Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill

Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP (Minister of Defence) Link to this

I move, That the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill be now read a second time. I begin by thanking members of the Government Administration Committee, and its chair, the Hon David Parker, for dealing with this bill so swiftly and efficiently. They have undertaken a very thorough examination of this bill, and have given careful consideration to the matters raised by submitters. I approve of the amendments proposed in the select committee’s report and am confident that the bill will help to ensure that New Zealand is able to deliver an exceptional Rugby World Cup tournament next year.

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 the 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 provide. The bill establishes a Rugby World Cup Authority to consider and determine applications for temporary approvals for activities and facilities related to the Rugby World Cup, as well as declarations of permitted activities. It will be supported by territorial authorities throughout New Zealand, which will act as the administrative secretariat to the Rugby World Cup Authority.

The bill includes provisions to enable the Minister for the Rugby World Cup, after receiving advice from the authority and after consulting relevant Ministers, to grant approvals in circumstances of unforeseen urgency. It enables declarations of permitted activities to be made urgently by Order in Council. Finally, the bill establishes a Rugby World Cup liquor licensing regime that will ensure that the extraordinary hospitality requirements in relation to the Rugby World Cup are able to be met.

The select committee has obviously given thorough consideration to the issues that have been raised by submitters and has recommended some practical amendments to the bill. In response to concern from the territorial authorities, the select committee has recommended the clarification of the roles and functions of territorial authorities that will be responsible for supporting the Rugby World Cup Authority to be established under the bill. The revised bill also provides greater clarity on the authority’s processes, particularly where the application is for a temporary activity or facility and an accompanying Rugby World Cup liquor licence. The bill now requires the involvement of the New Zealand Fire Service in considerations of applications to the authority. This will ensure that fire safety is properly taken into account in any approvals granted. As was noted by Mrs Jacqui Dean, that is part and parcel of the safety considerations dealt with by the select committee.

The committee also recommended other additions to the bill that will enhance New Zealand’s ability to deliver a successful tournament. For instance, the bill provides an exemption from the usual change of use provisions in the Building Act to enable apartment buildings to be used for temporary Rugby World Cup accommodation. That will help address pressure on the availability of accommodation, especially in Auckland, during the final and semi-final stages of the tournament. It also provides that the Rugby World Cup activities and events that occur near the water will be able to be declared major maritime events under the Maritime Transport Act 1994. That will enable the police to create an exclusion zone in designated areas where venues or fan zones are located near water, such as Queen’s Wharf.

The liquor licensing provisions in Part 5 of the bill were a particular focus of the submissions made to the select committee. The committee weighed up all the submissions and has recommended some useful amendments to liquor licensing provisions. They include allowing holders of current owner licences to apply to have their licensing hours extended to coincide with live screenings of Rugby World Cup matches and to allow cruise ships, the holders of pub licences under the Sale of Liquor Act, and chartered clubs to apply for Rugby World Cup liquor licences. I note that I imagine, however, they may rarely be used, as the matches will be held largely in normal hours—but what needs to be done will be done.

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

I think that speech finished in a rather optimistic way, because if Minister Mapp had been at all well-briefed he would have known that the Opposition is not supporting the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill. We are certainly supporting the Government to make this Rugby World Cup the best Rugby World Cup that we can have, but there is an outstanding issue that goes to the emergency powers that the Government is giving the Minister. In our opinion, that is undemocratic and it is wrong. I will get into more detail on that. Unless there is an undertaking to reverse it, this bill—parts of it will be supported—will be opposed at the second reading, and those—

JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) Link to this

Unfortunately, the previous speaker, Mr Mallard, has been looking for bogeymen under the bed, and I am afraid he has found a very small and lame bogeyman. His argument, I am afraid, is clearly not working in the House however much as he might try. It is worth noting that the Government Administration Committee worked very cooperatively on this bill, and it was at the eleventh hour that Mr Mallard chose to come in and look for something to criticise in this bill.

CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) Link to this

I am very happy to take a call on the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill. Like all New Zealanders, I am excited about the Rugby World Cup and am looking forward to the event, which is coming up around the corner next year. It will be the largest event that New Zealand has ever staged. As a result, there are good reasons for many of the rather extraordinary powers that the Minister for the Rugby World Cup is being given in this bill and for why it should be passed through this House to deal with unforeseen circumstances, to ensure that things can all be ready, and to make the event successful for New Zealand. We are looking at a television audience of close to 4 billion people and 70,000 international visitors to New Zealand over that 6-week period. This will be a very big event for New Zealand.

I want to pick up on some of the issues that were raised during the select committee process. I am absolutely amazed at the comments made by the previous speaker, Jacqui Dean. I do not think she could have been at the same select committee meetings that I was at, if she is claiming that the Labour Party raised its concern “at the eleventh hour” about the unfettered power this bill gives the Minister, Murray McCully. In fact, I think we raised that concern at the very first meeting—

DAVID CLENDON (Green) Link to this

Kia ora koutou. We in the Greens share with everyone else in the House—and, indeed, most of the general public—a wish for next year’s Rugby World Cup to be a successful event and to fulfil its potential. It has considerable potential economic value, it has resonance in our communities and in our culture, and we hope it goes ahead and is successful.

We opposed the first reading of the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill on the basis that it went many steps too far in terms of overturning processes—well-tried and proven processes for achieving the outcomes we are seeking. We saw no point, no real justification, for the level of powers and changes in the original drafting of the bill. The granting of the right to host the cup was given in 2005—a 6-year window of opportunity to get it right, and we have considerably more faith, it seems, in the ability of New Zealanders to organise a good event, to allow for contingencies, and to anticipate what may happen than have the drafters of this bill, who seem to believe that there will be numerous occasions for urgency, for unforeseen occurrences, and for emergency situations. Frankly, we do not see that that is realistic. It is unlikely to arise; some good project management and forward planning should facilitate a good event on the day.

This bill is undoubtedly a better bill for having been through the select committee process. It contains more clarity, particularly around matters relating to health and safety. I am quite sure that nobody on the Government Administration Committee, or indeed in the House, was willing to accommodate any compromises in terms of the health and safety of New Zealanders, of our visitors, and of anyone else.

There were some issues around the provision of housing: for example, the construction of temporary structures at venues and the like. The Fire Service made a particularly good submission to the committee, which was taken on board, and I am quite confident that it is possible to ensure people’s health and safety and that all the steps have been put in place to make that work.

The bill as it is currently drafted still leaves room for some disappointment—staying with the issue of short-term accommodation. There was some concern about the safety and well-being of people with disabilities who might be moving into, effectively, private apartments that would not normally be used for rental accommodation but that, under this bill, would be allowed to be. Clearly, the health and safety issues have been dealt with, but we still feel that there is a considerable likelihood that people with disabilities may in good faith book accommodation assuming that it will be appropriate to their needs and that their needs will be met, and those people could be disappointed.

Access tourism—that is, tourism for people with disabilities or who are over the age of 65—is an area of opportunity for New Zealand tourism that is currently not being exploited. We are very slow to come to that party and realise that access tourism is actually a very, very valuable niche market worth billions of dollars internationally. If people with disabilities are caught out by the very weak provision in this bill that suggests that councils and property owners be encouraged to make clear that their particular accommodation is not appropriate for people with disabilities, then we will do ourselves a disservice in the longer term. Clearly we want to leverage every ounce of benefit out of this event, and it would be unfortunate and to our cost in the long run if, for the want of some stronger provision making it very clear, accommodation unsuitable for people with disabilities is not flagged as such.

This bill has some very strange things to say about adverse effects. It suggests that in the situations where there are likely to be adverse effects from particular activities, the authority, when making its decisions, must disregard the adverse effect of an activity or a facility that relates solely to the site or location of the facility. I struggled with the logic of suggesting that an adverse effect is OK if it impacts only on the site of the activity—that somehow the adverse effect must flow over into some other site, place, or activity before the authority may have regard to it. That simply makes no sense to me. The logic of it escapes me completely.

