Hon NATHAN GUY (Minister of Internal Affairs) Link to this
I move, That the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill be now read a third time. When New Zealand hosts the Rugby World Cup next year, it will be the largest event we have ever experienced in this country. Matches and teams will be spread from one end of the country to the other, with an influx of 85,000 visitors and 2,000 international media expected. For 45 days the global spotlight will shine on New Zealand. It is vital for our reputation, our economy, our pride, and ourselves that our country delivers a truly excellent tournament. As a result, the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill is needed to guarantee the country’s preparedness for this enormous responsibility.
The Government has invested in various stadium developments, infrastructure, business leveraging, and sector showcasing programmes. We are wholeheartedly committed to making sure we are ready. This bill is a vital tool to aid the country in hosting our biggest event ever. There will be no room for any second chances. We simply have to get this right. This bill will speed up the consenting process for Rugby World Cup - related facilities and activities, and also allow for special Rugby World Cup liquor licences. It provides an expedited regime that will help ensure that the events forming part of, and supporting, the tournament meet the appropriate environmental and public safety standards. This will help ensure that New Zealand can meet the hospitality and hosting requirements of the tournament, and that we are well placed to leverage maximum advantage from the opportunities that hosting this event will provide overall.
The bill establishes a Rugby World Cup Authority to consider and determine applications for temporary approvals for Rugby World Cup - related activities and facilities, as well as temporary declarations of permitted activities. The authority is appointed by the Minister for the Rugby World Cup and must include members with experience and expertise in the matters likely to come before it. It will receive administrative support and advice from local councils and does not require the establishment of any significant new bureaucracy.
There is also provision in the bill to enable the Minister for the Rugby World Cup, after receiving advice from the authority and consulting relevant Ministers, to grant approvals in circumstances of unforeseen urgency. The bill also enables declarations of permitted activities to be made urgently by Order in Council. These provisions are a vital safeguard for the successful operation of the tournament, and it is entirely appropriate, given the importance of the Rugby World Cup, that the final decisions are made by Ministers rather than by an unelected body, no matter how eminent.
Finally, the bill establishes a Rugby World Cup liquor licensing regime, which will help the hospitality industry meet the extraordinary requirements of the Rugby World Cup, while ensuring that licensed premises operate in a sensible and safe manner. Premises licensed under the bill will need to adhere to stricter standards than the ones in the Sale of Liquor Act, and both the police and the authority have the power to take swift and effective action against premises that do not meet those high standards.
During the parliamentary stages of this bill a number of matters were clarified, including the duties and powers of the authority itself, the supporting role of local councils, and changes to the definition to clarify the sorts of activities and facilities that can be approved under the bill. One of the effects of those changes ensures that Rugby World Cup liquor licences can be granted for live public screenings of games. Holders of current on-licences will be able to have their licensing hours extended to coincide with live screenings of Rugby World Cup matches, and will allow cruise ships, the holders of club licences under the Sale of Liquor Act, and charter clubs to apply for Rugby World Cup liquor licences.
The bill provides the police with greater enforcement powers to control the consumption of liquor during the tournament and ensures that the granting of Rugby World Cup liquor licences will not extend the hours during which existing gambling machines can be operated. In addition, the select committee recommended providing an exemption from the change-of-use provisions in the Building Act to enable modern apartment buildings to be used for temporary Rugby World Cup accommodation, without seeking building consent. This was a sensible solution that balanced the accommodation requirements of the tournament with the need to ensure public safety.
During the Committee stage a number of MPs commented on the powers the bill gives to the Minister for the Rugby World Cup. Some of the speakers suggested that the Minister could override any decision of the Rugby World Cup Authority. This is not correct. The Minister, following consultation with at least two other Ministers, can make a final decision on only the most urgent applications and then only in the period between 1 July 2011 and the end of the tournament. Hopefully, the Minister will not be called upon to exercise that power, but given its nature it is entirely appropriate for it to be exercised by a democratically accountable Minister.
I thank the select committee, officials, Parliamentary Counsel Office, submitters, and all those people who have had a part in bringing the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill to this stage. The bill will give us the mechanism to ensure that all necessary approvals for Rugby World Cup activities and facilities are considered and determined very quickly. It will also deal with any unforeseen emergencies that may affect New Zealand’s ability to host an excellent tournament next year. It is further evidence that the Government continues to deliver on its commitment to maximise the benefits and opportunities that we know will be presented to our country by staging the Rugby World Cup. I am pleased to commend this bill to the House.
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) Link to this
I think it is fair to say that it is more in sorrow than in anger that the Opposition is opposing this legislation. It is fair to say that, notwithstanding some temptation over the last year or so, the Labour Party has attempted right through the process, both in Government and in Opposition, to work with National to have as close to a bipartisan approach to this Rugby World Cup as is possible, even to the extent, as we worked our way through the bid process, of including the then Leader of the Opposition, Dr Brash, as part of the team that was involved in the final determination of the shape of the bid, and including him in the bid document itself as an endorsing party. We have worked hard, right back to the time when I was involved in the bid for the bid—if people understand that; the money that was being put together in order to finance the bid—to make sure that right through there was quality consultation, because we knew that it was important that this was not seen as something that was politically divisive as far as New Zealanders were concerned. We knew there was a big investment and an enormous opportunity, and that is why we reached across the House in the time we were in Government in order to attempt to build a consensus. So it is with some sadness that we have come to the point that we have.
There is acceptance on my part and on the part of the Labour Party that the legislation is necessary. The vast majority of this bill as it was introduced showed, I think it is fair to say, the degree of roughness and readiness that the Minister in charge of the bill is a bit renowned for, but the Government Administration Committee did a good job, and with one major exception the legislation is acceptable to the Labour Party. I would go further and say it is necessary. There is no doubt that especially but not only in Auckland, the current systems for liquor licensing and resource consents could end up with a hodgepodge of uneven decisions made in the run-up to the Rugby World Cup if legislation of this type was not in place. So it is necessary.
Therefore—and I focus for a second on the select committee—I want to say that the committee worked very well. I commend my colleague David Parker for his chairing, and also members of the Government. I think it is fair to say that a lot of work was done within the committee very much on a bipartisan basis. There were ideas from both sides that were worked into the bill, and disagreements on the majority of issues were just as likely to be between people on the same side as across the table, but we worked through those processes. I think we have better legislation as a result of that. We knew that was important, because the world will be looking at New Zealand at that time. It is very much a case of not knowing what one does not know, so it is important to have legislation that works between now and 1 July through what might be described as not the normal process but the new normal process for consent-type arrangements, and then there does need to be something in place for things that are late-breaking. Having that sort of process is vital in getting things right. It is very important.
