.” Once again, I think that provides the safeguards. It goes back to Part 2, which we have just discussed, which covers the make-up of the authority that will be hearing the applications under this part of the Act. I believe that the authority is being set up in a way that it will have the utmost respect for the process, and a senior judge of 7 years’ standing has been appointed chair of the authority.

• Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) : It is my pleasure to take my first call on Part 3 of the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill. Before commencing, I want to hark back to the contribution made by my colleague John Hayes. He seems to really resent the fact that the Opposition is exploring some of the detail of this bill in the Committee stage—as it is imperative that we do. My colleague Iain Lees-Galloway described him as being monosyllabic in his contribution. I think that if we distil down my colleague John Hayes’ contribution on Part 3 we would find that if he had his way this bill would simply state: “Part 1 Let’s Have Party. Commencement Date: Now.” He seemed to utterly reject the notion that we should have any discussions on the way that some of the detail of the Rugby World Cup should be dealt with. Members on this side of the Chamber see this as quite an important job and one that we will continue to undertake with vigour.

Part 3 is a really important, substantive part of the bill. The whole intention, of course, is that the bill balances the need to reduce any delay in time and unnecessary bureaucracy but still makes sure that due process is undertaken when granting the authority power to undertake certain activities that would otherwise go through quite a rigorous separate procedure. Getting that balance right is absolutely critical. A lot of that occurs, to a certain degree, in Part 3.

My colleague Chris Hipkins has already outlined some of the time lines that may apply to certain applications under this part. I think his rough estimation, at its longest point, was that we may see delays in an application, which perhaps had public notification attached to it, of roughly 25 working days. With the Rugby World Cup being in such a short time, even the longest process that we might see could be perceived to be an impediment to undertaking an activity.

So I wondered whether any Government members, anyone on the Government Administration Committee—whether any members of the committee wish to contribute on this question—or the Minister in the chair, the Hon Judith Collins, wished to take a call. I note that no calls have been taken by a Minister in the chair up until this point, which is disappointing. It would be useful if the Minister could outline to us the longest period that it is anticipated an application could take to be processed. It would be useful to understand that from the Government’s perspective.

Is it intended, for instance, that the ministerial power for unforeseen circumstances—and the Government is unable to explain to us what that might look like—could be used to override a process that is taking too long under the jurisdiction of the authority? Is that the intention, or does it fall outside the ambit of what the Government anticipates that extraordinary ministerial power being used for? Some clarification on that point would be useful.

I think it is interesting to reflect on clause 19(2)(c). That clause goes into some of the additional requirements that have been set out. The select committee clarified that an application going through this shortened process must be specific to the Rugby World Cup. It must include, for instance, information on the steps an applicant must take to ensure, as far as reasonably practical, the health and safety of those undertaking the activity, maps and plans of a location, and any conditions the applicant considers appropriate for the declaration—a few things that are specific to the Rugby World Cup.

Again, I reflect on the fact that the select committee in its definition split the notion of tournament events—the actual sporting events—from ancillary events, for instance the public screening of an event in a public place, or an additional liquor licence for a pub in a remote area to extend its usual licence requirements to screen an event. I would be interested if the Minister could clarify whether it is anticipated that we split the way that those are dealt with by the authority, because, although I concede I am new to looking at this legislation, that is not entirely clear to me on a cursory glance.

I come specifically to clause 21A, which deals with overlapping applications between the statutory bodies that would usually deal with the applications. The authority will now deal with with those applications in a circumvented process. I think it is right that we have quite clear procedural direction as to what happens when we have duplicate applications through either of those bodies, but I still have some question marks over, for instance, arbitration and those who have a higher delegation of power between those two bodies. I just want to raise those.

Clause 21A states that if there are overlapping applications that are the same or substantially the same as an application already lodged with a statutory body or person, the application to the relevant statutory person or body is to be treated as having been withdrawn from the relevant statutory person or body and must be transferred to the authority in accordance with the regulation made under this Act. It is quite a significant power to basically instruct that a relevant statutory body must, as outlined in subclause (4): “without delay,—(a) forward a copy of all documentation it holds on the application to the Authority; and (b) cease to process the application.”

I wonder whether any arbitration can take place in a scenario where, for instance, there might be some question over whether the application fulfils the criteria set out in the bill, or where a statutory body may have some jurisdiction questions and may wish to maintain the processing of that application. We are talking about overriding what would probably otherwise be local council authority. Those are quite significant powers in that regard.

I congratulate the select committee or the Government—whichever it was—on anticipating this issue and trying its best to resolve it. It does seem curious that it has anticipated this issue but cannot anticipate the circumstances in which carte blanche powers for a Minister might be required. It is hard to imagine what kind of scenario it is wishing to anticipate.

I refer to clause 21A(6)(b), which states: “the statutory time limits applying to the relevant statutory person or body recommence from the date that the statutory body or person receives the documentation.” So, for instance, if an authority declines an application under its criteria for processing a liquor licence and then refers it back to the usual statutory body that processes it, that relevant statutory body must treat the decision and the reasons of the authority as irrelevant for the purpose of the decision on the application.

It seems to me that although there is no judicial oversight to challenge a decision made by an authority, we do have a backstop measure. Basically, someone who makes an application could just go back to the statutory body, make the application again, have it processed in time for the Rugby World Cup, and still come out with the relevant requirements and legal rights to proceed, even though an authority had already made a decision otherwise. So I would be interested in hearing the rationale from the Government or from members of the select committee. Perhaps the Minister in the chair might like to tell us why the authority’s decision is not full and final and why we still have, in a sense, an additional judicial process that someone can go through. It is an extra layer of bureaucracy, really, and I am curious as to why those decisions are not full and final. Actually, at the end of the day we are leaving local authorities to, potentially, be the final arbiter. I wonder whether that was the intention of the Government. Some clarification of that would be good.

Jacqui Dean: The member doesn’t understand the bill.

JACINDA ARDERN: I think I just heard Jacqui Dean offer to stand up and clarify the position on that area. I would perfectly happy to hear her contribution, given that her contributions to date on this legislation have been somewhat shallow.

Hon Member: Too far, too far.

JACINDA ARDERN: I am happy to make that accusation given that the only thing I have heard from that member is that Labour hates rugby. What a full contribution that was!

DAVID CLENDON (Green) : I just make a few brief comments on Part 3, because it is very significant and is quite technical, in a way; it is quite detailed. Essentially, within this part, we are told by what means, by what mechanisms, people will have their rights reduced and will have their opportunities to participate reduced. We are told to what extent and by what means ordinary members of the public will be denied their usual access to decision making about events, activities, structures, facilities, and so on that actually could influence them in their day-to-day lives. Of course, there are some quite substantial provisions put in place in Part 3—all in the name of the Rugby World Cup and getting a good event. We all do look forward to that event and hope it goes well, and also hope that we might leverage off the event to the maximum amount available. That is a point I will return to.

But, initially, having made the point that Part 3 is the nitty-gritty, this is where we are told how the authorities, served by the numerous secretariats, will diminish people’s rights—take away our access, our right to participate—but in a sense this part is almost redundant—

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I just check whether you are aware of what the member is saying.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Absolutely.

DAVID CLENDON: To an extent, Part 3 is almost superfluous because the sting in the tail, if you like, is that no matter what decisions are made at this level, no matter who informs those decisions, or by what means they are made, ultimately one person will have the say-so in terms of what may or may not occur. That is the one step too far that has clearly brought Labour on to the side of opposing this bill: a place where the Greens have been from day one on this bill.

Hon Trevor Mallard: That’s in Part 4; not in this part.

DAVID CLENDON: Indeed, it is, but I am sure we have had reference to that issue already.

I give a couple of quick examples as to some of the diminished ability that people will have to participate. There is the matter of public notice, which has been commented on earlier; that information and supporting documentation about particular applications may be limited to being placed on one website. Potentially people who wish to make submissions may be obliged to make submissions only through electronic means. For many people that will not be a problem—it is commonplace—but we must recall that not every household in New Zealand has access to electronic media. Not everybody chooses to use that form of communication. I think we should be respectful of choices in the ability that people have to make submissions.

It is interesting that the matter of standing is addressed in Part 3—that standing will be needed to be proved. We are basically going back to the bad old days of town and country planning when not everybody had standing, as of right, as is generally the rule under our new resource management approach. It is required that a person must have an interest in the matter greater than that of the general public. There are various statements about “affected persons”, and statements that the Rugby World Cup Authority, for example when it is considering what constitutes an adverse effect, must ignore effects of a temporary nature. That means that communities of people could be subjected to significant noise over a period of days and weeks without any opportunity to object to that because the effect is deemed to be temporary. That is just not acceptable.

I mentioned earlier that the justification underpinning a lot of these conditions is that this event will put New Zealand on the world stage. The various provisions in Part 3 are there because of the implied argument about the greater good for the country. It is interesting that in 2005, when the event was first awarded to New Zealand, we were told, amidst great rejoicing, that we estimated some 60,000 extra visitors would come here. That is a very debatable claim in itself, given that very robust European research demonstrates that, most often, the expectation about extra visitors for an event is overstated. In 2005, the expectation was for 60,000 people; today the expectation is 85,000 extra visitors. The expectation has been inflated by some 40 percent in 5 years. In 2005 we understood that 3.4 billion people would witness this extravaganza on television; now that number has gone up to 4 billion people. For every one of the intervening 5 years, another 120 million people have an interest in rugby!

NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central) : I am pleased to speak with regard to Part 3 of the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill. First, I want to say this is a pretty momentous moment in the Chamber, because some really great analogies are happening between the legislation we are debating, which is designed to benefit New Zealand from an economic perspective in terms of world exposure, and the fact that at 7.20 this evening the Prime Minister of New Zealand saved The Hobbit. This country is seeing a real contrast between the two sides of the Chamber, particularly with regard to Part 3. National is putting legislation in place for the economic benefit of New Zealand, with 4 billion people expected to watch the Rugby World Cup in our country, and the Prime Minister moved swiftly to save The Hobbit for New Zealand and save thousands of jobs for this country. Those on the opposite side of the Chamber are putting a whole lot of obstacles in the way of the average New Zealander who just wants a job at the moment. I am proud that we have a Prime Minister who acted to save that film for this country.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Order!

