Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Acting Minister for the Rugby World Cup) Link to this

I move, That the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill be now read a first time. At the appropriate time, I intend to move that the bill be considered by the Government Administration Committee and that the committee report finally to the House on or before 23 August 2010. The bill is temporary legislation intended to enable the consent and regulatory approvals necessary for the smooth running of activities related to the Rugby World Cup and the facilities that will support that event. It will help to ensure that New Zealand can meet its hospitality and hosting requirements and can take full advantage of the opportunities that hosting this event will produce.

The bill has three main parts. First, it covers the establishment of a Rugby World Cup Authority to consider and determine applications for approvals and declarations of permitted activities or facilities under an expedited process. Second, it makes provision for urgent declarations of permitted Rugby World Cup activities or facilities to be made by Order in Council, and for urgent approvals to be granted during the tournament for matters reasonably necessary for the proper conduct of the Rugby World Cup. It also establishes a Rugby World Cup liquor licensing regime that will allow the Rugby World Cup Authority to grant the temporary liquor licences necessary for the unique hospitality requirements of this event.

The bill is necessary because the approval process under existing legislation is not sufficient to cater for the extraordinary requirements that this event will present. The Rugby World Cup is one of the largest sporting events in the world, and it will be the largest event ever staged in New Zealand. The 2011 tournament is expected to attract a television audience of close to 4 billion people and to draw at least 85,000 international visitors to New Zealand over a 6-week period in September and October of 2011.

The hosting requirements for an event of this scale present significant infrastructural challenges. Time-critical temporary Rugby World Cup activities and facilities will require a wide range of consents, licences, and regulatory approvals that existing processes are not suited to address. This is because of the long time frames currently needed for some approval processes, the risk of capacity constraints arising within some consenting authorities, and the likelihood that urgent approvals may be needed to resolve unforeseen circumstances during the tournament itself.

Several options have been considered for addressing consents and regulatory approvals in relation to this event. The options considered included amending district plans or local by-laws, and making amendments to the Major Events Management Act 2007 to include provision for a streamlined consent process for every event that is declared a major event. However, after considering these options, together with legislative precedents both in New Zealand and overseas, the option of a stand-alone bill specific to the Rugby World Cup was preferred. A Rugby World Cup - specific bill also limits any adverse impacts to those that are unavoidable for the successful hosting of this event.

The bill is time-bound and will cease to have effect shortly after the conclusion of the Rugby World Cup. There is precedent for legislation of this nature in the America’s Cup (Planning) Act 1989, which was enacted to address consenting requirements for the development of Auckland’s Viaduct Basin for the possible defence of an America’s Cup at that time. Another example is the Local Government (Millennium Events) Amendment Act 1999, which temporarily amended the Local Government Act 1974 in order to enable local authorities to apply to central government for amendments to district plans to accommodate millennium events. There are also examples from overseas—notably, the London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Act 2006 and the Commonwealth Games Arrangements Act 2001, which was enacted for the 2006 Melbourne Commonwealth Games.

Concerns may be expressed that the mechanisms in this bill contain limited rights to public participation in a consenting process, limited rights of appeal, and temporary replacement of other existing legislation. I believe that those concerns are outweighed by the benefits that the bill will provide by ensuring that approvals for Rugby World Cup activities and facilities can be dealt with in a nationally consistent manner without unnecessary cost or delay. It is also possible that certain activities approved by the authority may impose temporary costs on some people and/or the environment. By and large, they would be temporary and in the form of elevated noise levels, diminished amenity values, and increased traffic congestion associated with permitted Rugby World Cup activities, all of which should be expected with an event of this nature. In hearing applications for temporary approvals, the Rugby World Cup Authority will be expected to weigh the costs and benefits of proposed actions according to the same principles as would be applied normally, though in a shortened time frame and having particular regard for the need to ensure the proper conduct of the event.

In certain cases, where urgent consent is required, appeal rights are curtailed in order that urgent consents for critical tournament infrastructure can be granted. This could be perceived by some as a restriction of their rights to be heard on consent issues. The concern is, I think, offset by the economic and national interest benefits of ensuring that hosting opportunities are maximised and the international expectations of New Zealand are met, as well as preserving and enhancing our reputation as a future major events destination. It is important, however, that the proposed legislation does not unfairly curtail rights to public participation in the consenting process or the ability of businesses and individuals to express their views on the impacts of proposals. I believe that the bill strikes a balance between the need to ensure the Rugby World Cup can deliver optimum benefit to New Zealanders and to our New Zealand communities and the needs and expectations of those affected by temporary infrastructure and arrangements that may be required. The fixed tournament time frame requires that the bill strikes a balance between participation principles and expediting processes to achieve the necessary outcomes. The bill presents the best effort to get a balance between those competing interests.

I will now address the three main parts of the bill. First, it empowers the Rugby World Cup Authority to be established as the consenting body to consider applications for regulatory approvals for activities, facilities, etc. that are reasonably necessary for the proper conduct of the Rugby World Cup. These might include, for example, resource consents for temporary structures like marquees that may be required around Rugby World Cup hospitality close to venues. These provisions will mean that the Rugby World Cup Authority will be able to declare that classes of facilities or activities are permitted for the Ruby World Cup and will not be subject to further approval requirements. Applications for declarations of permitted activities or facilities are subject to tight criteria, which will ensure that the declarations are granted only for matters that relate to the Rugby World Cup.

The other parts of this bill that are the most important are the parts that contain two mechanisms for urgent Rugby World Cup approval of facilities, a power for the Governor-General to make regulations so prescribing, and a power for the Minister for the Rugby World Cup to grant temporary or urgent approvals for such activities. Those powers are constrained by the fact that there needs to be representation to the Minister or the Governor-General from the Rugby World Cup Authority, and a Minister must consider the authority’s recommendations also and consult with the Minister for Economic Development—a very cooperative Minister in this regard—and the Minister for the Environment. On the issue of liquor licensing, the bill establishes temporary arrangements; people should not be concerned about that. One of the primary objectives is to make sure that issues around public health and safety are to the fore and that harm minimisation is well considered.