There is also a suggestion that adverse effects must be disregarded if they are of a temporary nature. But anyone with any knowledge or experience of resource management decisions knows that temporary effects can, in fact, have some quite long-term and unexpected consequences. It seems to me that inserting these rather clumsy clauses is a fairly clumsy and strange mechanism for overriding genuine and well-grounded objections on the grounds of adverse effect.

The issue of the ministerial power that is being given by this bill has already been raised. It is worth stepping back one pace and thinking about what is being proposed here. We have in place substantial legislation: the Sale of Liquor Act, the Resource Management Act, and the Building Act. This bill is designed to sidestep the processes contained within that legislation, which contain agencies and process and are tried and true ways of delivering good outcomes to New Zealanders and our visitors.

It is proposed that this legislation be able to substantially override the Sale of Liquor Act, the Resource Management Act, and other legislation. We already know of examples where hotels have applied for extensions to existing licensing hours and have been turned down on very good grounds. They will come back for another bite, and in all likelihood they will be approved under the so-called empowering bill. We have good, substantial legislation in place. Now we are putting in place legislation that can override that tried and true legislation. To add insult to injury, almost, we are told that there will be a ministerial veto—that is, the ability for the Minister to override not only the substantial legislation but also legislation that exempts that standard practice. That is just many steps too far.

We have recently seen—and, indeed, the Greens supported it—legislation giving significant and almost unprecedented ministerial powers to cope with the effects of the Canterbury quake. That was an extraordinary event. Thousands of people were made homeless, there was many millions of dollars worth of property damage, and there was significant social and environmental disruption. We supported that legislation. But for equivalent override powers—the ability to override not one or two but numerous pieces of legislation and all the protections and public processes involved and engaged in them—to be at the fiat of the Minister, effectively, is simply unacceptable and ought not to be countenanced by this House. We will continue to oppose this bill. Thank you.

RAHUI KATENE (Māori Party—Te Tai Tonga) Link to this

I am really pleased to stand and speak on the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill because I really enjoy watching a great game of rugby. I especially enjoy watching the All Blacks do the haka and then go on to beat the Aussies, the Boks, the Lions, and especially France. In my own humble estimation Māori have not only excelled at this sport but also have been contributing to our top-class international reputation for over a century.

This year on 18 June there was a wonderful launch of Te Ao Hōu, the new dawn, which was the unveiling of a distinctive new rugby jersey to mark 100 years of Māori rugby since the first game in 1910 in Rotorua. We in the Māori Party celebrate the contribution that Māori have made ever since 1888 to rugby in this country. Indeed, Māori continue to make a unique impression on the status and reputation of rugby at home and across the world.

There are more than 500 living former Māori All Blacks. Many of this elite group have also played for the All Blacks, and some—like Tāne Norton, Buck Shelford, and Taine Randell—have had the privilege of captaining both teams. There is also widespread Māori support of rugby, and, of course, a particular highlight this year for us was the event hosted by Minister Sharples in Parliament on Thursday, 18 March on the celebration of 100 years of Māori rugby.

So when we came to the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill, we were under the distinct impression that this legislation was about empowering rugby: rugby players, rugby fans, rugby spectators, rugby historians, and the like. Instead, one might be forgiven for thinking that empowering liquor outlets and gambling venues is the dominant feature of the bill.

The Government Administration Committee made a determination around the hours for gambling by inserting a new clause that ensures that operating hours for pokie machines are determined by the Sale of Liquor Act rather than the Rugby World Cup license. This bill provides more power for the Rugby World Cup Authority. During the select committee consideration it was clarified that basically the intention is to amend clause 16(1) to ensure that statutory planning instruments—the by-laws and plans—are captured under this law. Essentially, it means that the authority is not constrained by by-laws.

I think this is where the hub of our concerns starts to play out. Of course, like every other party in this House we have a commitment to ensure that this bill will support the smooth and expedient administration of Rugby World Cup activities. But we cannot ignore the wise advice of the Law Commission to the select committee that “placing liquor licensing decision-making in the hands of a body that does not have ongoing experience in these types of decisions may not be conducive to expeditious decision-making.”