I do say, though, that the issue that causes us to oppose the bill is the taking by the Government for the Minister of powers that we think are judicial powers and powers that should be reserved to the process and the authority that has been set up—as I will get to soon, even the possibility of having some sort of compromise arrangements. I am slightly critical of the Law Society. The Law Society is an organisation that I think should have been across this legislation much, much earlier than it was. Its late comments on the legislation, although absolutely appropriate and accurate, should have been made much earlier in the process. I think that at some stage the Law Society—and we have to work our way through how that happens—needs to focus earlier when inappropriate powers are being taken. Sometimes there is a lot of publicity or a discussion. I think that as parliamentarians we mainly came to a point of view on the Canterbury legislation that, in retrospect, leaves us with some questions. But in this case, the taking of the power by the Minister was clear, on the face of the bill, right from the beginning. I think it would have been appropriate for the Law Society to look at the bill and work its way through it.
I will give an example—one of many and one that I have given to the House before—of something that is late-breaking. The example is of an application that is made after 1 July to dismantle or demolish a home that may or may not be historic but that could not be handled and would not be acceptable under normal resource consent conditions. So there is a property right maybe for the owner, certainly for the neighbours, and maybe for the community around it. Under this legislation, the authority set up to consider it can recommend that it not proceed, but the Minister can make a decision that it should proceed. I think that—
Hon TREVOR MALLARD Link to this
The member, whose name I have forgotten—which one is she? [ Interruption]—Jacqui Dean. The member Jacqui Dean is shaking her head and says that that is not possible. Well, it actually is possible. It is absolutely possible that the authority can say no, the Minister can say yes, and the house can be demolished. That could be an enormous financial advantage to one of the parties. In my opinion that is not the sort of decision that should be taken by a Minister. It is something that is properly taken by a judge or, in this case—
Hon TREVOR MALLARD Link to this
Yes, a Minister might be politically accountable, but my view is that that is the sort of political decision-making around individual, advantaged people that has led to corruption internationally. New Zealand has a very proud history of keeping Ministers out of those sorts of decisions. That goes back, I think, probably to 1912. We have developed a system whereby we keep Ministers out of that sort of decision making, and I think that is the right thing to do.
I place on the record of the House that I went to the Minister and offered him a compromise. I said that we would support this legislation leaving in his power of veto over the decision of the authority to approve something. So he could block something that would otherwise have happened under this legislation in the late phase and say “No, that is wrong. That is unacceptable.”, but he could not overturn a negative decision. He could not turn a negative decision into a positive decision, and, in the example I gave, allow for the demolition of a property that could not be demolished under the Resource Management Act. He chose not to do that. I think that was wrong. I think it is very sad that he chose to sacrifice a bipartisan approach to the legislation—something that we wanted to do—in order to retain that power for himself. I think that showed very poor judgment. It showed a poor understanding of the constitutional separations that have grown in New Zealand, which are important to the fabric of our society and to the avoidance of both corruption and the perception of corruption. I think that is breaking down, and it is very, very sad that this sort of event is one where it breaks down further. I say to the National Government that it might come to regret that in the future, because what it does is add to the perception of the Government not caring about matters that lead to perceived corruption in New Zealand. We should not have that as part of this legislation.
JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) Link to this
I rise to speak in the third reading of the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill. The member opposite, whose name I cannot recall, made a contribution. He talked about the possible power of the Minister for the Rugby World Cup to have a historic home demolished days before the Rugby World Cup. As fanciful a notion as that is, and as far away from reality as one could possibly get in the context of this argument, when I raised the question, very much an eleventh-hour objection, typically, I was just wondering. It is never good to think on one’s feet. That is why we have select committees; to talk about issues like this. But I wonder whether the fact that the Historic Places Act has an effect on historic homes might limit the particular fantasy scenario that that member has promoted.
Yes, ducked, and it is too late. I am afraid that the fantasy has been disproven, just like that.
It is probably just as well that that fantasy scenario has now been disproven by that member across the House, because this bill has as its intention the smooth and proper running of the Rugby World Cup tournament in 2011. I have to say that with Sonny Bill Williams on the team now, I think we are going to do pretty well. Those passes the other night were something to behold. The whole of New Zealand is now excited by the prospect of the All Blacks turning out for a marvellous tournament, which will be supported by the provisions in this bill.
There are just a couple of issues that have been raised. One of them is the Rugby World Cup liquor licensing provisions. If we have a look at what the bill does for liquor licensing, we see that it does not change the criteria for liquor licences. It does not make it easier to get a liquor licence. All it does is simply speed up the process, give the police some extra powers, and give extra considerations like having to have food available for purchase and having to supply free water. For the life of me I cannot understand why Labour had to have a conscience vote on this bill in the Committee of the whole House. Can anybody tell me why Labour had to have a conscience vote on liquor licensing?
Well, yes, I know. Some were for, some were against, and some abstained because they simply did not know. The rest of New Zealand is excited about the Rugby World Cup. This Government is excited about the provisions in this bill. Labour—well, it simply does not know where it is. Thank you.
CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) Link to this
I am happy to take a call on the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill, and, like my colleague Trevor Mallard, I rise more in sadness than in anger to say the Labour Party will oppose this legislation. Although I speak against the bill, most of my comments will be in favour of its provisions, because overall it is a good bill. The Government Administration Committee has done a very good job of working its way through a reasonably complex, although at the same time straightforward, bill. The Committee of the whole House debated quite extensively the provisions of the bill, and did so quite constructively for the most part, as well. The reason that I oppose the bill boils down to one issue: the extent to which the Minister for the Rugby World Cup, the Hon Murray McCully, would be given unbridled power to overturn decisions of the Rugby World Cup Authority, and not only to overturn a decision in a negative fashion—in other words, to retain the status quo—but also to overturn a decision in order to approve something that the authority has deemed would be inappropriate.
Nathan Guy, the junior Minister, spoke earlier on behalf of the senior Minister. On that note, I say that if that was his audition speech, he should not be clearing his diary for the Cabinet meeting on Monday. He talked about unelected officials, and said decisions should not be left to unelected officials but should be given to elected officials. I think that is totally the wrong approach. Where does he draw the line on that? I ask him that because a heck of a lot of decisions are currently taken by courts, judges, and various unelected panels on matters very, very similar to those addressed by this bill. If the Government’s new rule of operation says all of these decisions should be taken by elected officials, it opens a whole can of worms. At some future date the Government may regret going down that road, if this sets a precedent for how it approaches future legislation. It would be very concerning if the Government said controversial decisions should now be taken by elected officials rather than there being the independence of decision making by the judiciary or by an independent panel.
Trevor Mallard pointed out that New Zealand is one of the least corrupt countries in the world. We constantly rank very well in our level of transparency, our openness, and in the quality of the decision making of our central government agencies.