This will be one of the great events for New Zealand. It was heralded when the previous Government assisted the Rugby Union in securing the opportunity to run the Rugby World Cup, as it was seen as being of great potential value to New Zealand. The current Government concurs with that view. We look forward to the passage of this bill tonight in a spirit that says that we want New Zealand to make the very best of the opportunities that this event could present to us.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) Link to this

I thank the Acting Minister for his introductory speech, which sounded a bit like it had been drafted in another office. It did not really sound like him. It sounded like his heart was perhaps not quite in it in the way that it may otherwise be.

I will make it clear from the beginning that the Labour Opposition will support the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill going to a select committee. I think it is important that that select committee has hearings, especially in Auckland, to work through the issues in the bill. But I do make it clear to the Minister that it may well be that Labour does not support it further unless some of our concerns around the bill are sorted out.

I say to the Minister that our primary concern with this legislation is the power that is left in the hands of a Minister for liquor licensing, town planning, and resource consent issues in a way that, in my opinion, is inconsistent. I thank Mr McCully and his office for the consultation that has occurred to date, and I think this bill is better than it was when we first saw drafts of it. But the concern that I have is that even with the guiding hand of the Minister for Economic Development, I am not sure that any Minister should be making decisions about roads being opened or closed, buildings being developed, bars being opened or closed, or licences being taken away or granted. My view is that our system works better when we have people who have a proper judicial or senior legal background making those decisions, rather than those decisions being, in the end, political decisions. The legislation is drafted at the moment so that although a Minister must receive the recommendation from the Rugby World Cup Authority, he is not obliged to take it. I think that is an issue that has to be worked through.

As to the necessity for having legislation, there are two areas that convince me that it is necessary. One is that in the end we do not know what we do not know. There could well be something that becomes apparent quite late in the process where we will need to have changes made that would go across normal resource consent procedures, especially the time frames involved in those. There is a degree of unpredictability about what that might be. Some of it might happen right up until, or even during, the Rugby World Cup—for example, if there is a transport planning problem that becomes apparent in Auckland and planning for particular streets needs to be changed. If it was in Wellington, there would not be a problem as the local authority has systems that could do it relatively quickly.

Then we get on to what the second problem is, which is Auckland. Auckland at the best of times is not good at handling major events. Its regulatory processes are not good. Its ability to do things—

JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) Link to this

I rise to speak to the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill. This bill provides temporary legislation to enable timely consent and regulatory approvals necessary for Rugby World Cup 2011 activities and facilities. It involves the establishment of the Rugby World Cup Authority, and it establishes provisions for urgent consents. It also provides for the establishment of a Rugby World Cup liquor licensing scheme.

This event is one of the biggest-ever sporting events to come to New Zealand—I hope it is, anyway. It is certainly important for New Zealand’s global brand, and it is incredibly important for our economy, not only in the big cities—Auckland, Dunedin, Christchurch, or Hamilton—but also all over New Zealand, right down to the smallest towns. They have understood and realised the opportunity we face, with up to 85,000 visitors—and possibly more—expected, and with many more watching on television. It really is a chance for us to showcase New Zealand to the world as a great place to live, a great place to visit, and a very good place in which to do business.

This bill will help make the Rugby World Cup a success by allowing the temporary streamlining of Government regulatory processes. I imagine that they will be things like the consenting processes required to erect a marquee for some kind of event related to a game. Those processes can be expensive and timely. I imagine that the bill deals with that kind of process, and with the myriad other processes and consents required—and the timeliness of them—to ensure the success of the tournament and the many activities that will support it.

This event is the third-largest sporting event in the world, and it is the largest event that New Zealand has ever hosted. A lot of planning has gone into it, and this bill is an important part of the process. A deliberate decision was made to spread the tournament right around the country. It has been said, and it is true, that we are a stadium of 4 million people. There are 48 matches in 13 venues across New Zealand. That provides enormous opportunity for smaller centres, which may not even be hosting a game, to take advantage of the interest in the Rugby World Cup and to put on their own festivals associated with the tournament. In my own corner of the South Island, in Ōāmaru, North Otago, we are hosting the New Zealand Golden Oldies Rugby Festival. Planning has been under way for well over a year. It will culminate in a rugby game that will comprise the North Otago Waitaki Wasps versus the rest of the world. I am hoping to play a small part in that—I think I will be the ball boy. But—

GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) Link to this

I rise to join with the Labour Party in supporting, as Trevor Mallard has already noted, the referral of the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill to a select committee. [ Interruption] It is very important to note that it will be referred to the Government Administration Committee, where I will look forward to Mr Hayes’ normal constructive contribution throughout.

DAVID CLENDON (Green) Link to this

Kia ora koutou. The Greens, like all other members and parties in this House, are eager to see a successful event in 2011. The Rugby World Cup will be the largest sporting event this country has ever hosted. It is large even on an international scale. There are significant opportunities to showcase the country, its businesses, its tourism opportunities; all of those things.

We had quite an engaged debate about this bill, the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill, and about our support for it, or not. The outcome of the debate was that we were not entirely convinced of the need for a bill to facilitate what is apparently needed, though I have listened with interest, particularly to Mr Mallard’s comments. What we are quite clear about is that we cannot support this bill in its present form. When we look at this bill, effectively what we see is the construction of a large rubber stamp that will give extraordinary powers to the Minister for the Rugby World Cup to override normal processes of resource management through liquor licensing, and various other consenting and licensing approvals.

When the news broke in 2005 that we had the rights to the Rugby World Cup, somewhat unexpectedly, at that point clearly we had a 6-year window of opportunity to make this thing happen. We are now 5 years into that; we have another year ahead of us before kick off at the first game. If we think it through, what is this cup effectively? It is a series of rugby games, with a number of hospitality and other events that will be organised around it. The scale is new but, after all, we have significant experience in this country of organising sports tournaments—in particular, rugby tournaments.