Even more graphic illustration of these concerns was provided to the committee by Dr Tony Farrell from Mount Medical Centre, who was a powerful witness to the effects of alcohol harm. He told the committee: “I believe the only people benefiting from the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill (RWCEB) will be the vendors of alcohol, and the companies who make and supply alcohol. … I firmly oppose any aspect of this legislation that increases availability of alcohol without due control so the police should have significant discretionary powers to revoke and to suspend the sale of alcohol should problems arise.”

The Alcohol Advisory Council gave particularly effective advice to the committee on this matter. In their view “While existing legislation expressly sets out to control the sale of liquor and contribute to the reduction of harm, the proposed legislation does not … Ensuring health and safety and the minimization of harm is not as proactive as contributing to the reduction of harm.”

I want to just summarise where we are up to. This bill has its origin in seeking to establish 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. That is an honourable and sensible development. The Rugby World Cup will bring the eyes of the world into our nation, and we must ensure all aspects of the administration of the activities associated are carried out with professionalism and efficiency. Our concern is whether we have the balance right.

As we have mentioned, the bill establishes a temporary process for licensing the sale and supply of liquor to the public during the period of the Rugby World Cup 2011 as an alternative to the process under the Sale of Liquor Act 1989. The bill defines the nature of a premise or area related to alcohol licences. It also determines that a licensee commits an offence and is liable to a fine not exceeding $5,000 if he or she fails without reasonable excuse to appoint a manager for the purposes of the Sale of Liquor Act 1989.

The problem is that the bill does nothing about our alcohol binge-drinking culture. In fact, it seems to me that it is encouraging tourists—those who are coming in to enjoy the Rugby World Cup—to buy into our binge-drinking culture, and this is something that I think we should not be exporting to the rest of the world. We should be looking at other things. For example, the bill does not mention the whole concept of access tourism. The message from Rugby World Cup advocates is that the provisions in the bill are simply about providing hospitality for the tens of thousands of visitors who arrive. I am not sure how hospitable it is to have drunk people everywhere, because that is what they seem to be saying.

Hospitality could also extend towards ensuring we are truly prepared for the influx of overseas visitors through such specific and tangible provisions as ensuring the Rugby World Cup website is accessible. By that, I mean being able to quickly navigate the Tourism New Zealand website to find out information about accommodation, airports, transport, and parking, which will ensure disabled visitors, the elderly, and others seeking to even gain access to the venues will be supported.

We could be creating a common brand. “Be Accessible Aotearoa” would welcome all people of the world to the 2010 Rugby World Cup, and we could do all this tomorrow by auditing the main tourist accommodation venues to ensure we have a set of standards around what venues have to have in order to cater for all. This is a massive area of work that is not being adequately addressed, and we would like to see that improved.

To conclude, I note that the bill increases liquor supply, puts the final say on Rugby World Cup activities in the hands of a group that has no guaranteed Māori representation, and gives the Minister for the Rugby World Cup too much power. All of that worries us. But there are two important provisos that we cannot ignore. The first is that iwi do not seem to be at all focused on profiting from the sale of alcohol. They are focusing on other opportunities, and we would be extremely loath to do anything that closes that down. The second issue is around the potential of the Minister for the Rugby World Cup to override decisions, removing public participation from the process. To this effect, we have certainly been interested in the amendments, which Trevor Mallard has been promoting, that place checks and balances upon the powers of the Minister.

We will support this bill at its second reading, but I hope that if my comments achieve anything they will serve as a prompt that if we are to be truly successful in the Rugby World Cup we must be able to cater to all—not just the boozers, the booze barons and associated businesses, or the gamblers and their enablers.

JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa) Link to this

Thank you for the opportunity to speak on the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill this afternoon. It is a very important bill, because it will underpin the fact that next year New Zealand will be on show throughout 2011.

I am quite astonished that the previous speaker, Rahui Katene, made no submissions in the select committee process. In fact, I do not recall a member of the Māori Party coming to our select committee at any point, or making any representations along the lines that are being made here in the House this afternoon.