That is right. One of the reasons is that in most cases there is a very clear arm’s-length relationship between Ministers and the bureaucracy that administers things. In this case that arm’s-length relationship is being seriously compromised by this legislation. All New Zealanders should be concerned about that, because it is a trend that we are increasingly seeing from this Government.
All parties in the House were criticised for the Canterbury Earthquake Response and Recovery Act. The Labour Party voted in favour of that legislation, but this bill goes further than that Act. Orders in Council made under the Canterbury earthquake legislation go to the Regulations Review Committee, and there is a provision for those orders to be overturned in this House. There is no such provision in this bill for decisions that the Minister makes, so there are fewer safeguards. A similar power is being given to a Minister as was given in the case of the Canterbury earthquake legislation, but without the safeguard that we put into the Canterbury earthquake legislation.
It does, but the Minister does not need to follow the advice of those other Ministers. The Minister has the ultimate power. The Minister gets a recommendation from the Rugby World Cup Authority and has to consult other Ministers, but then he can do whatever he likes. Murray McCully can still do whatever he likes, and this is not a Minister who, when it comes to meddling in administrative matters, has a particularly clear track record. We need only to go back to the last time he was in Government and look at the Tourism Board fiasco to find that he has a history of dabbling in things that he should not dabble in. So I have been very concerned about that provision.
One can hope he has learnt from his mistakes.
The Rugby World Cup represents a really exciting opportunity for New Zealand, and it is disappointing to be an Opposition member who is speaking against this legislation, because I am very excited about the event coming to New Zealand next year. Right from the very beginning Labour has endeavoured—as Trevor Mallard pointed out, making a bid to host the Rugby World Cup was first mooted under the tenure of the previous Labour Government—to take a bipartisan approach, or a cross-party approach involving all of the parties, to ensure that there was a “New Zealand Incorporated” approach to the hosting of the Rugby World Cup. We have worked very constructively, I think, with the new National Government since it was elected 2 years ago to make sure that this event will be successful for New Zealand. This will be the largest event that we have ever hosted, and it is important that we get it right. As Nathan Guy said in his speech—
Paul QuinnThis will be the largest event that we have ever hosted in New Zealand. Nathan Guy said there is no opportunity for there to be a second chance. There is no such opportunity, which is one of the reasons that it is important to get the process aspects of this legislation right, and we have not done that.
I will put that issue aside for a moment and concentrate on why it is important that we get the hosting of the Rugby World Cup right. Potentially, 4 billion people around the world will be watching the event on television, and 70,000-odd visitors will be coming to New Zealand to take part in Rugby World Cup - related events.
That is quite true. It will be a significant boost to the New Zealand economy and will generate $1.2 billion worth of economic activity. It will be on a scale that we have never seen here before, so it is really exciting for New Zealand. I know that the 4 million New Zealanders who live here will be 100 percent behind the event and will do everything they can to make sure it is an absolute success. The Government, of course, will do well out of it: an estimated $112 million - odd in extra tax revenue will be generated out of Rugby World Cup - related activities. So it is important that we get it right, and that is why this legislation is important, notwithstanding the reservations that I have just raised. We will be under tight time frames to make sure everything is in place. We will need to make sure that the Government can move quickly to remedy any issues that arise as we move closer to the Rugby World Cup.
Overall, the provisions in this legislation are pretty sound. I will briefly canvass them. The liquor licensing provisions are very sensible; I have no problems with them. The point that Jacqui Dean made is one that I raised in the Committee stage. In my view, the legislation does not extend any of the powers of liquor licensing beyond those that would already be available. It simply truncates the process and speeds the decisions up a bit. That is one of the reasons why I have no qualms about supporting that. I am pleased about the provisions regarding gambling that the select committee agreed on. They will ensure that the opportunities for gambling are not extended under this legislation, because that was not the intention.
I am pleased that we have worked through quite carefully the issues around how the Rugby World Cup Authority should be supported administratively. Having local authorities support the Rugby World Cup Authority administratively makes sense, first of all because it does not create a temporary bureaucracy that would be established and then disbanded after a short period of time, but also because it means the authority will have available to it all of the necessary expertise. In dealing with consenting issues and other local authority - related issues, having access to that quality of information, that expertise, and that knowledge of local areas will be really important for the Rugby World Cup Authority. So, overall, the provisions put in place for the administrative secretariat are the right things to do.
I am very pleased with most of what this bill contains. I am very pleased that the Rugby World Cup will be hosted in New Zealand. I do not think I can afford to go to any of the matches myself, but, like the other 4 million Kiwis, I will certainly be watching on television and cheering the All Blacks along.
KEITH LOCKE (Green) Link to this
The Green Party will also oppose the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill. Like Labour speakers, we are very much in favour of the Rugby World Cup itself and hope that it will be a wonderful festival of rugby and an opportunity for New Zealand to showcase itself to the world and for those in every provincial town to mix with the teams playing games there. It will be something that enlivens our communities across the country, particularly in the pool games, and then the big games in Auckland.
There is no excuse to override normal process under the Resource Management Act the way this bill does. We got the hosting rights to the Rugby World Cup back in 2005, and there has been plenty of time to go through all the proper processes. It is not as if this was an unknown event and that things would pop up that we had not expected in any large way. It is a good discipline to operate within the constraints of our existing law. We are having training efforts towards organising it: there was the Four Nations rugby league test, the one held at Eden Park 1½ weeks ago. That was a test and, by and large, it went well. I was at the game and what happened there has been blown out of proportion. People got a bit carried away with Mexican waves. They could have been stopped at the beginning of the first Mexican wave. I was there, and in the first Mexican wave not much went up in the air. Once the wave had gone around three or four times and people got into the habit of it, more stuff went up in the air. The situation could have been handled very easily with a loudspeaker, as it was at the end of several Mexican waves. The idea that it was all a bunch of hoons is quite wrong.
We are on track to organising things right, but I worry about the way, in practice, that this bill will loosen up the liquor licensing, not tighten it up. We already have the concept of party central and people drinking like mad down on Queen’s Wharf. When I went to the rugby league test, all the pubs were full to the gunwales with people preparing themselves for the game. That will continue in Kingsland, Mount Eden, and throughout Auckland. Unfortunately, I do not think that the extent of imbibing that takes place will be restricted by this bill. There will be a very competitive environment amongst people providing liquor to get just that bit longer hours under these emergency provisions and to be able to cram more people into their premises, etc. So I do not think the bill will lead to a reduction in alcohol consumption.
Then we have one of the major sponsors. There is a range of official sponsors, and the beer sponsor is Heineken, which will be going flat out to get people to drink beer, particularly its own brand. As I understand it, though it could change, Heineken will be selling branded cans. If those cans have a bit of beer in them when the Mexican wave starts it will be quite dangerous for those underneath the falling cans. I do not know whether the Minister for the Rugby World Cup will use his veto powers to constrain Heineken from distributing its beer in cans, but hopefully there will be some move on that between now and the 1 July date, and we can sort that out.