I take Mr Mallard’s point that we do not know what we do not know. There is the possibility of something entirely unforeseen, but we fail to see that there is a need for the extremely wide-ranging powers given to the Minister in this bill to deal with these unforeseen circumstances, or so-called unforeseen circumstances, of urgency that would necessitate overriding the standard Resource Management Act processes and other processes to ensure that activities or facilities can be made available. We have had 5 years, and we have another year ahead of us, to plan and to prepare for this event. I have perhaps more faith than others in the ability of the people charged with organising this series of events to have got it substantially right.

Mr Brownlee, in presenting the bill, suggested the example of erecting a marquee. I acknowledge that Auckland, in particular, has not always been faultless in getting through these various processes, but I cannot believe that anybody would fail to get resource consent to erect a marquee in under a year. That simply would not happen. It is quite a nonsensical suggestion to say that we need special empowering legislation to erect a marquee where people can eat, drink, and party for an evening or two.

I ask why there is a need to overhaul the Sale of Liquor Act provisions. There will be drink—rugby and drinking go hand in hand in this country—there will probably be a lot of it. We are aware of the Law Commission’s recent report that indicated that perhaps we need to remove sport from liquor to a more significant degree than we do. But, none the less, many of us, probably, have had the experience of applying for a special liquor licence. I have done it personally for events around community groups. I was on a board of trustees. We had cabaret nights. It is actually not a complicated or a difficult process to get a special licence for an event to serve liquor, to sell it, or to supply it. We fail to see why we need to override a piece of legislation the Sale of Liquor Act that seems to work reasonably well, reasonably quietly, and that we have had in place for a very long time.

It is interesting to note the executive summary in the regulatory impact statement that accompanies the bill. At the time of writing of that document the police were opposed to the idea of creating a whole new regime for licensing, but clearly, according to announcements in the last week or so, the police have come round to the position of saying that it is OK. Clearly their primary focus is on public safety, preventing disorder, and so on, but the fact is that taking away the sale of liquor provisions significantly reduces the opportunity for people to participate, to have a say, to appeal, and generally to be heard.

There is a provision in the bill that is quite concerning. It specifically prohibits the authority from considering the impact on existing licence holders, either people getting special licences under this proposed legislation or under the Sale of Liquor Act. We think it is unfortunate that hospitality providers who have invested, and who are investing, heavily in providing venues and services for this event, could potentially be undermined if one-off facilities, if you like, are allowed. If I was the owner of a hospitality venue at the Viaduct Basin, for example, I would be very concerned that somebody might put up a marquee, add a bar, some music, some big screens and take business away, when I have been investing heavily in that business.

The regulatory impact statement under the heading “Risk Assessment” states: “The purpose of the legislation is not to supplant existing resource management, liquor licensing and other consenting processes, but to support the existing regime with additional measures that the unique circumstances of the cup may call upon.” I hope that the author of those words had the good grace to blush as he or she wrote them, because exactly what this proposed legislation does is supplant resource management provisions. It supplants the existing, and quite satisfactory and adequate, Sale of Liquor Act. So I wonder again about the perceived necessity for this legislation. I acknowledge that there may be a requirement for something, for the extreme, genuinely unforeseen emergency circumstance, but this bill goes many steps too far for us to support at this point.

We are told that the provisions of the bill could reduce compliance costs, perhaps streamline processes, and increase the level of national consistency. Potentially it could do that; it is always easy to streamline, to make things happen more quickly and more cheaply. Whether we would get desirable outcomes, however, is a moot point. We certainly would be doing that at the cost of allowing reasonable opportunity for public participation, the public’s right to know and to be heard, and for rights of appeal to be carried through as they would.

So on balance, with the best will in the world towards the event itself, and acknowledging that there may be a justifiable argument to be made for some modest degree of power or extra power to be given to the Minister, we cannot in all conscience support this bill with its extremely wide-ranging powers. Effectively we cannot and will not support the notion of a rubber stamp. Kia ora koutou.

TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki) Link to this

Tēnā koe Mr Speaker, kia ora tātau katoa e te Whare, tātau kua hui mai i tēnei pō ki te wānanga i tēnei o ngā take, arā, ko tēnei pire mō te Kapu Whutupōro o te Ao ā te tau e heke mai nei. Mr Speaker, ko te aronga o te ao Māori ki tēnei mea te whutupōro, he take e mōhiotia ana e te motu, me kī, kua roa te ao Māori e whaiwhai haere ana i tēnei mea te whutupōro. Ā, i tēnei tau tonu nei kei te whakanuia te kotahi rautau o te whutupōro Māori i runga i te mata whenua, me kī, te whakanui i te noho o te ao Māori i roto i te whutupōro. I te Paraire kua hipa ake i toa te tīma Māori, ī ā, ki a Airani, i eke panuku, i eke tangaroa. I muia tōku kāinga o roto o Te Arawa i Rotorua e te tangata, e te Māori. I noho whakahīhī nei ki te toa o te tīma Māori ki runga i te manuhiri, ki runga i a Airani. Āpōpō, ka tau atu ki roto o Heretaunga ki reira pakanga atu ai ki a Ingarangi, kātahi ka kitea mai ai mēnā he toa nui, whakaharahara nei te tīma Māori, he aha rānei. Engari, koinā te tūmanako.

I ngā tau kua hipa e hia kē nei ngā Māori kua eke ki ngā taumata katoa, me kī, anei anō te mema nei a Paora Quinn. Kua eke tērā hei kāpene mō te tīma Māori. Ko ētahi o ngā kāpene o te tīma Māori kua noho hei kāpene anō hoki mō te Kapa ō Pango. He tika tā te mema rā pea, engari he toa, he toa. Ko Buck Shelford tētahi kua noho hei kāpene mō Aotearoa, me kī, ko Tāne Norton, ko Taine Randell, rātau katoa kua noho, me kī, kei tērā taumata o te Kapa ō Pango mō Aotearoa nei. Nō reira, ko te tino pūtake o taku kōrero, Mr Speaker, he whakamārama ake i te ngākaunui o te iwi Māori ki te whutupōro.