We are dealing with an event that will involve something like 85,000 visitors coming to New Zealand. This bill is critically important to the promotion of Brand New Zealand—who we are—and it is also important for economic reasons. As I recall, about 4 billion people will be watching New Zealand on TV. This will be the opportunity to showcase New Zealand to the world, and to demonstrate that it is a great place to live in, a great place to do business in, and a great provider of food. The Rugby World Cup 2011 will be the largest event New Zealand has ever hosted, and we are turning the whole country into a stadium of 4.5 million people, with 48 games spread over 13 venues.

Inevitably, an event of this size and importance presents significant challenges. Anybody in this community who has actually tried to do something will realise there are rules that kill initiatives. Mr Mallard has sought an example of a reason why we need to have the particular provision to give the Minister for the Rugby World Cup an overriding power in this process. I would like to give an example from my electorate, particularly from the southern end, through the South Wairarapa District Council.

New Zealand’s next, newest, and most major music event will hopefully take place in Martinborough at the Alana Estate on 31 December this year, as the kick-off to the Rugby World Cup. By July this year negotiations had taken place between the concert organisers and the South Wairarapa District Council. Whether there was a miscommunication, I am not in a position to judge, but I can say to this Parliament that something like 12,500 tickets were sold, at an average price of $350 each, for the concert. Then the whole event was ankle-tapped by the South Wairarapa District Council, which said: “No, no, this concert cannot proceed; it needs a resource consent.” As I said, whether there was a miscommunication I do not know, but the consequences of this decision—and it was all spelt out about a month ago in the Dominion Post—was that an employee of the South Wairarapa District Council publicly said: “I’m going to try and stop this process from happening.”, rather than: “How can I help this economic activity to happen?”. The council was absolutely negative in its approach, and the consequences for the concert organisers is that they now have to fork out $50,000 for consultants to put in a resource consent application, and it is still not clear, 2 months from the event, whether the concert will be able to proceed because there is no permission in place. This situation absolutely highlights why we cannot organise something that involves 48 games in 13 venues right throughout this country, trying to do something on the world stage, when we have the nanny State imposing regulations and closing down activities.

PHIL TWYFORD (Labour) Link to this

Labour does not need convincing that there is a great deal at stake for New Zealand in the Rugby World Cup 2011. We do not need persuading that there will be a television audience of close to 4 billion people or that this is important for Brand New Zealand, as the previous speaker put it. Labour would be supporting the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill at its second reading if the Government had seen fit and seen sense, and had removed the provisions that we shall perhaps call the “Murray McCully Provisions” in this bill. Part 4 is the sticking point here; it is the part we object to. We do not believe that the Government has made the case that the Minister should be given unfettered power to override the recommendations of the Rugby World Cup Authority.

At least when John Hayes was speaking, he acknowledged that there is a substantive issue here. I was horrified to hear Jacqui Dean earlier deny that there was even a provision in this bill that gives the Minister power under the urgency provisions to grant an urgent approval, or to decline an application against the recommendations of the authority. In case Jacqui Dean is listening to or watching this debate, I want to point out that Part 4 of the bill goes for page after page, setting out the process and criteria that should be used by the authority in considering urgent applications. At the end of that part, after nearly six pages of process and detailed prescription about how the authority should go about considering these issues, it states: “A decision of the Minister under this section is final.” Just a few lines before, it states: “The Minister may grant an application for an urgent approval in full or in part, or decline the application.”, potentially in complete disregard of the work that has been done by what will undoubtedly be a highly qualified panel that constitutes the authority. As my colleagues have pointed out, it will include either a retired judge or a lawyer of at least 7 years’ standing.

KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National) Link to this

I stand to support the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill. The aim of the bill is to attain the consent and the regulatory approval essential for the smooth running of the activities related to the Rugby World Cup, and of the facilities that will support that event. It is extremely important for New Zealand to host this event successfully, and to take all opportunities offered for such a large-scale event, which will in turn bring prosperity and opportunities to businesses, and chances to show the world that New Zealand can capably hold such successful events.