There is no excuse. We know about liquor licences, and all the venues know how to apply for them. They can start applying for them now if they have not done that already. There is no reason why liquor licences cannot be sorted out without this emergency legislation, be it for a liquor licence at a venue or for one away from a venue, which this bill covers. When we talk about temporary adverse effects being allowed for under this bill, they will include more adverse effects of alcohol.
Heineken is pushing its beer and promoting alcohol, and we have had it in other sports: there is Lion Red and rugby league, Steinlager and rugby, and all the rest. That will continue, I am sure. Even though the Law Commission is moving down the track of discouraging alcohol advertising, the major sports are reluctant to move away from alcohol advertising. So that will undercut any efforts in this bill to control excessive drunkenness that may occur around the Rugby World Cup.
The report-back from the select committee also has a section on ambush marketing, which relates back to the Major Events Management Act passed a few years ago and which, in the Green Party’s opinion, goes a bit too far in terms of protecting these major sponsors of the Rugby World Cup in all respects in quite a dictatorial way. Let us take Heineken, for example. I am not sure that Heineken will be putting forward an organic beer at the Rugby World Cup. I not sure that it will be, though I might be proven wrong and maybe between now and 1 July, when this bill comes into effect, it will start to realise that there is quite an appetite for organic beer in New Zealand and it will come out with a Heineken organic beer brand. But I can see problems arising. We saw problems arising at the Football World Cup in South Africa where people were not even allowed to wear orange dresses because they had a tiny tag on them advertising a competitor brand to the official brand of that world cup.
So I can see that if the Green Party has a little stall, perhaps outside my place—I live close to the Eden Park venue—selling a green beer, the organic variety, I will get hustled away for breaking this ambush marketing legislation by selling much more healthy organic beer. I can see problems along that line. Under the Major Events Management Act the ban on branding and all the rest of the restrictions on so-called ambush marketing—selling products that are a little different from the multinational brands, like organic beer—applies for 5 kilometres along some of the access routes to the venues, so I can see problems developing there.
The speaker for National qualified the ministerial veto by saying that the Minister will have to consult with a couple of other Ministers, but I do not think that having to consult with a couple of other Ministers will hold Murray McCully, or whoever it is, back very much. He will be the dictator in this respect and that is one of the key reasons why the Green Party is against this bill. Trevor Mallard was right to look at this bill against the background of the Canterbury earthquake legislation, which, he said, when looking back on it leaves some questions. There has been a very significant reaction to the Canterbury earthquake legislation—the cancelling of a whole realm of our legislation and allowing Orders in Council to override all kinds of legislation.
At the time, the Green Party moved about seven amendments along the lines of the criticisms later advanced by the Law Society, all sorts of law professors, and the like. We hope that that earthquake legislation, given that there has been quite a bit of progress in terms of rectifying the situation in Canterbury, can be ended as soon as possible. But it should warn us in terms of the public reaction to that legislation, particularly from the legal profession, not to proceed down another course that gives big ministerial veto powers, as is the case in this particular bill.
We hope that the Rugby World Cup goes very well and that there will not be too many streakers put in jail for 3 months, which is a provision under the Major Events Management Act. The two pieces of legislation together, the Major Events Management Act and this Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill, create the problem of a too dictatorial approach, much of it at the behest of international brands and not in terms of what will make this Rugby World Cup click as a really authentic event that everyone gets involved in, which is what we very sincerely hope will happen.
RAHUI KATENE (Māori Party—Te Tai Tonga) Link to this
It is a pleasure to rise to speak on the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill. The bill establishes a Rugby World Cup Authority to enable applications for activities or facilities necessary for the proper conduct of the forthcoming Rugby World Cup to be determined efficiently. In doing so, the intention is honourable and commendable. It is designed to support the smooth and expedient administration of Rugby World Cup activities, and that in itself is great.
I acknowledge the initiative taken last week by our co-leader and the Minister of Māori Affairs, the Hon Dr Pita Sharples, in launching the Māori artwork that will feature on official Rugby World Cup 2011 merchandise next year. It was a great honour to host the Minister for the Rugby World Cup and the collective of Māori professional designers responsible for the collection of 11 designs at our marae, Takapūwāhia, in Porirua. I really encourage members to look into the work of the six young Māori artists, five of whom are from Ngā Aho Inc. They will achieve international recognition, I believe, for the Rugby World Cup Māori Art Programme derived from their talents. I want to reiterate some comments the Minister of Māori Affairs made at the hui. He said: “The Rugby World Cup is not just about the rugby. It is also about the economic and commercial benefits to our country and our people, and that is the kaupapa of today’s celebration.” In fact, it is not just rugby that will be the winner on the day. That is a very important statement, a statement that I believe to be critical to the successful implementation of this bill. The amazing environment at Takapūwāhia last week seemed to me to be an utter contrast to some of the issues we have raised in previous readings of this bill.
The bill speeds up the consenting process for Rugby World Cup - related facilities and activities, and allows for special Rugby World Cup liquor licences. That has always been an issue for us and for the general public. Our greatest concern is that the much-lauded new flexibility might lend itself to an increase in beer tents for partygoers, or a relaxed environment that will entice excessive alcohol-induced behaviours from foreign tour parties coming to support their team, not to mention our own hooligans. We have been keen to ensure appropriate management to avoid public disturbances or mass arrests from the specific liquor-licensing requirements, but I raise the concern that we might be placing too much emphasis on liquor licensing and allowing people the opportunity to become inebriated while watching the rugby.
For a significant sector of our population, simply getting to the game itself will be an issue. We have spoken about the need for the Rugby World Cup to be accessible and leave New Zealand with a legacy of accessible infrastructure for the growing access tourism market. For those members who are not up with the jargon, “access tourism” is tourism, travel, and hospitality that takes into account the access needs of people with permanent or temporary disabilities, older people, and anyone else who needs improved access, such as parents with prams. I refer to our partners across the ditch who have led the way in access tourism. Australia left a legacy of an accessible environment after it hosted the Sydney Olympics in 2000. Australia now has the ability to cater for the growing access tourism market, which is estimated to be worth about A$4.8 billion a year. The access tourism market in New Zealand is estimated to be worth NZ$1 billion a year. Access tourism presents a major economic opportunity and is growing in popularity in many parts of the world because of increasing numbers of post - World War II baby boomers who wish to travel and are ageing, and are therefore experiencing a degree of disability.
An accessible event needs to be accessible at every point of the journey. It starts with being able to confidently book online in the knowledge that the details on accessibility are reliable and consistent. Poor information acts as a barrier and discourages people with access needs from travelling. Every aspect of transport and accommodation, as well as the event itself, needs to be accessible. Finally, the opportunity exists with the Rugby World Cup to create an accessible environment for all to enjoy a great game of rugby.