Nō reira, i tēnei wāhanga o tēnei pire, arā, te pānuitanga tuatahi, ka tautoko ake te Pāti Māori ki tēnei o ngā take. Nā, tērā pea kāore anō ētahi kia rongo engari, i kī mai te tumuaki o Te Puni Kōkiri, a Leith Comer, he āhua ōrite, me kī, te ngākaunui, ā, ka mutu, te noho o te tīma Māori nei ki tērā o te hunga i haere ki tāwāhi ki te Hokowhitu-ā-Tū, arā, te Rua Tekau Mā Waru. Ā, i runga i te papa pakanga tētahi, i runga i te papa tākaro tētahi. Ngā mea e rua, arā, ko te tīma Māori me te Rōpū Rua Tekau Mā Waru he kaupapa hei whakanui i a tātau a Aotearoa nei. Nō reira, koinei te āhuatanga o tēnei mea o te whutupōro, he whakakotahi nei pea i a tātau. Ā, kāti, me kī, he kōrero whānui tēnei hei tīmatanga kōrero māku. Nā, kia hoki rā anō ki te pūtake o tēnei pire.

Pēnei i tā wētahi e kōrero nei, āe, kāore e kore ka tau mai ētahi painga ki Aotearoa nei nā te Kapu o te Ao engari, ko te mate kē ki tā mātau titiro, e hāngai tonu ana, me kī, ki ngā mahi, ki ngā whakahaere, ki ngā whare, ki ngā momo āwhina ā-whare nei, ki te Kapu o te Ao; kaua ki te hunga mātakitaki; kaua ki te hunga tākaro; kaua ki te hunga tautoko, arā me kī, ko te hunga e tautoko nei i te kapu. Ko te raru kē, ka titiro te pire nei ki ngā mea, me kī, whakahaere, arā, pēnei i te mahi unu waipiro. Nō reira ka hoki mai ki tērā.

Ko te mea tuarua, pēnei i tā ētahi atu o ngā mema e kī nei, ko te mahi o tēnei pire he whakatū i tētahi mana whakahaere me kī, arā, te Rugby World Cup Authority. He rōpū, ko tāna mahi he whakaae, he whakahē rānei i ētahi tono mō ētahi whakahaere i roto i te Kapu. Ko te mate kē, pēnei i tā ētahi atu o ngā mema e kī nei, tōna mutunga mai ka whakamanahia te tangata kotahi. Ko te Minita tērā i tōna mutunga mai. Nō reira kei te āhua noho rangirua tonu mātau ki tērā āhuatanga, mēnā ka riro mā te Minita i tōna kotahi e whakamana, e whakahē rānei i ētahi o ngā mea ka whakahaeretia ā te wā o te Kapu o te Ao. Ka mutu, kei te noho āhua manawapā tonu te Pāti Māori i te mea, kāore te Minita mō ngā Take Māori e kitea ana, e rangona ana rānei hei mema mō tērā rōpū, tērā kāhui, arā mō te authority nei. Ko tā mātau ā te wā ka kōrerohia whānuitia i roto i te select committee, he whakatakoto i ētahi kōrero ki te kī atu me pērā, me noho tētahi wāhanga mō te Minita mō ngā Take Māori ki reira.

Nā, ka huri atu anō rā ki te āhuatanga o ngā kōrero o te mema a Mr David Clendon mō tēnei mea te waipiro. Kai te tika tāna, kai te āhua noho rangirua tonu te Pāti Māori mō ngā whakahaere mō tēnei mea mō te tuku whakaaetanga, me kī, mō te waipiro. Nā, anei au e pātai nei i te pātai, he aha te take ko te nuinga o ngā kōrero mō te Kapu o te Ao e hāngai tonu ana ki tēnei mea te waipiro? Arā, mō te unu pia, mō te unu waipiro rānei, ērā momo āhuatanga katoa. Ko tēnei pire, anā, koinei tāna mahi, he kōrero mō te waipiro kaua mō ngā take nui me kī. Nō reira he take nui tērā hei kōrero mā tātau i te mea, ka hoki ngā mahara ki tēnei tangata i roto i a au o Te Waiariki o roto o Tauranga Moana ki te Arataki Rugby Sports Club. Ko tōna ingoa ko Greg Doolan. E ai ki tāku e mōhio nei, i noho ia hei kaiwhakahaere mō ngā kaitohutohu o ngā tīma o roto o Arataki. Nā, i whakaae ia ki te haere ki reira hei kaitohutohu mō te tīma o Arataki mēnā ka noho wātea tērā karapu i te waipiro. Nō reira he tuatahitanga tērā i roto o ngā karapu whutupōro o Aotearoa. Nā, tērā kōrero tērā.

Kei te mōhio tonu tātau, ko te mahi o ngā kamupene hoko waipiro, he whiwhi moni, he whaiwhai haere i tēnei mea te moni. Ko te mate kē, kua kōrerohia whānuitia e tātau i roto i tēnei Whare ngā kino ka puta i te waipiro, arā, ngā aitua i runga i te rori, ngā whawhai tētahi ki tētahi, arā, te mahi wairangi a ētahi haurangi ki ētahi, mēnā ka whaiwhai haere i tēnei mea te waipiro. Engari, pēnei i tā David Clendon e kōrero nei, tōna mutunga mai, ē, ka raruraru ētahi. Nō reira, ko tērā kōrero tērā. Ka mutu, e harikoa ana i te mea, kei reira tonu ētahi here kia kaua wētahi e whaiwhai haere i tērā āhuatanga, arā, te haurangi. Nō reira, āhua pai tonu tērā.