NIKKI KAYE: I shall relate that point back to Part 3. Part 3 is about the Rugby World Cup 2011. We know that the tournament is expected to bring 85,000 visitors to New Zealand, and the numbers watching The Hobbit will be pretty similar.

The Opposition’s whole debate this evening has been about opposing one specific provision. We have heard a lot of contradiction from the Opposition team. Iain Lees-Galloway said that because of the provision Labour opposes this bill. Then all the other Labour speakers said that, no, actually Labour supports the Rugby World Cup. Well, if those members did support the Rugby World Cup, they would be standing up this evening and supporting this legislation.

Let us go back to the actual provision. The Rugby World Cup Authority will go through a process in terms of consents—it gives people their democratic rights. National has said that this event is so important to our country that we will go through the process of consulting the Opposition over whom we appoint to that authority, different Ministers of the Crown will be consulted and we will get advice, and we will ensure that the authority is well resourced. However, there could be an unforeseen situation. I know that members have asked what that unforeseen situation is—

Hon Trevor Mallard: This is Part 4, Nikki. Wrong part!

NIKKI KAYE: —but we have said very clearly that it is unforeseen. Mr Mallard interjects, but my point is very relevant to Part 3, because that part deals with applications to the Rugby World Cup Authority; I am talking about a process that is relevant to applications to the authority. Yes, it is dealt with in Part 4, but I am saying that our Government believes that this event is the greatest event this country will ever hold, and it is very important to New Zealand. I am very pleased. I am saying today that we do not want to use this process; however, we are putting a process in place that provides that if an unforeseen situation occurs, our Government would act. There is a very clear decision for New Zealand, a clear contrast between the two sides of the Chamber. The Government is ready to act in the best interests of our country. This moment is very important for people to watch, because they will see a Government that is prepared to act in the best interests of New Zealand; prepared to say, yes, there is a process, but if something goes terribly wrong and there is an unforeseen situation, then we will allow our elected members of Parliament to be accountable for that. We will allow that to happen.

I am very proud to be a supporter of the Government. I am a supporter of the Prime Minister, John Key. I say good on him for saving The Hobbit. I am a supporter of the Ministers who have been behind that decision. And I am a supporter of this Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill because it is good for New Zealand. It will create jobs, and that is what this side of the Chamber is about.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) : I thank you, Mr Chairperson, for your liberal approach to the previous speaker, Nikki Kaye, in broadening the debate. There are a couple of points that I would like to make. Labour welcomes the fact that The Hobbit is to be made in New Zealand. We think that is very good. We know that Gerry Brownlee was part of the meeting that sorted out the industrial relations issue on 14 October, and we congratulate him on taking Helen Kelly’s advice to bring that meeting together and on the results. Gerry Brownlee did a good job.

If we can mix The Hobbit, the relationship with Warner Bros, and the Rugby World Cup, I think it is fair to say the Prime Minister is wearing the No. 2 jersey today. He is wearing the No. 2 jersey, and one could say he has been on his knees to Warner Bros. The Prime Minister has been royally screwed by Warner Bros, and as a result of that the company will be laughing all the way to the Bank of America. It will be laughing—

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): I have just reflected on a phrase that the member used. It is inappropriate. Do not use it again. It related to a tool.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: I am sorry. I think that “screwed over” is OK.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): No, it is not. Do not go there.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: He has been done. We will work our way through the analogies, but what has happened is that the failure to have the $140,000 dinner to keep the relationship going has meant that it has cost $15 million. We are told that the money is only for The Hobbit, so it is not general. If Kiwis want to make a major production, they do not receive the money. If Warner Bros want to make a film, the money goes to Warner Bros. It is just absolutely, absolutely outrageous, and we will work our way through the analogies.

To return to the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill, I want to respond to the comments made by John Hayes, who said Labour hates rugby. It is fair to say Labour worked very hard to get the Rugby World Cup to New Zealand. I am trying to remember, but I think that the former Prime Minister was on her way to Korea and went via Dublin in order to make a difference. There is a common factor in Premier House. On two separate occasions the former Prime Minister entertained the executive of the International Rugby Board at Premier House, as part of the exercise that led to New Zealand getting the hosting rights to Rugby World Cup, because she knew that it was important to build relationships rather than to do things on a crisis basis, which is the way that National seems to approach them.

I would now like to get back to—or start on, possibly—the detail of Part 3 of the bill. I was a member of the Government Administration Committee and I will take responsibility for mistakes, but I think that there is a mistake in terms of how the word “test” is used. It ends up being quite confusing as to what sorts of tests we are talking about. When you, Mr Chairperson, and I talk about the Rugby World Cup and tests, we tend to think of matches involving two countries for which caps are awarded, but if we look at clause 17, and in particular at clause 17(5)(a) and (b), it is possible that what is meant is a trial—testing something out, rather than having a test. I wonder whether within the Rugby World Cup legislation we are better to reserve the term “test” for a rugby test rather than use it to refer to a trial. I know that the Minister in the chair, Judith Collins, who is focusing heavily on texting at the moment, is more interested in trials than tests. It might be that she could take the initiative and work with her colleague Murray McCully on giving us some clarification as we work our way through this bill.

One of the problems is that the more that we look at bills, the more that we find things that could well be wrong. One of the areas that could well be wrong is new clause 31A, “Determination of whether adverse effects are more than minor”, which has come into the bill. I would like the Minister to respond to this, because I think we might have something slightly arse about face in the bill. Clause 31A lists the things that the authority must disregard when determining whether adverse effects are more than minor. But one of the things it must disregard is (a) “any adverse effect of the activity or facility that … (iii) is of a temporary nature, having regard to the duration of the approval, declaration, or test approval or declaration;”.

The problem I have is that all of these determinations are of a temporary nature. They are time-limited; they do not go on. At the completion of the Rugby World Cup, the determinations of the authority are finished. So I am not clear whether that means that because any adverse effects are of a temporary nature, all adverse effects have to be ignored. I am—

Jacqui Dean: Struggling.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: No, it is not funny.

Jacqui Dean: Struggling.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: The member is correct. I am struggling to understand how we made that mistake in the legislation, because I think it is a mistake.

Hon Tau Henare: Don’t worry about it!

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: The member tells me not to worry about it. If the member was next to a fan zone, and all adverse effects were ignored and were not able to be taken into account in making a determination, he might get a bit grumpy, and rightly so.

Charles Chauvel: He’d never be next to a fan zone.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: He might be next to a fan zone, actually, because he lives next to his mother-in-law, and next to her is his brother-in-law, as well. I know that situation relatively well as a result of other litigation, but we will not go back into caveats over houses at the moment, because that would be off the topic.

I have not yet seen any sign of the Minister stirring in order to answer the question, but it is a serious question. I think it may well be that my colleague Mr Chauvel needs to look at an amendment in order to clarify this issue, because all adverse effects, I think, will be temporary. If we—

Jacqui Dean: Struggling.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Every now and again we make a serious comment. Where does that member come from? I cannot tell those two members apart. She is the woman from mid-Canterbury somewhere. All adverse effects will be temporary. If all temporary effects are to be ignored, what protection do the neighbours have from adverse effects, given that they must all be temporary? Again, I make it clear that I was a member of the select committee and I looked very carefully at this clause and subclause as it was drafted. It is new. It was previously in another part of the bill, but the bill was redrafted and the clause was brought into this part for clarification. I would like some member opposite, even if it is not the Minister in the chair, to clarify for us what happens around adverse effects.

On the question of the notices of determinations, I think the committee did good work. I think John Hayes did the work on behalf of the New Zealand Fire Service. He is a member who focused on that very carefully. I think it was my suggestion that Rugby New Zealand 2011 also get notices of determinations—in fact, notices of the applications—so it is aware of the issues that are being considered and of the decisions. I think some of us assume that we will get there by osmosis or some approach like that.

There is a question arising from clause 34 in Subpart 4 around the expiry of approvals and declarations.

JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) : I move, That the question be now put.

IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North) : Before I address subpart 6, which is the part of Part 3 that I intend to talk about, I need to just discuss the misrepresentation of my position made by Nikki Kaye in her previous address. She stated that I was opposed to the entire bill. She obviously has not been listening very carefully either to my arguments or to those of all the Labour members in the Chamber tonight, because we are being quite clear that we are opposed to only one part of this bill. We will get to that part shortly, I have no doubt. The problem with that part is that it overrides so many of the other, good aspects of this legislation. I just needed to clarify that.

Ms Kaye also brought up hobbits; I was pleased that she brought up hobbits and expanded the debate a little in that area. Clearly, National is trying tonight, as it has done in the last few weeks, to sow division. It is trying to tell New Zealand that Labour hates rugby, that it is opposed to the Rugby World Cup, and that we do not want to get the job done. Actually, this is complex legislation. Part 3 is particularly complex legislation. It deals with applications, paperwork, and processes that a number of people in New Zealand will have to go through, and it is important that we as a Parliament make sure that it gets the scrutiny that it deserves so that when it is finally enacted, it is usable and it makes sense. There is a lot of red tape in here; it is funny that the ACT Party has not actually taken any calls on it. The requests that are made of territorial authorities in Part 2 are, again, areas that I thought the ACT Party would make a contribution on, but it did not.

National in its contributions this evening has been clear that it wants to drive a wedge between New Zealand as a whole and the Labour Party in its position tonight; it is quite similar to the way it has dealt with The Hobbit. We can contrast that with the way Helen Clark dealt with securing the Rugby World Cup 2011 for New Zealand. She built relationships. She built consensus. She brought all the parties together. There was even a sense of bipartisanship within the House.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Don Brash’s photo was in the bid document.

IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: There you go. That is how much consensus Helen Clark sought to build around putting this bid together—indeed, she was successful in securing the bid. We can contrast that with the divisive approach that John Key has taken to The Hobbit, and the fact that he has now bent New Zealand over in the face of Warner Bros, a corporation. We are a sovereign nation, yet a corporation is coming to this country and telling us that we have to change our laws. Do members know what? We will bend right over for them.

Phil Twyford: How much?

IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: And indeed we say “How much?”. All that money is going directly to—

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Some of the members who have now got into a regular barracking will desist.

IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Thank you very much, Mr Chairperson. I appreciate the assistance; I did not really feel as though I needed it, but I appreciate it. I think it is reasonable, given some of the debate that we have heard from National, to contrast that approach—

Jacqui Dean: There’s only one thing New Zealanders care about.

IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Yes. Again, they are misrepresenting. I think it is Jacqui Dean; it is hard to tell. Jacqui Dean is trying to misrepresent Labour’s position. Of course Labour is in support of having The Hobbit in New Zealand. Again, the Labour Government built relationships and worked very closely with Warner Bros, New Line Cinema, and Peter Jackson. We got consensus and were able to put The Lord of the Rings on in New Zealand without bending over in front of an American corporation. That is what John Key has done: he has bent this country over.

I come back to subpart 6 of Part 3 of the bill. It refers to appeal rights. Clause 43 states: “A person or body that applied for an approval, a declaration, a test approval or declaration, or a change to the conditions of an approval, a declaration, or a test approval or declaration and is dissatisfied with the determination of the Authority under section 22(1) … may appeal to the High Court,”—they may appeal to the High Court—“but only on a question of law.” Clause 43 is very tight and very specific about what grounds an applicant may appeal on, and the process through which they may appeal. But you know what? We may as well not even bother having that clause in the legislation, because we have Part 4. A savvy applicant who was not happy with the decision of the authority, if they had the right connections—perhaps if they were a member of the National Party—would simply appeal to Murray McCully. That is all they would have to do. They would have to get the Minister on side. It does not matter how out of order their application was, it does not matter where it went wrong, and it does not matter whether it was destroying a historic building or whether it was outside the scope of the Rugby World Cup—all the Minister would have to do is, with one stroke of the pen, say that it was approved.

We may as well just take clause 43 out of the legislation altogether. Although it is a very practical and sensible appeal process, it is completely undermined by Part 4—completely undermined by Part 4. Indeed, the right of appeal to the High Court may be made only on a question of law against a determination of the Authority made under clauses 30, 31, 39, or 40(4). So it is a very, very tight method by which, and area on which, an applicant can appeal. Again, that definition—that narrowing of the areas in which an applicant can appeal—may as well not be in the bill at all, because we have Part 4. It is interesting that the National members have gone awfully quiet. That is why we need to have the kind of scrutiny that we are putting on this bill. We have to question whether there are superfluous aspects of the bill, and whether we might be able to make it more efficient by simply trimming out some of the contradictions that lie within it.

Another area of absolute specificity that is dealt with within Part 3 is the area of test events. I have to agree with my colleague the Hon Trevor Mallard. When I first read it, because I was not on the select committee and I have not been involved with this bill up to this point, I was a little confused. I thought it was referring to test matches, which, of course, there will be several of during the Rugby World Cup. So it took a couple of goes to read it.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Well, all the matches will be test matches.

IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Indeed. That is quite correct, although we might not think that some of them rate as test matches. On that matter I have to say I am looking forward to having the test matches involving Georgia, the Ukraine, and, I believe, Argentina—and one other team; we are waiting with bated breath to see who it is—played in Palmerston North. I am certainly looking forward to those games occurring in my city, and I know the city is gearing up for it. Running a bit of a test event, or testing out how we deal with traffic problems and all that sort of thing in the lead-up to the World Cup, shows that built in to the legislation is a concern that we need to get the nuts and bolts right. That is why we need to actually go through this legislation with some serious scrutiny to make sure every single little clause is absolutely spot on. National has absolutely rightly said that this will be a wonderful event. It will showcase New Zealand and it will put us on the world stage. If one of these things goes horrifically wrong because we have not paid enough attention to it now, we will look worse on the world stage than we do right now, bent over in front of Warner Bros. So we need to make sure that we get these things right, and it is absolutely appropriate that we pay close attention.

Aaron Gilmore: Oh, that’s disgusting.

IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: The member Aaron Gilmore is absolutely correct; the situation that we find ourselves in tonight is disgusting, courtesy of the acquiescence of the Prime Minister.

Hon Tau Henare: Ha! Courtesy—

Hon Member: Another big word.

IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Now Mr Henare is concerned that I am using big words. This is not the first time that National has been upset about big words—

Jacqui Dean: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. It is about a phrase that the member used a little while ago. I have to say I was a little bit taken aback by it.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Tell me what it is so that I can rule on it.

Jacqui Dean: Well, “bending over for Warner Brothers”, I think it was, and I do not believe that that is a parliamentary term.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): I have been thinking about that phrase, and it could mean bowing, or it could mean something else. My mind is on higher things. I think the member should not transgress the laws of debate in a way that makes me think of lesser things.

Jacqui Dean: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. For a party that prides itself on its inclusiveness, I really think a phrase like that is offensive and—

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): No, I have ruled on it.

IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: I will simply come to the end of my—

Jacqui Dean: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. The problem that I have is that I found that phrase offensive, and I have taken offence to it.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): I have ruled on it, and I have listened very carefully to the debate all night. The issue is whether an offence has been created. I have to say that the member was probably skirting around an area where there could be an offending interpretation, but he has not crossed that line.

Jacqui Dean: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): No, I have ruled on it.

Jacqui Dean: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Is this a separate point of order, because I have ruled on that matter.

Jacqui Dean: Mr Chairperson, I have taken offence.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): And I have ruled that there is no offence.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): I am not sure that this will be helpful, but I will hear the point of order.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I am actually speechless. I do not think I have ever heard such blatant prejudice from the Chairperson before.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): I am sorry; I apologise.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Mr Chairperson, I think the tradition in this Chamber is that if a member takes offence then you have to rule on it. Just saying that you are not offended is not enough. The Chairperson can say that something is not an offensive comment, but I think the way you put that member down was a bit unfair.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): I am sorry, I did not mean to. There is a ruling that says that the test is in whether the Committee itself is offended. That, in essence, is what the Speaker’s ruling says. You see, someone could say, for example, that someone’s cat is overweight, and someone else could take offence at that. So the test is really whether the Committee itself is affronted, and that is what the Speaker’s ruling says. I am sorry if people have been offended by the way I have put that, but I have ruled that the member is skirting close, and I have warned him not to cross that line.

IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: I have no intention of crossing the line, or crossing you, Mr Chairperson. I have no intention of doing that, whatsoever. In summary, a test event, as I said, was something for which I was appreciative of the clarification contained in the bill, which, under clause 17(5)(b), is “an event, whether or not a sporting event, that is not organised and held as part of the tournament, but for which an approval or a declaration may be sought under this section to enable the testing of a particular activity or facility that is, or is likely to be, required for the tournament.”

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): I just want to quote for the members Speaker’s Ruling 55/7—there have been additions, and things moved chronologically back. A word is judged to be appropriate based on whether a word will bring disorder, as well as an affront, to the House.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) : Mr Chairperson, I begin my remarks on the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill by complimenting you. It is quite moving to see a person of your monumental physique in the Chair. I would warrant a guess that you yourself are a fan of the golden game of rugby, and I would warrant further that you have played the odd game or two, and, what is more, in the position of lock. As a former lock, I count it a privilege to rise to speak on this bill. In fact, as a former lock, I find it a privilege to rise to speak on any subject at all, because we all know that locks do not get much of a say, buried as they are at the bottom of the scrum. But on this occasion, joined with you by an invisible bond of lockhood, I rise to take a call.

My main reason for taking this call today, constrained though I am by my former position on the team, is that I wish to say this: Labour loves rugby. Labour loves rugby! It is the national game. It is the game where if our national team does not win we want to know why. It is a great thing when the All Blacks win, and it is even greater when they win under a National administration, because National needs all the help it can get. Labour loves rugby. Labour loves rugby, and Labour dearly wants to support this bill, because we love the Rugby World Cup tournament. It would not be coming to New Zealand if it were not for the former Labour Prime Minister, Helen Clark, who flew all the way to Dublin, on her way to South-east Asia, to procure this monumental event for future generations of New Zealanders—and it was not due just to the fact that one of our former colleagues was making the travel bookings! Helen Clark made sure New Zealand got to host Rugby World Cup 2011, and it behoves members all around the Chamber to be in a position to support this bill. Were it not for another part, which the Committee will shortly be debating, Labour members would be absolutely unanimous and unequivocal in our support for the bill, and it would be heartfelt too. So one can imagine the pain it brings upon Her Majesty’s loyal Labour Opposition to be somewhat conflicted in our support for this bill. We are at one in spirit with the rest of the Committee in wanting to see this grand tournament proceed, but we are somewhat hamstrung by the fact that Part 4 conveys extraordinary powers, potentially, on a Minister.

As one looks through the report one is struck by the fact that the drafters and, indeed, the Government Administration Committee have left no stone unturned to bring to New Zealand an extraordinary event. My personal favourite, although strictly outside the part under debate, is on page 5 of the commentary, where we learn, to our relief, that pain has been taken to separate advisory from administrative staff on the administrative secretariat. There can be few matters more troubling to Aucklanders and, I am sure, all New Zealanders than to think there could be some co-mingling of administrative and advisory staff in carrying out the functions of the secretariat for the Rugby World Cup.

Charles Chauvel: God forbid!

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: God forbid that that should be the case, and it is a matter of relief to us that it is the usual decision maker who may comment upon applications.

Ambush marketing has been a great concern. We hope the ambush will occur every time a foreign lock forward is treading the wing towards our try line.