The Rugby World Cup creates an opportunity for indigenous people and commercial entities to work together to produce authentic and exclusive indigenous products that can market our nation to the globe. Māori have a strong history of supporting and participating in rugby.
The Māori Party has concerns that alcohol is already playing too prominent a role in the World Cup, and we are concerned that the Minister for the Rugby World Cup has too much power under the bill, but we will support the bill at its third reading.
PHIL TWYFORD (Labour) Link to this
It is well established now that Labour would be supporting and voting for the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill were it not for the inclusion of Part 4, which grants to the Minister for the Rugby World Cup what are, in our view, excessive and unchecked powers to override the advice and recommendations of the Rugby World Cup Authority. We have said all the way through the process that we support all of the other parts, and that the arrangements put in place to establish, staff, resource, and govern the Rugby World Cup Authority, along with the requirements in the bill for highly qualified and eminent personnel to make decisions on the issuing of resource consents and other approvals, are entirely satisfactory. As my colleague Chris Hipkins said, there was a good and largely non-partisan discussion at the select committee to improve this bill and iron out some of the problems. A number of improvements have been made and we would be supporting this legislation were it not for the continued presence of Part 4, which gives the Minister, the Hon Murray McCully, what we think are excessive and unjustified powers to override the advice of the officials on the authority.
The Hon Trevor Mallard has described the efforts to which Labour has gone to propose a compromise. An amendment was put on the Table that would have made the system provided by this bill more democratic, and it would have meant that Labour would be happy to support the legislation. Mr Mallard also made the point that we have conventions of accountable Government that are designed to keep Ministers at arm’s length and to ensure that Ministers are not making specific decisions that would affect, for example, the property rights of others. There is plenty of ministerial conduct that we can see in the career of the Hon Murray McCully that provides ample justification for that convention. We can go back to the Tourism Board affair in the late 1990s, when that member of this House set up two rival boards to the Tourism Board to provide him with advice, because he did not want to listen to the advice of the Tourism Board, and $900,000 was paid in hush money to people who were forced off the board because they were so unhappy with that state of affairs.
There are plenty of other examples, including the ramming through of the restructuring of NZAID last year, against the advice of Treasury and other officials. The Minister did not want to listen to officials, who provided reasoned, substantiated advice, and he rammed those changes through. More recently we saw the appointment, without tender—which is highly unusual for a contract under foreign affairs—with a $78,000 contract, of the former National MP Mark Blumsky.
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
Well, we know what it was. It was part of a 90-day arrangement for Mark in Niue.
Oh, that is what it was—OK. That sort of unorthodox behaviour is par for the course for that Minister. We would be opposing Part 4 of this bill regardless, but the fact that the Minister for the Rugby World Cup is Murray McCully is even more cause for this House to stop and think about what it is doing. That Minister routinely ignores the advice of his officials and, I am told, routinely abuses officials. He ignores their advice and manipulates the normal processes until he gets what he wants. That is precisely the reason that this bill should not be giving those kinds of unchecked powers to the Minister in this case, because when this Minister has an agenda, he is willing to routinely ignore the advice of officials until he gets what he wants.
I understand he has contracted two officials from the private sector to provide an independent source of advice, replacing the advice that he received from senior Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade officials. He did not like the advice he had from those officials, so what has he done? He has gone out and hand-picked the advice from people he wants, from outside the Public Service, to give him the advice. That is exactly the kind of behaviour we should be trying to guard against, because Murray McCully is a meddler and a manipulator and he will not respect the conventions of accountable Government.
It emerged last week that an $8 million contract for the opening ceremony of the Rugby World Cup is being awarded to an Australian company, and that ignores the fantastic track record of our creative arts in this country. That contract is being awarded to an Australian company, which will have the job of staging the opening ceremony of the Rugby World Cup. The Rugby World Cup will have a television audience of approximately 4 billion people, I understand, and this is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to showcase New Zealand’s creativity, and to showcase New Zealand to the world. But what is this Minister doing? He is handing that contract to the Australians. I ask why that Minister would do that. Rahui Katene said that in order to reap the great benefit of the Rugby World Cup, we need to ensure New Zealand gets the economic benefit of this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. What is this Minister doing? He is handing that opportunity over to the Australians, and my information is that Murray McCully’s fingerprints are all over that decision.
We heard from Martin Snedden last week that a decision had not been made and that New Zealand companies would be able to implement some of those activities, but actually it is very clear, because of the lack of any watertight denial, that that decision has been made. Murray McCully’s fingerprints are all over it, and if that is the standard of decision making that we can expect for the rest of this issue, then there should be a lot to worry about, and the New Zealand public should be very concerned.
Trevor Mallard talked about keeping Ministers at arm’s length, and I think I have given the House a catalogue of reasons why the Hon Murray McCully should be kept at arm’s length from the sorts of decisions that could be made in the granting of consents. Mr Mallard talked about the hypothetical scenario in which a building—someone’s house, for example—could be a heritage building and could face the possibility of being knocked down. The Rugby World Cup Authority, in this scenario, could decide not to do that, because it would not think that it was a reasonable thing to do, and the Minister, under this bill, would have the power to ignore the advice of the authority. We on this side of the House think that that is unacceptable. It unnecessarily discards the conventions of accountable Government; and Murray McCully, by his own parliamentary career, has demonstrated time and time again—over a couple of decades—why the conventions of accountable Government are there.
In this case those conventions are being thrown away unnecessarily, and that is why Labour members simply cannot vote for this bill. We have argued that point from the beginning of the debate, right through to the closing stages. We have offered compromises, and we have put an amendment on the table that would have solved the problem, and this Government has just refused to accept it. As my colleague said, we will be voting against this bill more in sorrow than in anger, because we accept that the Rugby World Cup is a fantastic event that New Zealand is looking forward to, and that it offers huge opportunity for New Zealand in terms of economic benefit and of the celebration of the event itself. It is a shame that the debate had to end with this legislation.
JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa) Link to this
I say to the people of Auckland that that was a list MP looking for a seat. That was a list MP who has failed to get a seat, and he is criticising a Minister of long standing who has been able to get a seat and win election after election. I say to the people of Auckland and also to the people of Wainuiōmata, Days Bay, Pētone, Lower Hutt, and Upper Hutt that their member of Parliament got up in this House this afternoon and wrongly opposed this Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill.
The Rugby World Cup will be the greatest event that New Zealand has ever seen. There will be 85,000 visitors coming here and, as our Labour colleagues have pointed out, there will be a television audience of about 4 billion people watching it. This is the opportunity to showcase New Zealand to the world as a great place to live and to do business.
This afternoon in the House various Opposition speakers have asserted that a Minister could override any decision of the Rugby World Cup Authority. That is not correct.