Kua kite atu, arā nō ngā whāinga nui, me kī, ngā utu nui ka noho hapa ki tēnei o ngā pire, nō reira, ka pai tērā. Me pērā i te mea, kai te haramai ngā manuhiri i tāwāhi, arā, te Barmy Army. He aha tā rātau mahi? Taku mōhio he mahi haurangi. Nō reira, me tūpato tātau i te mea, mēnā ka tae mai, kei noho raruraru tātau nā ngā mahi nanakia, nā ngā mahi porohaurangi a wētahi i tā rātau taenga mai.

Nō reira hei kupu whakamutunga māku, kāore anō tētahi kia kōrero i tēnei take engari, me pēnei rawa te kōrero kua whakaingoatia a Julian Savea hei Junior Player of the Year i tēnei tau tonu nei mō te IRB. Kātahi nei tērā kōrero ka tae mai. Nō reira me mihi ki a ia, me mihi rā ki ō tātau Junior World Champions i Argentina, inatata nei. Nō reira me whakanui tātau i tērā āhuatanga.

Nō reira kāti, kua roa tēnei, ko tāku ko te kī atu, āe, ka tautoko te Pāti Māori i tēnei, nā runga i te aha? Nā runga i te mea kua noho a Aotearoa kei ngā taumata o te whutupōro, me tautoko ka tika i tēnei wā. Ki te kore tētahi āhuatanga hōu e puta mai, tērā pea ka whai atu ki tōna mutunga. Nō reira huri noa, kia ora tātau.

[Greetings to you, Mr Speaker, and to all of us in the House gathered here tonight to debate this bill before us, the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill, dealing with the event that takes place next year. The country is well aware of the obsession that Māori have over rugby. Māori have been keen followers of rugby for a long time, and at this very moment a hundred years of Māori rugby are being celebrated in the country. Last Friday the New Zealand Māori team reached the pinnacle of all pinnacles, by defeating Ireland. Oh, yes! My home town of Rotorua was swamped by people and Māori. They were proud of how well the Māori team triumphed over the visitors from Ireland. Tomorrow the team will arrive in Hawke’s Bay to do battle with England, where it will be seen whether the Māori team is a great or special one—whatever it is. But one can only hope.

Over the past years numerous Māori have achieved at all levels. Let us take the member Paul Quinn, for example. He achieved captaincy of the Māori team. Some Māori team captains became All Black captains, as well. The Labour member might well be right but nevertheless a champion—yes, a champion. One such captain was Buck Shelford, who became a captain of the national side, as did Tāne Norton, Taine Randell, and others who reached that level of captaincy of the All Blacks for this country. So the real basis of my speech is to highlight the commitment of Māori to rugby.

At this stage of the bill, at its first reading, the Māori Party supports it. Some of us may not have heard what Leith Comer, the Chief Executive of Te Puni Kōkiri, said when he stated that the commitment of Māori to rugby was not unlike that of the 28th Battalion, the Māori Battalion, when it served overseas. One team served on the battlefield, the other on the playing field. Both the Māori rugby team and the 28th Māori Battalion are causes that we should celebrate in New Zealand. So rugby brings us together. This is a general introduction to begin my contribution as I return to this bill.

Like those who spoke before me, I agree without reservation that benefits will accrue from the Rugby World Cup for New Zealand. But the problem with the bill from our perspective is that the focus is on operations, administration, buildings, and assistance with accommodation related to the event; it is not about spectators, players, and supporters of the cup. The real problem is that this bill looks at factors that affect crowd control, like alcohol consumption. But I will come back to that.

The second point, which has been raised by other members, is that this bill establishes a controlling entity, the Rugby World Cup Authority. Its role is to endorse or reject business initiatives to be run in tandem with the Rugby World Cup. The problem, as alluded to by other members, is that one person becomes empowered, and ultimately that will be the Minister. We are in two minds over the fact that the Minister makes the final decisions over matters pertaining to the World Cup. Further to that, the Māori Party is somewhat concerned that the Minister of Māori Affairs is invisible, or appears to have no role, in that entity, the administrative body or the Rugby World Cup Authority. We will pursue that issue widely during the select committee process, to ensure that the Minister of Māori Affairs becomes part of the controlling authority.

I turn my attention now to the implications raised by the member David Clendon relating to alcohol. He is right. The Māori Party is somewhat concerned about allowing the consumption of alcohol. Now, I ask myself, why is most of the talk about the Rugby World Cup related to alcohol? Why is it about drinking beer and all the other alcoholic beverages? This bill is all about that—about alcohol consumption—and not about the real issues, for heaven’s sake. It is important for us to comment on that, because I recall a person from Tauranga, within my Waiariki electorate, from the Arataki Sports Club. I understand that he managed the coaches of Arataki Sports Club’s rugby teams. His name was Greg Doolan. My understanding is that he agreed to become head coach of rugby at Arataki Sports Club if the club became alcohol-free. This is a real first for rugby clubs in New Zealand. That is that story.

We all know that alcohol outlets retail alcohol, make a living from their sales, and pursue avenues to ensure turnover. Problems with alcohol have been raised many times in this House: problems like road accidents, fighting, and senseless acts while under the influence of alcohol. But as David Clendon said, some of us will get into trouble. That is the story. None the less I am glad there are controls there to deal with problems around alcohol. That is somewhat reassuring.

I notice that a major emphasis in this bill is placed on the huge potential costs from those actions, which is good. It must be so, because the “Barmy Army” is coming from overseas. From my knowledge, all that they do is get drunk. So we must be wary, because they might come and cause trouble with their mischievous and drunken antics.

In conclusion, no one has spoken about this, but it has just come to my attention that Julian Savea has been named as this year’s International Rugby Board junior player of the year. I commend him and our junior world champions, who won that title in Argentina just recently. We should celebrate that event, as well.

I will end here. This contribution has already been too long. Yes, the Māori Party endorses this bill, but why? Because of New Zealand’s lofty status in rugby, it is appropriate that we support it at this point in time. If nothing new emerges, we will more than likely pursue this to its conclusion. Thank you all. ]

JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa) Link to this

It gives me a great deal of pleasure to speak in support of the first reading of the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill. It has been fascinating sitting on this side of the House and listening to a certain amount of diatribe from colleagues across the floor on issues around running elections. If we think about how well they structured the last election we know that, yes, they know all about running elections!