Hon Tau Henare: Where’s Phil Twyford?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: He is sitting right behind me. He is another great fan of the great game, I tell Mr Henare, and we are all looking forward to his contribution. But I deign to say that I convey the heartfelt greetings of all my colleagues on the Labour side in wishing the Chairperson, Mr Roy, and the Rugby World Cup the very best of luck.

It is timely that we should be debating this bill tonight of all nights, because we have heard today that New Zealand has secured yet another extraordinary event: not one but two Hobbit films shall be made upon our shores, and for $15 million—a mere trifle, it would seem, upon the exchequer. We would warrant that were it not for the extraordinary contortions of the current Government—and of the Prime Minister in particular—that sum might have been somewhat greater. The Government might have had to exchange a somewhat larger fiscal offering had it not been prepared to sacrifice workers’ rights on the altar of Warner Bros.

Hon Dr Wayne Mapp: Helen Kelly’s to blame and you know it.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: While the member opposite is mentioning the name of the esteemed president of the Council of Trade Unions, we might reflect on the fact that that self-same president found herself in the role of peacemaker in this dispute. We offer shared congratulations to Gerry Brownlee, who upon the advice of the self-same president reached an accommodation, we understand, with Sir Peter Jackson, the actors’ union, and all other parties some 2 weeks ago. We can only ask what happened. As I hear tell, it is possible—indeed, it was the case—that the supposed worldwide boycott of this movie had already been lifted, only for certain demonstrations to spring up around the country after the fact.

Could it be that the party opposite was trying to position Her Majesty’s Labour Opposition in this matter as somehow unpatriotic, in the same way that it tries to position the Labour Party as opposed to the Rugby World Cup? We will have none of it. I have not yet revealed to the Committee my other life. My other life is as the patron of the Suburbs Rugby Football Club in west Auckland. As the patron of the Suburbs Rugby Football Club, I would like to commend all members of this Chamber to ask Mr McCully to make one or two slight amendments to Part 4 so that we could all join together in unison to get behind our team, get behind this bill, and make sure that the Rugby World Cup is executed flawlessly in this wonderful country of Godzone.

Chris Tremain: Part 3, buddy. He doesn’t even know what it’s about, but never mind.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: Well, it is a little hard to tell by a cursory glance at the commentary. That member did not sit on the select committee—a member who, I am sure, had one or two good rucks in his day.

Phil Twyford: One too many, I think.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: That could be, but we could not possibly speculate on that.

Jacqui Dean: Read the bill.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: Yes. I take exception to the fact that certain members opposite have tried to impugn the honour of our party in respect of the country’s great game. I am sure that this game is as dear to those members as it is to us. Perhaps the one thing about Part 4, when we come to it, that will be of some interest to the Committee and the public is the selection process for precisely which Minister will find gainful employment as the Minister for the Rugby World Cup. My personal bet is that it will be Gerry Brownlee, practised as he is in suspending the rule of law, having done so for Canterbury, admittedly for good reason.

Aaron Gilmore: You all voted for it.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: Yes, indeed, Mr Gilmore, because, as I said, it was for good reason, in extraordinary circumstances and on the basis of good-faith consultation, which usually but not always happens, I observe.

Aaron Gilmore: It’s going very well.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: Yes, the earthquake reconstruction is going very well; that is right. My personal bet is that Mr Brownlee, experienced as he is in such matters, will swoop to the rescue and play the same role for the Government in respect of the Rugby World Cup.

Jacqui Dean: Shame about Labour.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: It is a shame about Labour winning the 2011 election. As it is likely to occur before the Rugby World Cup, Prime Minister Phil Goff will be there to receive the winning team, which will be, of course, the All Blacks. My earnest word in conclusion to the Committee and to the public is that they back the All Blacks and they back Phil Goff to be Prime Minister on the day that the Rugby World Cup is bestowed upon our national team. We should get behind rugby and we should get behind this bill, but we cannot get behind the bill until Part 4 is amended to reduce and remove the extraordinary suspension of liberties that New Zealanders have fought and died for over many generations.

CHRIS TREMAIN (Senior Whip—National) : I move, That the question be now put.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) : We have come to the most substantive part of the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill. Certainly, it is by far the most contentious. With due respect to my colleague from the Greens, I say that from a Labour perspective it is by far the most contentious and the part we have undertaken to oppose. Our support for the bill depends on my amendment being agreed. Part 4 outlines procedures available in circumstances of urgency. The nub of what it does, and I will get to the detail of it, is that it grants the Minister appointed by the Prime Minister—in this case, almost certainly Mr McCully—the ability to override a large number of pieces of legislation of his own accord. That is something that he or she would be able to do—

Charles Chauvel: Sovereignty at last.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Well, I think describing Mr McCully as a sovereign is probably not an appropriate way of putting it.

It is impossible to overstate the anger on this side of the House at this unconstitutional arrangement. We were pushed very hard over the Canterbury legislation, and I think there is debate now as to whether we were more flexible than we should have been in the granting of powers to the Government. But what is clear is that these powers, which go to one Minister in this case, are much more extensive than those in the Canterbury situation. As an example, the decisions of a Minister made under Part 4 are not regulations. There is no requirement to gazette them. They cannot be examined under the order—

Charles Chauvel: The Regulations Review Committee.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: They cannot go to the Regulations Review Committee, because they are not regulations. A decision could be made to set aside a whole body of case law—years and years and years of case law. An authority that is being specially set up to consider that particular question could hear evidence and hear the experts and make the decision to say no, but the Minister could still say yes. I will get to some examples soon. I want to make it clear that I am not happy about any power being given to a Minister to override the decision of an authority headed by a judge. My view is that Parliament should have those rights but individual Ministers should not.

I have offered a compromise to the Minister. The compromise is that the Minister can be a brake on the decisions. If a positive decision is made by the authority that the Minister, on the advice of other Ministers, decides is wrong, he or she should have the ability to say: “No, we won’t proceed with that.” That is the compromise. I am uncomfortable with a compromise, but that is the compromise I have put on the Table. The thing I think makes New Zealand look like Nigeria is that a Minister can grant his mates approvals after a judge in a properly formed authority has said no.

John Hayes: That’s not true.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: That member sat on the Government Administration Committee, and it is absolutely true. There can be a hearing, there can be a recommendation on the part of the authority to decline an application, but a Minister can override that and can approve that application—for one of his friends, for consideration; we will never know. That sort of approach will make New Zealand look like Nigeria. Part 4 is the most important part of the bill and one on which there will be the most discussion. I will be interested in the contribution from John Hayes, in particular, who denies that the Minister for the Rugby World Cup has the right to overrule a tribunal.

John Hayes: You’re right; I do.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: He does. He denies the right. Well, I say to Mr Hayes that it is in the bill, and he sat on the select committee. He was there for the hearings and he was there for the deliberations. Frankly, if it is the understanding of Government members that the Minister does not have that power, then they will have no problem voting for my amendment. If it is their understanding that such a power does not sit in the hands of the Minister, then the appropriate thing for them to do is to vote for my amendment, or, in fact, to question whether Part 4 is needed at all.

I would like to challenge members opposite to give us just two examples of where they think it is appropriate for a Minister to override a decision of the authority—case-like examples. I say to the former deputy leader of ACT that I am shocked at the position that ACT is taking on this legislation. I am surprised that the party that stands up for property rights is allowing the property rights of neighbours to be overruled like this. If a proper application on which evidence has been given is rejected, the Minister can say that, yes, that old villa, that historic place, or that building that is subject to a protection order can be bowled over. The Minister can make that decision, under this legislation, and neighbours’ property rights are just wiped. They do not have any, because of this approach.

I thank the Māori Party for the fact that it has looked carefully at this issue and decided to support the amendment, and quite rightly so. Under this legislation the Minister would have the right to bowl over a marae, to dig up a wāhi tapu, and to put bulldozers through a burial ground. All of which would be stopped by ordinary law, but the Minister has the right to do that under this legislation, because he is not subject to any of the normal laws or any of the normal protections that pertain to this area.

I know that Government members will vigorously defend the Minister, and I want them to give us an example or two. I am not breaching the confidentiality of the select committee in talking about its meeting this morning, because it was held in public. One of our members asked Mr Maarten Wevers whether security issues could be a reason, whether security issues could be dealt with using Mr McCully’s powers under this legislation, and she was told no. There is a separate process, a proper process involving a judge whose decisions cannot be overturned by a politician, and security issues will be dealt with in that way. So I want to know why a house that cannot be demolished under current legislation, that cannot be demolished under the Resource Management Act, that cannot be demolished under the non-urgent provisions, and that cannot be demolished under the urgent provisions under a decision from the authority, can be demolished if the Minister claims the right to have that property demolished, against all of the evidence. There can be no good reason for that, and I say to members opposite that they should feel ashamed as they grant this power.

JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) : Trevor Mallard has just shown the weakness of his argument in arguing that the Minister for the Rugby World Cup has unbridled powers. He has done that by the very example that he brought up, saying that the Minister would demolish a historic building. Well, leaving aside the fact that very few historic buildings are left in Auckland anyway after 9 years of the previous Labour Government, I ask members just to think about the circumstances in which a Minister wanting the best for a Rugby World Cup would demolish a historic building. Is that an argument that carries any weight, at all? Is that an argument that in the wildest realm of possibility holds any kind of weight? We just need to go through the scenario.

Here is my scenario for Trevor Mallard: we are 2 days out from the Rugby World Cup, there is a match on, and somebody walks into the boardroom and says that such and such a road’s traffic has not been stopped—we need some real example, so we will use road closures. Fifty thousand people are coming to watch the game, but a road has not been closed to traffic. What will be done about it, because there might be the need for some bollards? Under the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill, as proposed, a decision is made to get by without the road closure. But it is not the panel of judges and commissioners who have to wear the consequences of that decision. The people who have to wear the consequences of that decision are the members of the Government. We have to ask ourselves whether we want appointed people or elected people making those big, critical decisions—and that, I suggest to the member opposite, is absolutely the nub of the argument here.