That is not correct, “Mr Duck”; no, it is not true. The Minister, following consultation with at least two other Ministers—two other Ministers—can make a final decision on only the most urgent application, and then only in the period from 1 July 2011 until the end of the tournament. We hope the Minister will not be called on to exercise that power but, given its nature, it is entirely appropriate for that power to be exercised by a democratically accountable Minister. Thank you.
DAVID SHEARER (Labour—Mt Albert) Link to this
I do not agree with the point made by the previous speaker, John Hayes. I agree with my colleague Phil Twyford, who outlined the very reasons we are opposed to the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill. Labour members have been very straightforward, have taken this matter right up front, and have made constructive comments and constructive interventions to enable this bill to go through, but those have been ignored.
The previous speaker was right in saying that this tournament is important to New Zealand. It will bring enormous amounts of attention to New Zealand. It will be watched by an estimated 4 billion people, which I think is a gross overestimation myself, but, nevertheless, it will be watched by a large number of people throughout the world, and it will bring in 70,000, 80,000, or 90,000 people to watch the event, as well.
This legislation would have gone through without concern, but there are problems in Part 4. I will speak to Part 4, but first I will address some of the concerns I have in relation to Part 5. Part 5 of the bill concerns the accelerated liquor licensing ability. It gives only 5 days for people to object to an application for a liquor licence and to be heard by the Rugby World Cup Authority. That provision is obviously a relaxation of the situation right now.
I am feeling even more dulcet after dinner, so I will up the dulcet scale. Before the dinner break, I was talking about the licensing regulations in Part 5. In the Committee stage, we talked about the difficulties in alcohol licensing, and particularly the problems that emerged after the Eden Park fiasco. Eden Park is in my electorate. I have spoken to a huge number of people in my electorate who are concerned about a repeat performance of that night. There were bottles thrown, there were scuffles, there was fighting, and there was drinking on the streets. People certainly do not want—and they do not deserve—a more liberal climate in which alcohol can be served and sold even more easily. It is for that reason that I voted—on this side of the House we had a conscience vote—against Part 5.
I will say a couple of words on the key areas that I disliked about this part. It liberalises the ability to sell alcohol in and around Eden Park. It impacts on the local residents. It means that if people do not like alcohol being sold, they have only 5 days to protest against it. This bill basically contracts the period that is obligated under the Sale of Liquor Act 1989. With all the preparations that are going on around the development of the Rugby World Cup, it seems to be an extraordinarily ad hoc thing to do, without too much planning, to shorten a well-received and well-acknowledged process of approving liquor licences so that alcohol can be sold more easily. The police definitely opposed this measure originally. I think there were some discussions behind closed doors that made them ultimately change their mind. St John Ambulance came out against it and I believe that it was right to. So I ask why we really need to make this process more liberal when we have an authority, a regulating process, and planning that has been ongoing for many, many months.
One thing that I think exemplifies the fears that residents around Eden Park have been feeling—this could also be anywhere else; it could be in the other areas where the Rugby World Cup games will be played—is the fact that 12 years ago, in 1998, a regulation forbade holding two games of rugby on the same day at Eden Park. The regulation also restricted how many cricket games could be played in that time as well. The real reason for that law was that two games of rugby with an excitable crowd drinking heavily might mean that there would be trouble. Last year, in 2009, without notification, that law was changed by the council. So the council has allowed for two games of rugby—or rugby league, as it was a couple of weeks ago—to be held at Eden Park in one day without any reference to the residents. The residents asked how that regulation could be revoked without their having any say or any input when, in 1998, the Environment Court had decided that that was an unwise thing to do. The answer is that the decision was made without due process, it was taken behind closed doors, and it was taken for all the wrong reasons, without consultation with the local people. That is the very reason today that I do not agree with Part 5. This part shortens the period during which people can protest and object to applications for liquor licences. It will mean that people have a more liberalised alcohol environment, there is greater potential for trouble, and there is less ability to protest against it. So when residents reflect on the situation in 1998, the situation today, and the process by which it has changed, they will say that they do not want processes like that to be put back into legislation so that the Sale of Liquor Act 1989 can be overridden. Those residents want to have a robust system by which they are able to protest against alcohol being sold in their area.
The last part that I want to talk to is Part 4. The reason that Labour is opposing this legislation has nothing to do with trying to help the passage of the bill through Parliament, and it has nothing to do with any sort of reticence that Labour might have about supporting the Rugby World Cup. Indeed, as many of our speakers have said, it was Labour who had the aspiration, which is a word that National likes to use, to bring the Rugby World Cup back to New Zealand. The real reason for our opposition to this bill is that it gives Minister McCully, in consultation—although we are not quite sure exactly what that consultation might be; it might be a phone call, a chat in the aisles, who knows—the ability to override legislation and enact policies that the established Rugby World Cup Authority, which is set up under this bill, may have ruled against. We are setting up an authority with all the right types of safeguards and with the tight seniority that we need, yet we are giving the Minister the ability to override decisions that the authority might make. And that ability is in question when we think back to the experiences we saw in Mount Eden and the Sandringham area around Eden Park that we want to guard against happening once again.
In conclusion, we support very much the need for facilitating legislation to make this Rugby World Cup go well, be a success, bring in visitors, and advertise New Zealand. We want the Rugby World Cup to be a standard bearer event for New Zealand so that people can really see something that brings out the best in New Zealand. But I think we are going too far, in my opinion, with Part 4, which Labour opposes en masse.
KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National) Link to this
We are on the verge of passing the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill, on the completion of its third reading. This bill will provide temporary legislation to enable the timely grant of consents and regulatory approvals if they are required during the Rugby World Cup. The Rugby World Cup Authority will be established, which will have the power to grant approvals for activities and events related to the Rugby World Cup. The bill will also establish the Rugby World Cup liquor licensing scheme.
It is very important for New Zealand to be able to host the Rugby World Cup successfully, as it will attract more than 80,000 rugby fans from overseas who will see New Zealand as an opportunity for investment in their businesses. This bill is a step forward towards hosting the Rugby World Cup successfully. The tournament will be held for 6 weeks in different destinations across New Zealand, and it will not only attract rugby fans from overseas but also encourage tens of thousands of Kiwi rugby fans to travel around our country to view the matches. That will generate business not only in the local economy but also for local hotels, motels, restaurants, bars, and retail outlets. The success of this event will bring tourists to New Zealand in the future, and show that a nation of 4 million people can host an event of this scale.
Some speakers have highlighted a clause that suggests that the Minister will override any decision by the Rugby World Cup Authority. That is not correct. The Minister can make an urgent decision on an urgent application in consultation with at least two other Ministers, and only during the period from 1 July 2011 until the conclusion of the tournament. That provision will be exercised only in the case of urgency. The regulatory approval process will be able to cater for extraordinary requirements, due to the long time required for the present approval process. It is important to mention that this bill will support existing regulatory requirements, and will provide only a faster alternative to the current process.