The point about this bill is that we must have a successful Rugby World Cup. It is really important for New Zealand, it is really important for our global brand, and it is really important for our economy. We can expect somewhere between 70,000 and 85,000 visitors over a 6-week period. More important, something like 4 billion people will watch matches over that 6-week period. We want to showcase New Zealand. It is our opportunity to show the world what a great place this country is. This bill will make the Rugby World Cup a success because it will allow temporary streamlining of Government regulatory processes to ensure that the tournament and the many activities around it that we will support can be organised and managed really effectively.

That is incredibly important. Despite comments from my Green colleague David Clendon and from Labour colleagues about the ease with which resource consents can be procured for things like marquees, I have to tell them that that is not the case. I have constituents in Masterton who want to erect temporary marquee-type structures to grow vegetables in. After 3 years they still do not have their consents, because of the complications of the processes that we have inherited from the last 9 years of Labour Government. Some of that stuff is an absolute nonsense, and we cannot afford to have that sort of restriction in the lead-up to an event of the size of the forthcoming Rugby World Cup. The hosting requirements of a spectacle of this scale present really big challenges, so it is crucial that we have special legislation that is set up so that the event is a success, and to make sure that we maximise the opportunities that the event presents.

The Rugby World Cup will be the largest event ever held in New Zealand—the largest event ever held in this country. This bill is necessary because the existing regulatory approval processes are not sufficient to cater for the extraordinary requirements of a tournament of this scale. This is due to their long time frames, which, despite the advice from our Green colleague, have to be either endured or moved to one side.

The point of this legislation is to establish a Rugby World Cup consenting authority, which will support existing regulatory regimes by accommodating the extraordinary requirements of this tournament, which New Zealand will be hosting. This authority will offer an expeditious alternative to the existing processes, which are simply not adequate. The bill will provide for a temporary structure and a single regime for determining, for example, Rugby World Cup liquor licences. The police, I have to say, support the single regime. It will give the police greater powers of enforcement of liquor-licensing provisions, and will shorten the process for enforcement authorities to suspend and revoke licences. No urgent consent requirements, such as road closures, can be considered without a recommendation from the Rugby World Cup authority and without consultation with the Ministers responsible.

There is a precedent, of course, for this type of legislation, and those of us who, like me, are interested in yachting will remember the America’s Cup, which was held in Auckland. That was an extremely successful event. This bill, which is going to the Government Administration Committee, will establish the consenting authority, and will empower it to consider applications for regulatory approvals that would otherwise be necessary for activities that are reasonably necessary for the proper conduct of the event and the tests.

The bill also includes two provisions to deal with urgent applications or unforeseen approvals during the Rugby World Cup. It is inevitable that some things that people have overlooked will crop up at the last minute. So, on the recommendation of the authority, the Minister may, firstly, ask the Governor-General to prescribe Rugby World Cup permitted activities by an Order in Council during the period 1 July 2011 to 31 October 2011 only—so it is a very short period of time. Secondly, the legislation proposes to grant urgent approvals during the tournament window only. That will be from 9 September through to 25 October. Both powers will be exercised only at the recommendation of the authority, and will require consultation with responsible portfolio Ministers.

I think this legislation is providing a lot of common sense. This event will make a huge impact on our communities. Even as I speak, the ex - Mayor of Masterton, Bob Francis, a wonderful man and chair of our district health board, with a lifetime as a referee—

PHIL TWYFORD (Labour) Link to this

My colleagues have set out pretty clearly Labour’s position on the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill—that we will support it being referred to the Government Administration Committee. But we think a number of issues in the bill deserve debate and analysis in the select committee, and also deserve public debate, I think. I will go into some of those.

But, first, I want to say what an incredibly exciting event this will be for New Zealand, and not just because of the considerable potential economic benefit for the country as a result of the tournament. I do not know whether members saw an interview on the news the other night with Bishop Desmond Tutu. He was interviewed by a British journalist as he was walking away from a soccer game in South Africa that was part of the Football World Cup. The journalist asked him what he thought of the fact that South Africa was spending millions of dollars on that tournament when it was suffering the most appalling poverty, an HIV/Aids epidemic, and so on. Bishop Tutu, in his inimitable way, said that it was not about the economic benefits, and that it was not about the money; it was about an experience that made people realise they were part of something that was bigger and better. It was about the indefinable sort of thing that lifts us out of our daily lives.

I think the Rugby World Cup will be an amazing fiesta of football and an opportunity for us to play host, as people have said, to 70,000—some estimates are even up to 85,000—international visitors. It really is a hugely exciting opportunity. The prospect of this event and its sheer scale—the biggest event of this kind that New Zealand has ever hosted, and perhaps ever will—raise some very interesting policy challenges for the Government that I want to talk about. It is set out in the explanatory note of the bill and in the regulatory impact statement that the purpose of the bill is to provide a time-limited, parallel consenting authority, to ensure that Rugby World Cup - related activities—the construction of certain buildings and certain areas where people will gather, liquor licensing, road closures, all the sorts of things that may need to happen, all the festivities—can be carried out smoothly. That temporary consenting authority is needed to ensure that all those things that are necessary for a successful event are not allowed to fall foul of current arrangements and current regulatory processes, which are mostly carried out by territorial local authorities. I think Labour accepts that that case has been made, and that the bill is an exercise in risk management. There is too much at stake for the country for us to allow regulatory mechanisms to let down the planning and organisation that will go into this event.

My colleague Grant Robertson outlined some of the thinking that went into this process that is covered in the regulatory impact statement, and the discussion of possible alternatives. The regulatory impact statement states that the bill needs to be flexible enough to respond to unforeseen consenting requirements to do with the Rugby World Cup, but it needs to avoid undermining the integrity of the underlying regime—that is, the Sale of Liquor Act, the Resource Management Act, and so on—for activities that are not urgent, that are not unforeseen, or that are unrelated to the staging of the Rugby World Cup. Mr Robertson discussed a couple of the alternatives that were considered before the preferred option was settled on.