Hosting an event on such a scale, which will see 85,000 overseas visitors and tens of thousands of New Zealanders attending games in the Rugby World Cup in different zones, brings a lot of challenges. Therefore it is crucial that we have special legislation set up to enable the event to be a success, and to make sure we make the most out of all the opportunities the event brings. This bill is very important because the existing regulatory approval process will not be able to process the extraordinary requirements of the tournament. This bill will be able to provide the urgent approval that may be needed to resolve unforeseeable circumstances immediately before and during the tournament.

The Government Administration Committee considered this bill and recommended a few changes, which are non-controversial. Some of the recommendations of the select committee include a change of use of the provisions in the Building Act, to enable apartment buildings to be used for temporary Rugby World Cup accommodation without seeking building consents. It is also recommended that Rugby World Cup activities and events occurring on or near water be declared maritime events under the Maritime Transport Act 1994, which will allow the police to create an exclusion zone in designated areas such as Queen’s Wharf.

The select committee also recommended allowing cruise ships and chartered clubs, and holders of Sale of Liquor Act licences, to apply for Rugby World Cup liquor licences. It is worth mentioning that the granting of a Rugby World Cup liquor licence will not extend the hours during which existing gambling machines can be operated, and it will also prevent an installation of such machines in newly licensed areas.

Appointments to the Rugby World Cup Authority are to be made by the Minister for the Rugby World Cup, following consultation with the Minister for the Environment, the Minister of Justice, and the Minister for Economic Development, and the authority will operate on a cost-recovery basis by passing costs on to applicants. The administrative and secretarial support to the Rugby World Cup Authority will be provided by the territorial authorities of each district in which an application is made. The ability to grant approvals by the Rugby World Cup Authority will expire on 31 October 2011. All approvals under this bill will be temporary, and will expire no later than 31 December 2011.

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

KELVIN DAVIS (Labour) Link to this

Kia ora, Mr Assistant Speaker. He mihi hoki tēnei ki a koutou o Ngāti Manawa me Ngāti Whare. Tēnā rā koutou.

[Greetings to you, Mr Assistant Speaker. This salutation is to you, as well, Ngāti Manawa and Ngāti Whare. Welcome.]

The Rugby World Cup is the third-largest sporting event in the world, third only to the Olympics and the FIFA World Cup. This comes from a diehard rugby fanatic: everybody in this House and everybody watching this debate needs to realise that the on-field results of the Rugby World Cup are not what is most important for New Zealand. Now, do not get me wrong, I really want it to be Richie McCaw who this time next year lifts the Webb Ellis trophy above his head. I do not know whether I can take another 4 years with a thick cloud of despair hanging over my head, and I really hope it is Richie McCaw who lifts that trophy next year.

But it is not about the rugby. What is most important about the Rugby World Cup next year are the 3,000 media people who will arrive on our shores; media people with their pens poised to write stories about New Zealand, and their cameras poised to take photographs and hours and hours of footage of New Zealand. Those people will be travelling from north to south, east to west, and all around New Zealand, experiencing our landscapes, our people, and our unique Māori culture and heritage. They will be visiting our art galleries, our museums, and our vineyards. They will be participating in activities all around New Zealand, and in between that they will even get to watch a bit of rugby. Those 3,000 media people will be portraying New Zealand to an audience of 4 billion people, and if we can get just 1 percent of those 4 billion people to say New Zealand is a place they really want to visit, and if 1 percent of them come to New Zealand in the next 10 years, then the Rugby World Cup will have been a real success for New Zealand.

Aside from those 3,000 media people, 70,000 to 80,000 visitors will land on our shores and do exactly the same thing: they will travel north to south, and east to west. They will go to the museums, vineyards, and art galleries, and they will sit in our cafes. They will participate in all the activities that will be organised around the Rugby World Cup. They will meet our people and experience Māori culture. When they go back we want them to tell a dozen of their mates that they missed out on the experience of a lifetime, and that they need to come down to New Zealand. If we can achieve that, if they tell their friends and families to come down to New Zealand, then the Rugby World Cup will have been a success for New Zealand.