The Rugby World Cup will not make it easier to obtain liquor licences; it will simply fast track the process to grant a licence. There will be an important provision in granting a licence to ensure that food is served during the period of opening hours, and that free water is available to guests—
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Dr The Rt Hon Speaker Smith has made some comments about reading speeches in the House and proposals to change that. I know there is some debate about that, but when a speech is read for the second time in the House, as is occurring now with a member rereading the third reading speech that has already been given by the Minister, I think that goes beyond what is appropriate in Parliament.
Hon Gerry Brownlee Link to this
Perhaps the member raising the point of order is making a good point. If we are to be hard on repetition, then I hope we will be hard on repetition throughout the considerable Committee stages we will be dealing with for the rest of this day.
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) Link to this
I look forward to the day when I have enlivened, uplifting, visionary speeches from every member of this House, but I am afraid that is not going to happen overnight. The point the member makes about reading a speech has been made in this House before; the House has changed the Standing Orders to enable members to read speeches. If the member does not like that, I suggest that he take the matter to the Standing Orders Committee and have that right taken away.
KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI Link to this
All of the processes conferred on the Rugby World Cup Authority and the Minister will terminate at the end of the tournament.
I wish good luck to the Rugby World Cup Authority, and to the All Blacks. I hope they win the tournament and make us proud. I thank all the officials who have assisted us during the select committee process to bring this bill to the House. I commend the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill to the House.
CHRIS TREMAIN (National—Napier) Link to this
The words of Te Rauparaha’s haka will ring loud on 9 September 2011:
Step upward! Step upward! Step upward, step upward, the sun shines. ]
These words will be the start of the Rugby World Cup on 9 September, with a game between the All Blacks and Tonga. It will be game on, here in New Zealand. Most of New Zealand will collectively sit to watch this game, sending the wishes of a nation on to the field with the All Blacks’ starting 15. It is a day that has been long in the making, and one that this bill, the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill, brings a step closer. With this bill we wish the All Blacks well in their pursuit of glory and a second Rugby World Cup victory.
Although a victory is important to us as locals, even more important is successfully hosting the Rugby World Cup. A successful event is vitally important to growing our global brand as a nation, to bring admiration of this country and the business we can do with that. The event works in closely with the “100% Pure New Zealand” brand, and mixes our strong environmental brand with an ability to be successful with people in business at the same time.
Just last week the Prime Minister was overseas negotiating yet another trade opportunity for our exporters. The free-trade agreement agenda means that at the moment New Zealand is second to no other nation on the globe, which provides our exporters with huge opportunities. On the back of that, we will be hosting the third-largest sporting event in the world, proving that we can mix it not only in the heavyweight fights of global trade but also in the heavyweight fights of global sports events. Many exporters will be able to host clients during the Rugby World Cup, and utilise the opportunity to sell New Zealand products to the world.
I am confident that this time next year the Government’s clear plan for growth will be paying dividends and driving this economy to new heights. The tax package will be bedded in, national standards will be through to their third reports, fibre will be rolling out around the country, and unemployment will be trending down. There will be significant investment in research, science, and technology, and we will certainly be making progress towards reducing the deficit this country faces.
In Hawke’s Bay we are very much looking forward to hosting the Canadian team, together with all its supporters. We are rugby mad in the Bay and, despite not taking our traditional place in the top four of New Zealand rugby this year, we can put that disappointment behind us for the time being to focus on the tournament. We have two games: France v Canada on 18 September, and Canada v Japan on 27 September. The province is gearing up to be a key contributor to “the stadium of 4 million”. It is going to be awesome, and this bill takes us closer to the tournament by allowing a streamlining of Government processes.
I will close with an All Black memory. It is poignant that on the passing of the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill, I recall an All Black memory of my own family from the Athletic Park test match in 1961. Many members will recall that test, when the All Blacks sneaked home in a 5-3 nail-biter.
The 1961 test match. Members will recall an 80 miles-per-hour gale that whipped off the Southern Ocean and straight down Athletic Park. With 15 minutes to play, the game tied at nil-all, a try finally came, not to New Zealand but to France. A pass from Connor had missed Wolfe 30 yards from the French line, and before Wolfe could recover the loose ball Pique had grabbed it and was making upfield. Bearing left he drew McKay infield before tossing a pass to the now unmarked Dupuy, who bolted the last 40 yards to the line, scoring 8 yards in from the left corner. Albaladejo failed with the almost impossible task of converting it into the teeth of the gale. From the restart McKay narrowly missed scoring, but from a scrum on the French line Lacroix passed down to Lacaze to clear. The fullback’s kick was charged down by Tremain, who fell on the ball 10 yards in from the corner. Don Clarke took the conversion attempt back to the 25, and kicked almost parallel to the goal line for the wind to catch the ball and miraculously carry it over the bar to give New Zealand the lead, and to cruelly dash the French hopes.
Ha, ha! That is fair. Although the final of the Rugby World Cup will not be played at Athletic Park in 2011, there is every chance that the All Blacks will go full circle to play the French in a final at Eden Park. I trust that the final will not be as nail-biting as was the 1961 test at Athletic Park. If it is, I am confident that our team can bring home the cup. Bring it on!
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Labour) Link to this
I rise to take a call on the third reading of the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill somewhat unexpectedly. I was so entranced by the Keith Quinn - like quality of the commentary from the senior Government whip—
Hon DARREN HUGHES Link to this
Does the member think he was less Keith Quinn, more Murray Mexted? Is that what the member is saying? I think it was a great tribute to the 50 Years of New Zealand Television programmes that were screened earlier in the year that the member had such instant recall of that particular game in 1961. It had a big impact on him 49 years ago.
Although we are all very keen to be supportive of the Rugby World Cup and to make sure that it goes smoothly, the truth is that this legislation is not needed for the success of that tournament next year.
Hon DARREN HUGHES Link to this
The parts opposed by the Labour Opposition are not needed. That is the truth.
Hon DARREN HUGHES Link to this
Part 4 is the part that we have struck our opposition to. The member opposite, Chris Tremain, was full of praise for trade deals, which is a bipartisan matter where the current Government is able to pick up the work of the previous Government, and it is doing a fine job in that respect.
It is a testimony to the failure of the negotiation skills of the Minister for the Rugby World Cup, Mr McCully, that, firstly, this bill has taken so long to go through Parliament and, secondly, it is not passing through Parliament with unanimous support. This should be the sort of legislation that all parties across the House want to agree on. I do not know of anybody in Parliament who does not want the Rugby World Cup 2011 to be a fantastic success and an amazing event for our country—both the staging of the competition and, of course, the result in the final game. We all have a very strong view on that. The inability of the Minister for the Rugby World Cup to simply get an agreement on a bill like this bodes very, very badly for the organisation and planning of the wider tournament from a governance perspective in 2011.