I also argue that there is no unbridled, unfettered power in this bill, as described by Trevor Mallard. In fact, if Trevor Mallard had decided to take a calm look at clause 4, he would have seen that rather than having unbridled powers to demolish historic buildings, in fact a number of protections are described in Part 4 for the urgent powers to be given to the Minister.

It is also worth noting, just while I am at it, that the Government Administration Committee did not recommend any significant changes to those powers, nor did the Labour members on the committee choose to put in a minority report. That is very telling; that says to us that the committee considering this bill was happy with its provisions, and it was just Trevor Mallard—just the former Minister for the Rugby World Cup—who was unhappy with this provision. Even then, that former Minister for the Rugby World Cup, Trevor Mallard, had the opportunity to put in a minority report—such a report was discussed within the select committee—but did he? He did not. Trevor Mallard was asked whether he wanted to put in a minority report on the issue that concerned him so much. At the select committee I asked the member whether he wanted to do that. The answer was “No. I do not wish to put in a minority report.” It was up to him to put it in; he declined to do so. This issue in relation to Part 4 is merely Labour members saying: “We can’t have what we want. Therefore, New Zealand can’t have it, either.” If the Labour members on the Government Administration Committee really valued democracy, they would have taken the opportunity given to them to put in a minority report and give their view, but they decided not to do that. I think that is particularly telling.

In reference to Part 4, I think the only thing the people of New Zealand care about tonight is that the Government supports the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill. That is what people see. They see that the Government is fully behind this bill. The people of New Zealand understand that this Government fully supports the Rugby World Cup, not just for the big games but also for the tournament and the opportunities that will be there for all of us throughout New Zealand.

But what about Labour? It is filibustering on this bill because it does not want the Rugby World Cup to be a success. That is very telling. In speech after speech, Labour members have been pulling holes in this bill, which, at the select committee, they were in full agreement with. I wish the members of the select committee, not just the ring-ins, would stand up and give a view on the bill, because I have to say that throughout the course of the select committee consideration there was broad agreement on it. But once the former Minister for the Rugby World Cup, Trevor Mallard, got hold of this bill, everything went downhill. The Labour select committee members have been taken down a path of filibustering on the bill.

The other thing that the people of New Zealand are thankful for tonight is that Prime Minister John Key has saved the film industry for New Zealand. That is a great success for New Zealand. So there are two things that this Government is achieving for New Zealand: the Rugby World Cup and the New Zealand film industry. This Government is focused on success for New Zealand. The Hobbit is one part of that—no thanks to the unions, no thanks to Helen Kelly, and no thanks to the Labour Party—and the other one is the Rugby World Cup, which, thanks to this Government and the hard work of the Government members on the Government Administration Committee, will be a raging success despite the poor efforts of Trevor Mallard.

PHIL TWYFORD (Labour) : Tonight we were subjected to Nikki Kaye breathlessly announcing that the Prime Minister had saved The Hobbit for New Zealand. She was preening and strutting around and telling us that the National Government has` single-handedly rescued the New Zealand film industry. It is very appropriate that that is part of the debate this evening, because underlying the whole debate about the Rugby World Cup, and in fact the public debate about the future of The Hobbit, is the question of Brand New Zealand. This Government, in the way it has handled the dispute about The Hobbit, and in the way it is ramming through Part 4, is sending a very powerful message. The message is that this Government will bend over, as my colleague so eloquently put it, and do anything that is required in order to satisfy itself that it will get the deal.

Tonight we saw the Prime Minister, John Key, basically announce that he will race any other country to the bottom. He is sending the message to international investors that he will do whatever they want him to do. He has written a cheque to Warner Bros for the amount the Government cut out of the budget for adult and community education. What will happen when New Line Cinema comes knocking? What will happen when Disney comes knocking? What will happen when any other investor comes knocking and says: “We want a cash handout. How much will you give?”. Not only is the Prime Minister willing to do that and to sell our national self-respect down the river but also he is willing to sell our sovereign lawmaking to any foreign investor who comes knocking.

We have had a very broad-ranging debate on this issue. Successive speakers have discussed the saving of The Hobbit, and it is relevant to the Rugby World Cup because in Part 4 we see a willingness to compromise the democratic process and to hand over, in this case to the Hon Murray McCully, unfettered urgency powers. It shows a disregard for our constitutional and democratic processes.

Jacqui Dean: The member should read the bill.

PHIL TWYFORD: That member should read the bill, because the only thing that was more galling than listening to Nikki Kaye explain how the Prime Minister saved The Hobbit was hearing Jacqui Dean’s legal argument. She is the Rumpole of the National Party; the Perry Mason of the Government benches.

I will never forget Jacqui Dean’s explanation of why these powers should be handed over to the Hon Murray McCully. Let me rehearse the argument for members in case anybody has forgotten Jacqui Dean’s explanation of why those powers should be handed over to Murray McCully. The argument goes like this: it is ultimately the elected politicians and the Ministers of the day who will be accountable to the public of New Zealand for whether the Rugby World Cup is the success that it could be. That is her argument. It is the elected members of Parliament and the Ministers who will be accountable to the public.

If that is the argument, if that is what it comes down to, if that is Jacqui Dean’s justification, then we might as well shut down the judiciary and the legislature. Why do we not just hand over the entire governance of our country to the Ministers of this Government? Frankly, under Jacqui Dean’s reasoning, it is only Murray McCully and his Cabinet colleagues who are accountable to the New Zealand public, so we might as well just give them a free hand. Every other piece of democratic process, every other piece of our constitutional history, is an impediment to this Government’s aspirations so we might as well just get rid of it. That is pretty much what Jacqui Dean had to say.

Let us talk about Part 4. As my colleague Trevor Mallard has laid out very eloquently, Part 4 gives the Minister for the Rugby World Cup extraordinary powers to override the recommendation of the Rugby World Cup Authority, which is constituted by this bill. It is the contention of members on this side of the Chamber that that is unnecessary and damaging to our democratic process. It essentially makes the Minister unaccountable in the exercise of those executive powers.

The great irony in this whole situation is that Murray McCully is the one member in this Parliament who has demonstrated by his actions why a Minister should not be given unfettered powers to behave in an unaccountable way. We have only to go back as far as 1999, when Murray McCully set up two unaccountable groups of officials in his tourism portfolio because he did not like the advice he was getting from the Tourism Board. Then, after meddling and interfering with the Tourism Board, he sacked three members of the board and paid out $900,000 of taxpayers’ money to keep them quiet. That was all validated in the report of the Auditor-General, and, ultimately, Murray McCully was forced to resign his portfolio because of those shenanigans.

If anyone has demonstrated that we should not give Ministers the kind of unfettered powers that this bill gives them, it is Murray McCully. Yet the members on the Government side seem perfectly willing to hand over those kinds of powers, even though, as we have said for the last few hours of this debate, this bill sets out a comprehensive set of processes and a properly constituted authority—it will be headed by a judge, or a lawyer of 7 years’ standing, with a deputy chair who is a lawyer of 7 years’ standing—with all the powers in the world to recruit and commission. It has an administrative secretariat—it is all there.

The system is set up, yet we have not heard from Government members any justification, any scenario, as to why they cannot trust the Rugby World Cup Authority to do the job that this bill asks it to do. Government members insist on handing over executive powers so that this Minister can act in an unaccountable way. It is wrong, it is inappropriate, and the House should not allow it.

IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North) : Throughout the debate this evening members on the Government benches have been throwing around a few labels, and I think that Part 4 of the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill gives us an opportunity to perhaps introduce a few labels for this Government. “Undemocratic” is a label that sits very comfortably on this Government. It is thoroughly undemocratic. “Dividers” is another label that sits very comfortably on this Government. “Arrogant” is a third label that I think sits very comfortably, and it is all here in Part 4.

The Government is undemocratic because it sets up perfectly good processes in law in other parts of this bill—perfectly good processes—for dealing with applications. It sets up an authority that can hear representations and can hear all sides of the story. It has more than one member, so its members can offer different views and advice to one another. The Government sets up that democratic, robust system and authority, and then, in Part 4, it completely undermines the whole thing and invests all the authority in one person—a Minister. It will probably be either the Minister for the Rugby World Cup or the Minister for Economic Development, and the current Minister for Economic Development is well versed in undemocratic processes.

Jacqui Dean tried to say it was more democratic to vest all this authority in one elected representative, as opposed to a group of appointed officials. Well, in that case, I ask why we do not just do away with the judiciary. Why do we not just do away with courts, judges, the judicial process, natural justice, and the rule of law? We could get rid of all of those things and rely on vesting all power in a single, albeit elected, person. I think people call that a dictatorship. That, obviously, is where the Government would like us to go, and if we have more examples of what we have here in Part 4, then that sort of undemocratic process is where we will end up.

The second label that sits comfortably on this Government is “dividers”. Government members have been incredibly divisive throughout this debate tonight. They have sought to label the Opposition and, bizarrely, they have not been prepared to even countenance the Hon Trevor Mallard’s one amendment to Part 4. There are numerous clauses in Part 4; there are a huge number of clauses in here. The Hon Trevor Mallard wants to make one addition to clause 51 that puts a small handbrake on the Minister’s power. It is an opportunity for there to be consensus; it is an offer of a compromise position.

I think that amendment is a very mature response from the Opposition benches, yet Government members just absolutely refuse to engage in an intellectual debate. They refuse to tell us why they are opposed to the amendment offered up by the Hon Trevor Mallard. They refuse to tell us why they have so much confidence in Part 4 as it is written at the moment, without making that amendment. They simply sit there and hurl abuse at the Opposition for trying to offer an option that we could come to a compromise on and build a consensus on. We could move on, as Government members want us to do. We could move on with this legislation right now—right now—if Government members would just get down off their high horses, drop their arrogance for a second, and countenance the idea that the Opposition can put up a good idea and make an offering to this bill that is useful.