I will direct most of my comments to the question of liquor licensing, because it is one of the key provisions in the bill. It is an area that I think should be subject to open and vigorous public debate, because some really sensitive trade-offs are to be made between the success of the event and minimisation of harm and minimisation of a negative impact on the neighbourhoods and communities where supporters and fans of the Rugby World Cup will gather. Under the bill, special liquor licences can be given out for the period from 9 September until 31 October. These licences will replace existing licences over that period, and will allow the bars to extend their size and their hours of operation. They also allow that authority to set certain limits around the type of alcohol, the size of drinks sold, and so on.

I note that the Legislation Design Committee, when it reviewed the early draft of this legislation, noted that the setting up of the special liquor licensing authority was inconsistent with the findings of the Law Commission’s report, which was called Alcohol in Our Lives: Curbing the Harm. The Ministry of Economic Development subsequently commented that that was irrelevant because the Law Commission’s report was not yet Government policy. I want to explore that for a moment. I believe that there is developing consensus in this country about the need for us to tackle the culture of binge drinking and the social harm that is caused by the way we drink. I believe that agreement is forming that the easy availability of liquor in our communities due to the very liberal licensing regime, which allows, in some places, 24-hour alcohol purchasing and very, very late closing hours, is linked to a lot of the social harm we see. We should not, I think, trivialise or minimise the importance of the Law Commission’s report. It was 2 years of work, there were 3,000 submissions, and the overwhelming majority of those submissions were for a tightening of the laws around access to liquor, and that included tighter opening hours.

It is significant that the police initially opposed the provisions in this bill. They said that the Sale of Liquor Act was perfectly capable of dealing with what was needed. If I am not wrong, the time frames in the Sale of Liquor Act are identical or very similar to the time frames in this bill. One of the main parts of this bill states that it is not about changing the criteria for consenting; it is about changing the time frames just to expedite the process. Actually, in relation to liquor licensing, this bill has the potential to significantly change not just the time frames but the actual outcomes in terms of liquor licensing. The scenario is that, for the purposes of putting on the best possible event and providing hospitality, our norms and rules around liquor licensing will be thrown to the winds, and for the period of the Rugby World Cup we will see a much more liberalised regime, which could result in significant public harm. I think that is something the select committee will have to address.

What is the risk? The risk, I think, is that a much more liberal approach for the purposes of the Rugby World Cup could lead to a slackening of the rules around serving minors and the consequences if the operators of venues break those rules. Similarly, that could be the case if the rules are slackened in respect of serving intoxicated people and the use of promotions and happy hours. If rogue operators are operating currently with highly restricted licences, will they, under this regime, be able to get a special Rugby World Cup licence that will loosen those restrictions? I think all these things should be the subject of public debate. The question is to what extent we are prepared to open the door to much more liberalised liquor laws for a defined period in a way that is out of step with the way community sentiment is going.

Finally, I would say that the balance has to be struck very carefully. We saw the Minister for the Rugby World Cup side with Heineken, the sponsor, over the debate around plastic versus cans, and I hope that is not repeated.

CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) Link to this

It is great to see the way that a certain tournament in South Africa with a rather oddly shaped ball is whetting the appetite for sporting tournaments around the world.

KELVIN DAVIS (Labour) Link to this

I have just received a text from my brother. He said we should not be wasting our time on the Rugby World Cup (Empowering) Bill; instead, we should be legislating to make sure the All Blacks do not lose. I tend to agree with him. We are a family that still has not got over New Zealand losing to the 1971 Lions, let alone losing the 2007 quarter-final in Cardiff. My daughter rubbed salt in the wound the other day when I was going off at Wayne Barnes refereeing the All Blacks versus Ireland test. I do not know how he slunk into the country, but he got here, and I hope he slunk out. I said I hope he does not think that sending off that Irish No. 8 in the 10th minute will in any way compensate for his horrible display of refereeing back in Cardiff in 2007. My daughter said to me: “Dad, it’s just a game. Get over it.” I said to her: “I’m sorry but you must be adopted, because it’s genetically impossible for the Davis family to get over an All Black loss.” It is too hard to get over the 1971 loss to the Lions, which should have been an epic send-off for Colin Meads in his 55th and final test match. We are still cut up about that.

I come back to the kaupapa of the moment, which is the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill. Labour supports the bill going to the Government Administration Committee for scrutiny. It is important that we ensure there are no unintended consequences of the legislation. I want to talk from a tourism perspective, as I am Labour’s spokesperson on tourism. We will have 65,000 people arriving on our shores for a 6-week period. I have heard the figure of 85,000 tourists being bandied around, but I have been assured by people in the tourism sector that the number is more likely to be 65,000. We should not get our hopes up that the Rugby World Cup will be the greatest thing for all communities across New Zealand. If we take Whangarei as an example, I think we have Tonga, Japan, and Canada playing up there. Those three teams on their own will not drag in thousands upon thousands of tourists. Tourism operations up there should not be expecting all their Christmases to come at once. The teams will be there for a very short period of time, and not many fans are expected in some of those smaller, outlying areas.

Having said that, the Rugby World Cup is the greatest event to touch down in New Zealand. Hopefully, there will be other Rugby World Cups and other great sporting events, but for the foreseeable future it is the big event. It is important that we have the facilities, the services, the venues, and the transport systems up and running so that the expectations of the 65,000 tourists who arrive here will not be dashed. But the 65,000 tourists are not the group of people whom we need to be most concerned about; of most concern are the 3,000 media personnel who will be here to cover the games. Midweek, when they are not covering the games, they will be out and about, recording thousands and thousands of hours of footage around the country. The newspaper reporters will be writing articles about New Zealand. It is really important that the people whom they film and write about are having the best times of their lives, and that we have the facilities and the legislation to support the expectations of all those rugby tourists, so that when they all head back home they will talk to their families and their friends about the great time they had in New Zealand, and, hopefully, everybody they speak to will make the decision to come to New Zealand post the Rugby World Cup. It is the thousands of hours of footage that will be the most important thing for New Zealand. Hopefully, we will not have just a 65,000-person spike for 6 weeks in October 2011; we will build on that so that tourists come here over the next 10 to 15 years as a result of what they have seen of New Zealand and as a result of the excellent experiences their families and friends had while they were here. It is important that we keep in perspective the numbers of people who will come to New Zealand.