The Associate Minister for the Rugby World Cup—because, of course, in New Zealand we must have two Ministers responsible for such a tournament—
Hon DARREN HUGHES Link to this
When Murray McCully was given the primary portfolio, it necessitated the appointment of an associate in the form of the Hon Gerry Brownlee, who has really brought the grunt to that portfolio. He could probably have intervened and worked with other parties, which he is very good at doing, to ensure that Part 4 was amended in a way that had parliamentary support.
Hon DARREN HUGHES Link to this
He would be the ultimate prop in that respect, if he could support Mr McCully. But for reasons beyond all of us, Mr McCully has never been good at doing that. Mr McCully’s consistent strength is to not only divide the opposition but also divide his own colleagues. There is a consistency in his form and in his play.
The Labour Opposition is saying that the aspect in Part 4 that refers to the liquor licensing provisions of the bill confers on the Minister far too much power and there is far too little oversight. The Hon Trevor Mallard, the former holder of the Rugby World Cup portfolio in the days when it did not require two Ministers but just one, had the opportunity to put forward some amendments—
Hon DARREN HUGHES Link to this
Mr Cosgrove was the subsequent Minister in that portfolio. He was a stand-alone Minister as well. It was not until the change of Government, when we were going to shift officers from the back line to the front line—almost literally, I suspect—that we saw we had to double the number of politicians responsible for the Rugby World Cup. This is the result. This third reading tonight is the result of two Ministers’ work in trying to unite Parliament, and they have failed to do so.
Mr Mallard’s amendment would have put some worthy oversight around the provisions. We are now passing into law a bill that states that when an independent authority makes a decision, that decision can be overturned by a Minister without any reference to any other authority and without any parliamentary oversight whatsoever. People know that there has been criticism of this House for its unanimous vote to confer powers on the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery. People were concerned that there was not enough oversight in that legislation.
Charles ChauvelHon DARREN HUGHES Link to this
A lot of parliamentary safeguards have actually been built into that law in response to some of that criticism, which all parties were cognisant of. My colleague Charles Chauvel asserts that Minister Brownlee has been very responsible in his use of that legislation. I think the consultation has been good. But in this legislation there are less safeguards for the public and there is less parliamentary oversight than there are—
Hon DARREN HUGHES Link to this
Fewer safeguards, I am told by the shadow Minister of Education, exist in this legislation than in the Canterbury earthquake legislation. That legislation was written in a hurry in response to certain events in our country for a recovery effort that all of us wanted to see made without hindrance or delay. There was a rationale for that legislation. For this legislation there is no reason why so much power should be given to a Minister.
One of the things we have been arguing very strongly is that this move has to be based on principles. There is a lot of pressure on the country next year to make sure that this event is well organised. We want it to be. Everyone wants it to be a success. Our fear this time, in addition to our perennial 4-yearly fear that we will not uplift the cup, is that the tournaments—
Hon DARREN HUGHES Link to this
Quadrennial—I am sorry; I am not up with this street lingo of “quadrennial” that is all the rave at the Wainuiōmata Shopping Centre when the member is doing his constituency work.
Hon DARREN HUGHES Link to this
Well, that is true. Of course, when one is pre - Vatican Council, I guess the Latin language comes a lot earlier to those followers of Catholicism. But that blessing is not shared by all of us.
When the Rugby World Cup comes along, we are always worried about the result—of course we are—but our additional worry this time is whether we can be organised enough to put on a good tournament. The idea of having legislation to ensure that some aspects of the planning are streamlined is not without support in Parliament. I think that a lot of people would have approached that matter favourably, but what has caused this bill to be so delayed has been the obstinancy of Minister Murray McCully in not listening to anyone other than himself. He has not listened to the amendments and he has not accepted the hand of bipartisanship. As a result, his legislation has been held up. We are trying to make the point that legislation should not be handled this way when there is an opportunity to change it.
The amendment from Trevor Mallard would have stipulated that the Minister cannot grant an urgent approval that has not been granted by the authority. The authority is governed under its own statute for a very good reason. It is settled law, and it would have made sense for there to be some consistency when a ministerial decision has been made.
What makes this even more difficult for Parliament is that Parliament will almost certainly not be sitting during the Rugby World Cup, for a number of reasons. First, Tories never go past a free ticket to a game. Secondly—[Interruption] Some truths are always self-evident. Of course, we know that there is one free ticket going now, because somebody over there who would have been invited will not be any more. It is probably two members, actually, and we can guarantee that they would have taken the maximum entitlement in that respect.
One reason Parliament might not be sitting is that a general election will have been just held if the Government goes to the polls in August next year. John Key may well do that if he does not trust Murray McCully’s organisation of this tournament, because the biggest fear that the Prime Minister would have is not that we do not win the Rugby World Cup—everyone in this House thinks we will do that—but that the games are not organised enough and that it will be a shambles in Auckland. He will be worried about Murray McCully’s judgment, as so many leaders have been, although it is normally when they are former leaders that they worry about his judgment. Parliament will not have met for the first time. The alternative reason is that if the election is held in November, Parliament will have been prorogued for the campaign.
When these decisions are made by the Minister, there are no safeguards built into the legislation, and Parliament will not be sitting. Either the next Parliament will not have been called together or this Parliament will have finished. We are investing a lot of power in Murray McCully.
If members opposite think that that is not a worthy question to ask, then I suggest that they go and see how Bill English feels about investing too much power in Murray McCully. If they do not get on with him, and I would understand that, then they should go and ask Jenny Shipley, whom they can contact at Pansy Wong’s electorate office. They can ask her what she thinks of investing too much power in Murray McCully. If Jenny Shipley is unavailable, then those members could go and see what Mr Bolger thinks about that. There is a lot of form in this area about whether Murray McCully can take on, with regard to—
Hon DARREN HUGHES Link to this
No, he would not get on well with Tau. He gets on so well with Tau Henare that he organised Tau Henare’s coup against himself for the Mauri Pacific party. That is how good Murray McCully is when it comes to political coups. He got political suicide in that respect.
We have opposed this bill all the way through this House because of the fact that the Government would not negotiate on Part 4. The Government is trying to vest too much power in the Minister, and if that happens in this particular bill, then we are concerned that that will happen in bill after bill. We simply do not believe that that is correct in terms of parliamentary procedure, and also we worry intensely that by giving so much power to the individuals concerned, mistakes could be made, and we want nothing to put the Rugby World Cup at risk in 2011.
A party vote was called for on the question,
That the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill be now read a third time.
Ayes 69
Noes 51
Bill read a third time.