It is just one clause. Jacqui Dean asked why there was no minority report. Well, putting to one side the fact that Sandra Goudie, the member sitting next to Jacqui Dean, does not actually take kindly to minority reports—she likes to trample on democracy and votes them down—there probably was not even a point in putting forward a minority report on Part 4. Clause 51 is one singular clause. I ask what the point is of having an entire minority report for one amendment to one clause, which can simply and efficiently be dealt with in the amendment that we have put forward this evening. That would be the mature response from this Government, but instead we have had childish insults hurled across the Chamber tonight in an effort to try to paint Opposition members, who are simply saying this part vests too much power in one individual.

It is pure arrogance that the Government is not prepared to look at the amendment that Mr Mallard has offered up. If it is not adopted, we may as well cut almost every other provision in this bill. We could probably get rid of Part 3 altogether, most of Part 2 could go, and, frankly, Part 5 could just about be cut out altogether if we leave Part 1 as it is—sorry, Part 4; Mr Mallard is looking at me oddly—because that basically overrides everything else that is in the bill. [Interruption] Yes, I was getting there. The good, solid processes that are already in the bill are thoroughly and completely undermined by Part 4, and it could be so, so easily fixed. It could be easily fixed. We could finish this debate tonight if the Government could get down off its high horse for a second and deal with that issue.

Hon Steve Chadwick: They’ve dug in.

IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Steve Chadwick is absolutely right. Government members have decided to dig in and take the difficult option, rather than seeing sense and just working with the Opposition for once. Part 4 is in dire need of amendment, and the option is still available for the Government to see sense and join with the Opposition in reaching a consensus position.

Of course, I suppose it is not really a particularly great surprise that Government members have taken the undemocratic approach. We have seen it down in Canterbury with regard to Environment Canterbury. There is also a question mark over the powers that have been vested in the Government following the earthquake. That was an emergency situation—

Aaron Gilmore: You guys voted for that.

IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: —and we voted in favour of the legislation because it was an emergency situation, but there are certainly some question marks around it. But again, what actually happened with regard to the Canterbury legislation was that the Government engaged with us to a certain extent, and we were able to reach a position where there was some handbrake on that unbridled power.

Why does it not do the same thing this evening? I ask that of the Minister in the chair, the Hon David Carter. We have not had a single call taken by any of the Ministers who have occupied the chair this evening. I ask what the reason is for not engaging with the Opposition on this amendment. That question lies before the Minister in the chair and before any member on the Government benches who wants to take up that challenge. Government members have not been able to articulate in any meaningful way whatsoever this evening why they are so opposed to a mature and sensible amendment that would simply modify the legislation in a way that would make New Zealanders comfortable with it and make the Opposition comfortable with it, so that we could actually make some progress on this bill.

JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa) : I move, That the question be now put.

DAVID SHEARER (Labour—Mt Albert) : I have spoken on the other parts of the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill, but Part 4 is the crux of why we are debating this bill. We largely support the other parts of the bill, as my colleagues have made very clear. There are some technicalities, but it is Part 4 that we find abhorrent. The reason for that is very simple: the Minister has unbridled power to basically run roughshod over all of the procedures that would otherwise be in place.

We went through Part 2, which sets up the Rugby World Cup Authority. This authority comprises a senior judge of some 7 years’ standing; other members of the authority are also senior. It has the ability to hear in a very, very short time concerns and applications that may arise. We support that. We are setting up a special authority to enable those applications to be heard. Nevertheless, we believe it is important for the Rugby World Cup to have that facility, just in case it is needed. Part 3 sets up all the procedures. The procedures are set out in some detail, as well as the difficulties that could arise, to make sure that the authority is able to hear the submissions—again, so that the proper procedures and the proper democratic process can be followed.

We come to Part 4 and we are more or less throwing Parts 2 and 3 out the window. We are giving the Minister pretty much unbridled power to do whatever he or she likes. We have to ask ourselves why we need Parts 2 and 3. Why do we not just have Part 4? Part 4 could have done what was essentially already there, without the need to go through this debate. This debate is about Part 4 and the ability of the Minister to exercise that power.

We have an alternative. Mr Mallard has put up an amendment. It is a reasonable suggestion and would remove that power. We would be able to go back to an authority that has our full confidence and has full standing, and to a set of procedures that are tight and robust, even given the short time span in which the authority would be able to hear a case. I do not quite understand why we need to give a Minister that sort of power.

As my colleague Iain Lees-Galloway said, this is not the first time. We have had this situation with Environment Canterbury. We had it with the earthquake, which we supported. In some ways we uncomfortably supported it, but we nevertheless supported it. But this is part of a long list of things that we are finding progressively undemocratic, such as the number of Official Information Act requests that we have submitted that take weeks to be answered, and the number of times we have had to appeal to the Ombudsman to ensure that those requests are responded to. We are still waiting weeks for those. This is perhaps a step too far.

John Hayes: Welcome to Opposition.

DAVID SHEARER: John Hayes may try to interject, but it is true. During the lunch break today I was talking to a number of journalists who are having the same problem as we are. We want to get information. It is our right as an Opposition to be able to do that. It is our right as an Opposition to delay this bill. We believe that Part 4 is essentially undemocratic, and it is not in the interests of New Zealand.

Just to rub salt into the wound, Labour is the party that brought the Rugby World Cup to New Zealand. This is the party that had the vision to get out there and argue to get the Rugby World Cup brought to New Zealand. Then we hear a whole bunch of members on the other side of the Chamber saying that somehow we are unpatriotic because we do not support Murray McCully having unfettered power through this bill.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) : I say with a bit of risk that I do not entirely agree with all of the comments the preceding speaker, David Shearer, made, notwithstanding the fact that he is on my side of the Chamber. It is my view that Part 4 of the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill is necessary. There is no doubt in my mind that there has to be an approach for granting urgent approvals. I have given the example of a building. There might well be an occasion when it is appropriate to have a building bowled quickly. There is also the transport issue. As a result of a foul-up at the opening of the Rugby World Cup, the decision might be made to implement some road closures later on for the semi-finals and the finals, and an urgent process would be necessary. I do not think there is a debate about the need for having an urgent process; it is just about the way that it is shaped.

In particular, we can look at the differences in approach between clauses 52 and 53. Clause 52 is “Effect of declaration made by Order in Council”, and clause 53 is “Effect of urgent approval granted by Minister”. They are quite different clauses. I see no problem. I cannot remember whether you, Mr Chairperson Barker, were involved while you were a Minister, but on occasion I was part of very hurriedly put together Executive Council meetings to pass Orders in Council; statutory management is the obvious example. There is an ability for a Government, if necessary, to get three Ministers together in order to form an Executive Council to pass Orders in Council. But I think in undertaking that process we ensure a sense of collective responsibility and make sure there is a check and a balance on a particular individual Minister, rather than letting them run without the checks that are in this bill.

I point out that some useful changes have been made in this bill, especially around the terms and conditions, including the payment of a bond. Unlike the deposits for the Part 3 declarations, the bonds for the Part 4 declarations are such that there can be a deposit not only around the cost of the hearings, but also to secure the costs of any remediation of work that is done, and to make sure that the conditions of the urgent approval are met. That is relatively unusual in New Zealand law; it occasionally happens with oil companies. Because this is a very unusual power I think the Government Administration Committee did a good thing in making sure there was a bonding arrangement and therefore some of the rorts could not occur.

The Rugby World Cup Authority in making its recommendations and the Minister in granting an application—as happens—have to look to a number of factors. One factor is the need to secure public safety, as well as to avoid, control, or mitigate any adverse impacts of a permitted Rugby World Cup activity on the environment. Those additions were made by the select committee. The select committee saw that it was exceptionally important in these urgent cases, which will be irreversible. This is the key part of the legislation. With everything else in the legislation, there is time for appeal, there is time for a reversal, and there is, at least on points of law, an ability to get to a court. But clause 51(4) makes it clear that a decision of the Minister under this section is final. Using the example that we have used on a number of occasions, a decision could well be assigned by a Minister at 11:59, and at 12 o’clock the bulldozers start to move. There is no ability to intervene or to use court processes in order to review or hold the decision. That provision, therefore, is very, very serious.

I think we need to focus as well—and I would be interested in the opinions of Government members, and possibly the Attorney-General’s—on clause 53(2). That clause is designed to make clear that any right that is based on one of these approvals does not give any right based on the use of the land after the expiry of the approval. It is all very well and good to say that a right does not give someone any rights afterwards, but if one has demolished a building in order to make a fan space, then there obviously cannot be, if it is a historic building, a requirement to replace the building in the form that it was. So a lot of these decisions end up being very, very final.

I also say that I think the Minister got it right in the introduction of this legislation after discussions with the Labour Opposition, in having requirement under clause 51(1)(a) and especially (b) to consult relevant Ministers. When a Minister gets a declaration from the authority there is then a requirement on the Minister to go to their colleague the Minister for Economic Development, in this case Mr Brownlee, and then to go to any relevant Minister of the Crown. I think that would generally be the Minister for the Environment or the Minister of Conservation. They are the two who I think are most likely, because they are the Ministers who hold the powers. There might be occasions where the Minister for Biosecurity might become involved; I would again be interested in the view of the Minister in the chair, the Hon David Carter, as to whether the Minister of Agriculture might be consulted if there is a biosecurity issue. In other cases there might be a commerce question or a competition question. I would be interested in the views of Mr Power on whether he envisages becoming involved in this consultation.

There is the question of whether in Subpart 2, “Miscellaneous Provisions”, clause 52 is misplaced. I wonder whether this clause should be earlier in the legislation. The implication is that it relates to Part 4 when, in fact, it relates to Part 3. There could well be confusion with the Act later on. I would be interested in opinion on whether it would be better drafted in an order where the regulation explanation clause—it is not the regulation-making one; that is in clause 48, which is earlier in the bill—sits in the appropriate place.