We have to make sure that we have legislation in place to support the event. As has been mentioned in the House, we do not know what we do not know. Unforeseen events or circumstances could occur, and we do not want to be scrambling around at the last second trying to put legislation in place or, even worse, to not have legislation in place. We do not want to get bogged down in quicksand trying to make decisions at the last second, with the result that the expectations of the people who come here from overseas are let down. So this legislation is really important.

There are six parts to the legislation. Part 1 talks about the definitions within the bill, and Part 2 establishes the Rugby World Cup Authority. It is really important that we have proper preparation for the Rugby World Cup. We need to ensure that the arrangements are efficient and safe, and done lawfully; that the delivery of services for the Rugby World Cup is exceptional; and that the safety of the individuals coming here is paramount—not only the safety of those individuals but the security of their property. We need to have legislation in place to ensure that occurs. We also need to be mindful of the effect on the environment. We cannot allow this temporary legislation to have long-term impacts on the environment.

Of course, we have to maximise the benefits of the Rugby World Cup to New Zealand. Again, I come back to what I have been saying about tourism being our second-biggest export earner. At present, $50 million a day is spent in New Zealand on tourism, and we expect that with 65,000 people turning up here in a very short space of time, that spend will increase. One in 10 New Zealanders is employed in tourism, and we need to make sure that the Rugby World Cup and this legislation support tourism, and we need to make sure that everybody has an exceptional time when they come here.

I take the points that my colleague Phil Twyford made about the liquor legislation. It is important that in liberalising the liquor laws for a very short time we do not set a precedent that makes it difficult for us to wind back the clock, and creates other unintended consequences. Part 3 sets out the scope of the applications that may be made and how they are to be lodged with the Rugby World Cup Authority.

Part 4 gives the Minister certain powers to enable unforeseen matters of urgency to be dealt with, both in the final preparation stages of the World Cup and during it. As Te Ururoa Flavell said in Māori, ultimately this means there is one person in charge who has the final say. We have to be careful that there is not abuse of that power. Part 5 provides a temporary process for licensing the sale and supply of liquor during the Rugby World Cup. Part 6 includes further miscellaneous provisions. Missing is Part 7, which legislates for the All Blacks to win. While we are at it, we should also legislate so that the All Whites do not lose against Paraguay on Friday morning.

The Rugby World Cup will be the most exciting event to hit New Zealand’s shores. It is a pity that we have made this debate one of the most boring debates in history. We should legislate for the All Blacks to win. I remember that fateful day in Dublin in 1991 when Tim Horan flipped a miracle pass to David Campese, who dotted it down, and we lost all chance of getting into the finals. We lost the semi-final, and that was the day we ceased being world champions. That thick black cloud is hovering over us to this very day. Kia ora.

MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) Link to this

If Mr Davis had finished at the 5-minute mark, that speech might have been one of the finest of the day. We may come from different ends of the political spectrum, but in matters relating to the pain of loss and certain referees, including Mr Barnes, we have much more in common than I thought. My pain goes back to 1967, when the great man was sent from the field at Murrayfield; I was the ripe old age of about 18 months. I do not think Mr Kelleher from Ireland has entered New Zealand since.

Members have spoken about the Rugby World Cup as being the largest event in the world in 2011. I was particularly interested in Mr Clendon’s comments in respect of whether we actually need this legislation. He said that we had “significant experience” in running events of this type—in particular, rugby event. I do not think that I agree with that comment. Casting my mind back to 1987, I remember I was playing premier rugby here in Wellington for Western Suburbs when the 1987 Rugby World Cup took place. The amateur nature of rugby was very evident in the organising committee of the Rugby World Cup. I notice that we will need 7,000 volunteers for the 2011 Rugby World Cup, which is probably more than the amount that attended many of those games. The ceremony was a very perfunctory affair: a few speeches and a kick-off. I think it was on a Wednesday, in fact, and then everybody went home and did what they did.

I think we will see a completely different event next year, beyond the scope and scale of anything we have seen in the past. We are getting a little bit of an insight into it by watching the FIFA World Cup in South Africa. I think the more relevant one was the 2006 FIFA World Cup in Germany, where in Berlin they turned the magnificent area of the plaza that led up to the Brandenburg Gate into a virtual tent city, or marquee city, of events and big screens so that the fans of each country could watch the events. There were probably quite a few licensed premises in that place as well. It was a terrific success.

I also pick up on the caveat from Mr Clendon and Mr Twyford about the issues around liquor licensing and legislation. It seems to me in first reading that many of the concerns that are expressed by those members have been addressed in the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill. It talks about the need to be eligible to hold an on-licence before one can even apply for a special licence. The right to object is still evident, and substantially all the requirements of the Sale of Liquor Act still exist under this bill. This bill seems to turbocharge the consenting and Sale of Liquor Act licensing process at a very appropriate time.

Mr Mallard said that we do not know what we do not know; I think only now are we starting to understand what opportunities exist to market the country, to market business, and to market tourism around this magnificent event. It will be necessary with places like Ōāmaru and Masterton to perhaps at reasonably short notice pick up on opportunities and not be arbitrarily slowed down by consenting or licensing processes, albeit that they still need to be done at a reasonable and fair way within the existing constraints of the law.

I look forward to the speedy passage of the bill. I certainly look forward to the captain of the All Blacks holding aloft the Rugby World Cup in October next year.