What we cannot afford are any “Delhi moments” or people visiting or watching saying “Crikey! New Zealand was disorganised, it was chaotic, and it was not prepared for us.” That is why the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill is good legislation, bar one point. We want to work with the Government to make sure that the Rugby World Cup is a success. We want to make sure that everybody who comes here goes back and tells the rest of the world what a great place New Zealand was to visit, how highly organised it was, that everything shone and was polished, and that everything worked really well.

But as my colleagues have explained, we have one issue with this bill, and we would like that issue to be ironed out. We believe that we need to remove the ability the Minister for the Rugby World Cup has under this legislation to override any decision of the Rugby World Cup Authority. We have asked what possible credibility the Minister could have over and above that of the Rugby World Cup Authority, which is made up of a judge, lawyers, and other experts and people with experience in their particular fields. We would expect the Minister to defer to those people and their wisdom and experience, and follow their recommendations on any particular issue. The Government has not been able to describe a situation yet where unfettered power is necessary, but it still insists that the power remain. As clause 51(4) says in Part 4, “A decision of the Minster under this section is final”. That means it does not matter how rational and reasonable an argument may be, or how good it is, if the Minister does not like that argument, then he can say no to it. There is no right of appeal; there is no right to any come-back. We believe that unfettered power is unnecessary. We believe that there is an inherent danger in one Minister having unfettered power. I guarantee that if we swapped sides and there was a Labour Government over there and a National Opposition over here, and we were debating the same issue, National would also be raising it with us. The only difference is that we would listen to National.

The argument of John Hayes that the Minister’s involvement will hasten the process is flawed. He claims that after the authority has made a decision on any application the Minister can consult with various Ministers, perhaps the Minister for Economic Development or the Minister of Police. Well, it will not streamline the process if the Minister listens to a recommendation and then goes off to consult with three, four, or five—or however many—other Ministers. This simply adds steps to the process and in no way streamlines or speeds the process up. Therefore, the notion that granting the Minister unfettered powers will make a decision quicker is nonsense.

When Mr Hayes’ argument ran out of steam and puff, he just flung that good old Tory endearment at us that Labour was being a nanny State. I do not quite understand that. Here we are arguing for an organisation’s decision to have standing and mana, and he was arguing for the Minister to have unfettered power and to override the decision of the authority—and he is calling us nanny State.

At the Committee stage of this bill, Labour, in the name of the Hon Trevor Mallard, intends to introduce an amendment that will provide that the Minister may not grant an urgent approval that has not been recommended by the authority. This will introduce greater democratic oversight to the urgent approval process.

It is important that the Rugby World Cup is highly organised. It is important that we put on our best show for the rest of the world. It is important that we do not have any “Delhi moments” where we are disorganised and chaotic, and things are not organised properly. But we can make sure that all that organisation happens under this legislation without the one part that we disagree with, which is the part that gives the Minister unfettered power to overrule any decision of the authority. Unless we have ironed that out, the Labour Party will not support this bill. I think National needs to seriously consider that small part of the bill. Kia ora.

NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central) Link to this

I acknowledge the presence of Ngāti Whare and Ngāti Manawa in the gallery: tēnā koutou.

I am pleased to speak on the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill. I will speak on three things this evening. Firstly, I will set out the scale of the tournament to outline how important this legislation is to New Zealand. Secondly, I will briefly highlight where we are at in terms of infrastructure and delivery for the cup, and, thirdly, I will touch on two key issues that have been raised by the Opposition—provisions for urgent consents and issues regarding gambling—during the submissions process.

A major reason we need this legislation is that we are stepping up to hold what will be the third-largest sporting event in the world. It will also be the largest sporting event this country has ever held. In terms of people, we are expecting 85,000 international visitors over the 6-week period of the tournament. On top of that, tens of thousands of Kiwis will need to travel and be accommodated around the country to attend games and be part of the fan zones.