This is the second of my sets of calls. I finish this call on the same basis as I did my first, and that is with a challenge to Government members to give us a specific example of where they think a Minister of the Crown should have the right on his or her own accord, against the view of a judge and a panel—it is not just a judge; it is also an expert panel—to override those decisions.

PHIL TWYFORD (Labour) : I will pick up on the whole question that Trevor Mallard spoke about in relation to the checks and balances on Ministers. Those checks and balances are a really important part of the conventions of accountable government. The conduct of the Minister responsible for this bill, the Hon Murray McCully, and the Minister who in all likelihood will be the Minister for the Rugby World Cup, is an affront to the conventions of accountable government. I will give members a couple of examples that I think are relevant to this whole debate about the granting of urgency powers. This Minister, as the Minister of Foreign Affairs, has in recent times appointed a former National MP, Mark Blumsky, to a position. The Minister intervened to award a contract worth $78,000, and he awarded it to a former National MP, Mark Blumsky.

Jo Goodhew: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I am looking for relevance to this part and I fail to find it. [Interruption]

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): No, we are not going to have that, thank you. I say to the member that although members have said this is a wide-ranging debate, it is not. People have strayed, and I guess it is going backwards and forwards. However, I suggest to the member that he needs to concentrate on Part 4. There may be other examples that he can tie in by way of example, but they cannot be the main thrust of the member’s speech. We are on Part 4, and I invite the member to continue.

PHIL TWYFORD: Thank you, Mr Chairman, and as you have said, we are discussing Part 4. We are discussing, in particular, the granting of what we regard as excessive powers under the urgency provisions of this bill that allow the Minister for the Rugby World Cup to make decisions that override the recommendations of the officials who are empowered, under this bill, as the Rugby World Cup Authority. That calls into question the commitment of this Government to the normal conventions of accountable government.

My point right now is that this Minister has demonstrated, by his own ministerial record, the very reasons why those conventions of accountable government must be respected. It is very easy to imagine situations where this Minister under this legislation could ignore the advice of officials and override them in the way that he has consistently, as Minister of Foreign Affairs, ignored the advice of foreign affairs officials. He has a track record of making decisions on a whim, without any kind of policy basis. He has cut major multi-year funding contracts without any kind of evaluation or analysis being undertaken about the effectiveness of those projects. He has a cavalier approach, and has systematically ignored and disregarded the advice of officials. That is relevant; that is utterly relevant to the matter that we are debating in this bill, because it formalises the right of this Minister to make decisions in complete disregard of the advice that he receives from the officials and the Rugby World Cup Authority. We have seen that consistently in his conduct as Minister of Foreign Affairs. It has not only been about disregarding the advice of officials in the management of the aid programme, but he has a reputation for cronyism.

Hon Christopher Finlayson: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I have listened carefully to this member’s contribution; it could only be described as emotionally incontinent. Why does he not concentrate on Part 4, instead of indulging in personal abuse? [Interruption]

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): No, I do not need that. [Interruption] I am on my feet; there will be no interchange. The point is I was listening to the debate, and I would say that the member, in my view, is sailing close to the wind. But the point of this legislation is that it does concentrate powers into the hands of certain people. It is not, in my view, outside the realm of the debate to say there might be some concerns about how these people exercise those powers. The point is that the member must concentrate on the bill and make points by way of example. I invite the member to continue.

PHIL TWYFORD: Thank you, Mr Chairman. Part 4 puts certain powers in the hands of the Minister for the Rugby World Cup, although there are some caveats. He is required to do certain things. He is required to secure public safety and to avoid, control, or mitigate any adverse impacts of the event on the environment. But those caveats are minor and trifling, compared with the powers that are being put into the hands of the Minister for the Rugby World Cup. It is a concern to me and to members on this side of the Chamber that the very person who will be exercising those powers under this legislation has a track record and history of disregard for the basic conventions of accountable government. We saw that back in the 1990s with regard to the Tourism Board, and we see it now with the management of the foreign aid programme.

SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) : I move, That the question be now put.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) : We have now reached not the most party-based politically contentious part of the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill but the bit that is actually contentious among members. I indicate that on Part 5, and on the amendments that will follow, Labour will be having a conscience vote, because this part concerns liquor licensing, which has traditionally been subject to a conscience vote for Labour members of Parliament. There will be the ability, of course, for Labour members to table amendments to this part, on which there will be a range of views. It is fair to say that my younger—half my age—colleague Iain Lees-Galloway and I have some views on this part that differ.

My view is that, overall, between the work of the Minister for the Rugby World Cup and the work of the Government Administration Committee, a pretty sensible regime has been put together. There is not much doubt that the intention of this part is to liberalise a set of rules and to make it easier to get liquor licences, and, in my opinion, it will be easier to get a more coherent system for dealing with liquor licences on a temporary basis within particular areas, to get some logical planning and some flow around not the big fan zones but the smaller areas, and to ensure that that happens all around the country, not only in places where matches are being played—

Jacqui Dean: Even in the South Island.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Even in Temuka, or wherever it is that the member comes from. Applications for those licences will be made under this part.

Further to that, although I do not have the expertise of the Attorney-General on the definition of “extraterritorial”, this legislation will affect ships at sea, certainly ships within New Zealand’s territorial waters. Those ships will be able to have liquor licences under clause 57, “Interpretation”, and the new interpretation of “ship”. I say to the Rugby World Cup people that although I myself was not there for the presentation, I believe that Therese Walsh gave a cogent presentation on behalf of Rugby World Cup 2011. She made an argument for cruise ships to be able to have liquor licences issued under Part 5. What surprised me is that it became clear to members of the committee that there is a theoretical ruling—I am pretty certain it does not actually happen—that cruise ships while in New Zealand waters cannot have their bars open. It is a really interesting concept, but we need to consider wider legal change if we want to make New Zealand an attractive place for cruise ships. Those of us who have cruised know about the consumption of alcohol on cruise ships—[Interruption] I make absolutely clear to my younger colleagues who have different interpretations of that word that I was quite surprised to learn that, generally, cruise ships within New Zealand waters do not have liquor licences. Clearly, the ferries and some of the ships that ply the coast do, and that is important.

I thank John Hayes, as he and I worked together pretty well on subclause 59(3) to make sure that clubs with permanent charters would not be adversely affected and would be allowed to apply for this sort of special licence. I am sure that the Pētone Working Men’s Club, which is the biggest chartered club in the Wellington region and one of the biggest in the country, will be pleased about this.

But we also recognised that in granting these applications there was an element of risk; there was a danger to the community from the less than scrupulous. [Interruption] I do not want to comment on what I am looking at, Mr Chairman, but I am not sure it is entirely appropriate for you to be addressed in that manner by that member! To return to the bill, the question is what we do with people who breach their special licences made under the Rugby World Cup legislation. We have made clear that if they lose that licence they lose their general licence. They cannot just revert back to one of their old licences if they have a breach. And it is easier for a licensee to lose a licence under this legislation than would normally be the case, so I sound a warning to people out there who will be running bars under this legislation. People do not have to do that. If they want to they can continue operating under their current licences, with one exception, and that is venues. If you are a venue with a current licence, you will be required under this legislation to apply for a Rugby World Cup licence. That requirement was introduced at the request of the Rugby World Cup company in order to make sure there was consistency.

I also know that my colleagues, as members opposite do, have different views about the containers in which liquor should be delivered. I am relatively old-fashioned in these matters and I just hate drinking beer out of paper cups. I know that the Chairman has a different view; the Chairman has drunk quite a lot of beer out of paper cups—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): I say to the member that it is not appropriate to bring the Chair into the debate. What the Chair has or has not done is immaterial. I am here merely to facilitate the debate. The member sets high standards on the rules in the Chamber and I want to make sure he maintains his own standard. By the way, I am not a venue. You said “you are a venue”; the Chair is not a venue.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: That could be interpreted in a number of ways. I think some pretty exciting games have been played there.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): There has been a ruling. The member cannot go back to comment on it. The matter is closed.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: If it was, it would have been even more exciting!

I thank the Chair for that intervention. The point I am making is that experienced members of this House have been to a number of American football matches and they have been discussing them with me recently. There have been large paper cups of beer there and they have consumed them. I am relatively old-fashioned. I do not mind a tinny, but I prefer—[Interruption] Not a tinny house; the can. The generation gap here is awful. I do not mind drinking beer out of a can; that is the point I am making. I prefer to have it from a glass, but I certainly disagree with those members, including Judith Collins, who wanted to force people to carry around paper cups of flat beer provided from pourers. I think that would make us look like a pretty Mickey Mouse operation. I say well done to Murray McCully, because he stood up to Judith Collins. Not many people have done that. Not many people have stood up in that way.

I now refer especially to clause 73, “Other conditions of licences”. Clause 73(1)(a) makes it clear that the licences must specify the days on which liquor can be sold—that is important—the hours, and conditions relating to the sale and supply of low-alcohol beverages and the provision of food for consumption. But there is something missing here and it is one of the few things Iain Lees-Galloway and I agree on. It is the question of transportation—notices around transportation, and the importance of that.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): Before I call the next speaker I want to make an amendment to the vote. There was a mistake in the addition of the voting on the question that Part 4 stand part. The vote should have been announced as 68 for the Ayes, 48 for the Noes. The record will be corrected.

IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North) : I have been positioned by a number of members this evening, and now I am even being positioned by a member on my own side, which is a little bit concerning. I suspect that there is a generation gap between the Hon Trevor Mallard—

Hon Trevor Mallard: Or two.

IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Yeah, maybe, but I suspect that Mr Mallard and I may end up finding that we agree on more; there will be more that binds us than separates us on this matter.

It is fair to say that in my role as the Opposition’s associate health spokesperson working in the drug and alcohol treatment area, a number of the people whom I work with and discuss policy with have expressed their concerns to me about Part 5 of the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill because it liberalises liquor licences and, superficially at least, makes it easier to acquire a licence for the period of time that the tournament is occurring. It could cause a proliferation of liquor outlets, and that would be occurring alongside a massive influx of people who are looking for entertainment, looking to go out and drink, and will be out in the cities that are hosting test matches across the country. That is a potential cocktail—pun intended; the member should not look at me like that—for trouble and will be a lot of work for the police, hospitals, emergency departments, and community organisations.