The tournament is not just about Auckland and our main centres; we will need to be able to accommodate domestic travel and infrastructure throughout New Zealand. We have made a deliberate decision to spread the tournament throughout the country and into the heart of provincial and rural New Zealand, so that this tournament can be about a stadium of 4 million people, with 48 matches in 13 venues across New Zealand. In short, we are spreading the love all over the country so that all New Zealanders can experience the cup. This is the right thing to do, given that we have so many people in this country who are passionate about rugby, but it is also the right thing to do because this is not just about rugby, as Kelvin Davis acknowledged. It is about the extraordinary opportunity for economic development from the country’s exposure and from tourism from the cup.

That moves me to the fact that we are on track in terms of infrastructure and services for the Rugby World Cup. I was recently with the Minister for the Rugby World Cup and the Prime Minister at the re-opening of Eden Park. The redevelopment is superb. We have all stadium projects on track. The new Otago stadium will be delivered next year, but the rest will be delivered this year. We have confirmed team bases and logistics, and we have tested a variety of match-day processes. We have launched a drive to recruit 5,000 volunteers, and our ticket sales are on track, with over 500,000 having been sold in phase one. We will deliver in terms of the infrastructure and services that are required to hold this wonderful sporting event for New Zealand.

If we focus the mind, then, to when 4 billion people will be watching New Zealand hold the largest sporting event this country has ever seen, and 2,000 media will be here to report what happens, it is the view of members on this side of the House that just having the people and the infrastructure in place may not be enough. We have to have systems in place to deal with the difficult issues and situations that may arise. So it is pleasing that Opposition members have stated that they agree with the Government that the hosting requirements of an event of this scale present significant challenges. In principle, the Opposition also agrees that the bill will provide temporary legislation to enable the timely granting of consents.

But we are left with contention on two issues. I would like to correct the previous speaker, Kelvin Davis. One of the issues that he has not mentioned is an issue raised by Trevor Mallard in terms of the gambling provisions. This is a situation where we have members on this side of the House agreeing on the gambling provisions, and we also have all of the members on the other side of the House agreeing—except for one member, Trevor Mallard. He is the true “Lone Ranger” of this House. Trevor Mallard has said—and there are splits within Labour on this issue—that he disagrees with the gambling provisions. National has said that the reality with these cruise ships is that they are, effectively, floating hotels. But we will not allow them to be exempt from the gambling provisions because they are floating hotels, and they will have to be subject to New Zealand law. We think that that is the right decision, as do the majority of Labour members, except for Trevor Mallard.

The second issue of contention is the issue about urgent consents. Let me be very clear: firstly, it is really hoped that we will never ever need to use these provisions within Part 4. Secondly, let me be also very clear that this is not some unfettered secret process, as has been made out by the Opposition. This is about contingency planning and risk management for what will be the largest sporting event in New Zealand’s history, so let us also be very clear about what the specific process is. Before granting the approval, the Minister must consult with the Minister for Economic Development, and also with Ministers responsible for other relevant portfolios. The Government believes that this is necessary in order to have an urgent and flexible approval process to deal with approvals that may be necessary in the event of an unforeseen situation.

I know members opposite have asked us to come up with what may be an unforeseen event, but I ask them to reflect on the contradiction of that. We actually do believe that there could be some unforeseen events. We have given some examples, such as road closures, whereby—let us be clear, again—the Rugby World Cup Authority will go through the process of considering the situation and making a recommendation to the Minister, but it might be that the Minister for Economic Development and another Minister, such as the Minister of Transport, will decide that they need to overturn that decision. We think that that is a natural check and balance on the system. It is also our view that given the extraordinary nature of the power to grant approvals, it is best that a Minister of the Crown has the ultimate public accountability rather than an unelected body, as members opposite would have us believe.

Members on this side of the House support legislation that will enable us to minimise the risk to New Zealand when 4 billion people and 2,000 media will be watching us. We are united on this side of the House; we are not split, and we are delighted that we will be able to deliver not only the infrastructure but also the legislation and the people to ensure that when the eyes of the world are on New Zealand, we will play our best game.