There is a lot of potential for damage, harm, and mess—in all senses and all definitions of the word “mess”—during the world cup. Yes, out there amongst certain sectors of the public, there are some concerns about what Part 5 actually sets out to achieve. However, having looked reasonably closely at Part 5, I think it does a fairly good job of recognising the fact that we need to respond to a large number of people who will be seeking entertainment at entertainment venues.

Some of the points raised in the previous speech were interesting. I have heard bodies referred to as temples; I have even heard one former Prime Minister refer to his body as a warehouse. But to refer to someone’s body as an entertainment venue is a whole new area that perhaps we should not traverse too much tonight.

This bill responds to the fact that a number of people will be looking for entertainment and that our cities will need to be able to respond to that. It does so in, I think, a reasonably responsible way. One of the best provisions in the bill is that those who have acquired a licence under this legislation—they have applied to the Rugby World Cup Authority rather than having a standard Sale of Liquor Act licence—will be required in law to provide free water. That is a significant advance, and perhaps it is leading the way in terms of changes that we might be able to make to our regular legislation. It is a very sensible provision within the bill; I think it makes a lot of sense.

I am concerned about the liberalising and opening up of alcohol consumption on cruise ships. My colleague seems quite excited about this, but the concept of a booze cruise and people conglomerating on a cruise ship with the one purpose in mind of becoming intoxicated is concerning, not least because they are on water and one can fall off a ship. The potential consequences of that are somewhat more dramatic than losing one’s balance in a bar. It is concerning also because of the fact that people are concentrated in an area, and there are few options, especially once the ship is offshore. Once people are out there, they are out there, and their options in terms of walking away from the situation are minimised.

I think it is fair that we discuss this matter a little further. I am certainly open-minded to other members’ opinions on it, and I will be in the Chamber to listen to them. I think it is important in a conscience vote that—

JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa) : I move, That the question be now put.

JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) : It is my pleasure to take a call on Part 5 of the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill, which I have not had an opportunity to speak on. I think the comments made by my colleagues reflect the importance that this part has within the bill. It refers specifically to liquor licences. My colleague Iain Lees-Galloway, who has specific responsibility for alcohol matters for the Labour Party, has outlined some of our specific views, but I will touch on a couple of elements that may not have been raised in the debate thus far.

Clause 56 makes a reference in subclause (1)(a) to “the significance of the Rugby World Cup 2011 … the scale of the hospitality that is needed,”. It is unusual to have such language in a bill, but I think it demonstrates the different situation that we are dealing with when it comes to the provision of hospitality specifically for the Rugby World Cup. I wish to outline two concerns. We are expecting anywhere between 70,000 and 85,000 visitors as a consequence of the Rugby World Cup. It is a considerable ask for our existing providers of hospitality, particularly within our city centres like Auckland central, to cover the demands of that huge influx of people. Although, as required under our contract as hosts for the Rugby World Cup, fan zones will be specifically set up to deal with this huge influx, we are also expecting existing hospitality providers to cope. From the conversations I have had with business owners in, for instance, the Ponsonby area, which is very close to central Auckland, they are telling me that they are booked out via corporate functions and corporate hospitality by domestic fans already. Their services are already in demand to the extent that they have no capacity to deal with the additional international guests that we will be hosting.

I guess for me that has highlighted a separate issue when it comes to hospitality, which is that we really need to make sure that the city council and the Rugby World Cup Authority, which is established by this legislation, work really closely with our business associations, and not just the Ponsonby association, Heart of the City, and the loosely formed West Lynn business association, but also the association out in Mount Albert, as well. Not only does the city council need to liaise with them in a more coherent way—because my understanding is that the transition to the super-city has really acted as a barrier to that happening—but also the authority needs to, as well. The businesses will be our interface with our international guests. Although we may put in place all that is necessary to allow additional licences to be granted, we will be asking existing licence holders to deal with this huge event. I do not believe that we have included them in our planning enough to date. That is just a request, if anything, to involve them, and perhaps a word of caution, as well.

I am pleased to see that under clause 56, the purpose clause in this part of the bill, we have highlighted that priority is to be given to “matters of public health and safety”, and also to “the minimisation of harm to persons and property.”

I wonder about the Minister currently in the chair, the Hon David Carter. I think this is the third call in which I have asked the Minister to respond during the Committee stage. I do not think that a response has happened once, and it has been quite a lengthy Committee stage, so that is unfortunate. The request that I make is for the Government to perhaps outline whether it has any expectations about how harm minimisation will occur. Helpfully, Iain Lees-Galloway has pointed out that an unprecedented requirement will now be that some of the suppliers—those who hold licences—will need to provide water. That may seem to be very simple, but people who have been to a very large event will know that they have to hand over their first-born to buy one bottle of water, and will know what a significant change that will be. I wonder whether the Government could outline its other expectations in that area.

I am pleased, as well, that scattered through this part, and also through other parts of the bill, we have significant references to public health. I find that to be ironic, given that in every other aspect of health care generally, the Government has slashed and burned.

IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North) : I will pick up where I was cut off just before. I am looking for clauses in Part 5 of the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill that can give me some reassurance about this part. I was looking at clause 60(6), which says that when “the administrative secretariat forwards an application to the Authority, the administrative secretariat must provide a copy of each application to—(a) the constable in charge of the Police station nearest to the premises or area in respect of which the licence is sought; and (b) the Medical Officer of Health of the district within which those premises or that area is situated; and (c) an inspector; and (d) the chief executive of the New Zealand Fire Service.” It is extremely reassuring that all of those organisations and individuals will be consulted about, and will be aware of, liquor licences that have been applied for under this legislation. Again, I think this clause is another example of how this part does a reasonable job of balancing the need to make venues and alcoholic beverages available with the need to have a focus on public health, and public safety as well.

As Jacinda Ardern picked up on, it is somewhat unusual that this legislation has a fairly good public health focus. That leads me back to the comments made earlier in the debate about which vessels should be used as containers for alcoholic beverages. I believe that the Government should have been a bit bolder, resisted the influence of the liquor industry, and actually said yes, it was OK to have alcoholic beverages in paper cups or in something other than bottles and cans. There are numerous examples of fans having become intoxicated in a group, and of a pack mentality starting to set in. People do things that they would not ordinarily do, and they probably feel quite ashamed about them the next day. Those vessels quickly become missiles, and they can become dangerous, not just to the other people who are watching the matches but also to the players themselves, and potentially to people out in the streets, as well.

I think that the Government should have taken a tougher line on that. It is not unusual for this Government to—I think I should be careful with the words I use, given the warnings that I was given earlier in the night, but when it comes to corporations, especially multinational corporations, this Government is not inclined to stand up to them. It certainly does not say we have a Kiwi way of doing things, and that is the way we will do things in this country. It pretty much just says yes to anything that any corporation says.

Jacinda Ardern: It’s not unparliamentary language.

IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: My colleague Jacinda Ardern is assisting me by saying that the phrase that I used earlier was not unparliamentary. That is true, but I do not really want to trifle with the Chairperson any more than I did. I certainly would not want to see Jacqui Dean need to take any more points of order because I offend her in some way.

I would like to move on to the amendment that is in my name. It is to make a small amendment to Subpart 3. Subpart 3, specifically subclause 72(1)(a), deals with the signage that licensees are required to place in their venues. I saw this as a practical opportunity to improve health and safety for partygoers and people who are at the venues, by requiring the signage to include details of transport options that are available near the premises for patrons, to encourage them to choose safe transportation. There is a reason why I chose that particular method of mitigating the harms related to alcohol: because a lot of the other ones are already well and truly on display and available to patrons. Low-alcohol and non-alcoholic beverages will be clearly visible in the premises. The food that will be required will be clearly visible on the premises, as well. Even though venues will be required to make available to patrons transport options to assist them and ensure their safety, there is no requirement—

CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South) : With regard to Part 5 of the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill, which provides for the temporary process for licensing the sale and supply of liquor in the context of the particular hosting responsibilities related to the Rugby World Cup, I would also like to mention what a number of my colleagues have talked about regarding the vessels, the containers, or the receptacles that contain the liquor. Although my colleague Trevor Mallard expressed his pickiness about the receptacles, I would like to say I am not particularly picky about the receptacles in which the liquor is held; personally, I am more picky about the liquor itself and the quality of that liquor.

I think, on a more serious note, that this is an important issue. As my colleague Iain Lees-Galloway has pointed out, a number of issues are associated with that, as we know from past experience. Some of these issues I have witnessed myself, where people have had liquor sold to them, they became inebriated, and they got into such a state of excitability that they used the receptacles as missiles. This is an important issue, and it is certainly something that needs to be taken into account.

I also note what my colleague Trevor Mallard said about the liquor issue being subject to a conscience vote, and certainly that is important. The whole of New Zealand is having a lot of discussion at the moment on the wider issues of liquor and its effects on our society.

I will comment about two particular aspects. One aspect is the venues, which I do not think have been talked about very much—the kinds of venues in which liquor will be sold, and for which licences will be sought to sell liquor during the Rugby World Cup. I make particular mention of some of the discussion that has been happening in Dunedin around where the rugby fans could be watching the games—and this is an issue not just in Dunedin but right around the country, in centres where games are not being held. The issue is about the venues in which people will be watching games and for which liquor licences will be sought. There is quite an interesting discussion about the possibility that Dunedin rugby fans could be watching the Rugby World Cup final in 3-D on a big screen at the new Forsyth Barr Stadium in Dunedin, from the comfort of a cinema seat. I note also that there is discussion about cinema lines around the country looking to screen some of the matches in cinemas. Members have to ask whether liquor will be sold in those venues. Presumably it will be.

• Progress reported.

• Report adopted.