Debate resumed from 26 October.
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) Link to this
We are debating Part 2 of the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill, and in particular the establishment of the Rugby World Cup Authority. The Labour Party supports the establishment of this authority because we see that it is a reasonable mechanism by which to hear urgent matters that may arise in the build-up to the Rugby World Cup. However, as we have stated several times during this debate, we have grave concern about the fact that, having established this authority, the Government is then putting in place a process by which the Minister for the Rugby World Cup, Murray McCully, in consultation with Gerry Brownlee and Nick Smith can override, vary, ignore, and do whatever he likes with that decision. The example I was giving when I spoke before was the question of wet-pour facilities at Eden Park. I note that some material obtained under the Official Information Act actually shows that Gerry Brownlee was refusing to listen to the advice from the police about health and safety concerns over not having wet-pour services for alcohol at Eden Park.
From our point of view this raises a grave concern about the approach that Ministers are taking. A Minister has received advice from the police—the people charged in our community with protecting community safety—that they believe that wet-pour facilities are essential for the health and safety of New Zealanders. If that advice is simply ignored by the Minister, what sort of case does it set for the authority being established in Part 2 of this bill? The authority will give consideration under clause 9. An example of the kind of thing the authority would do is to grant liquor licences. It would go away and it would seek advice—in this case from the police. The police came back and said they believed wet-pour facilities needed to be provided at Eden Park. The Minister got that advice and said that he does not really consider it to be significant, and he is not going to go along with it. That is the concern we have, because the establishment of the authority is a useful process.
To see the kinds of people who are going to be appointed to the authority, we look at clause 11 of Part 2, “Membership of the authority”. The membership of the authority will have someone “who is a current, former, or retired Judge or a lawyer of at least 7 years’ standing”. That implies a quasi-judicial type of role for this authority, which clearly is required, given that it will have to look at the potential amendment of Acts of Parliament. A serious job is being given to this authority, and serious people are being brought in. Under clause 11(2)(b), there needs to be another member of the authority “who is a lawyer of at least 7 years’ standing to be its deputy chairperson.”; then “In appointing members, the Minister must ensure that the Authority has available to it sufficient members with the knowledge, skill, and experience relevant to the Authority’s functions”. The clause then lists some of that required experience.
Being on the authority will be a serious job, and serious people will be undertaking that job, yet in Part 4 the Government is trying to put a process in place that will fundamentally undermine that work. So from our point of view, when we look at Part 2, we see a part that on the face of it we can support but that is undermined by other parts, and that is disturbing to us.
The process by which the authority will work is then laid out in clause 12 of Part 2, and that is through appointing panels. Again, in looking at the case raised specifically by the police wanting wet-pour facilities to be established, the kind of panel we would establish in relation to that would no doubt have police involvement. Those people whom the authority would have brought in to determine what they would do about those sorts of issues would talk to the police.
But Gerry Brownlee on three occasions has had the police go to him, and I have the notes from each of those meetings here. On each of those occasions, Gerry Brownlee declined to go along with police advice about their health and safety concerns; rather, he said he did not feel that the Rugby World Cup 2011 justified putting in place that activity. The police then said they believed that the activity would be a legacy investment that the Rugby World Cup 2011 should put in place for the health and safety not only of New Zealanders but also of visitors to our country.
Part 2 of this bill certainly provides for the authority to make decisions about liquor licences. That was a decision related to the question of the provision of liquor and the provision of licences, and that was an example of the Associate Minister for the Rugby World Cup deciding that he wanted to ignore that decision. He will be one of the people whom Murray McCully, as Minister for the Rugby World Cup, turns to in order to decide what to do about the recommendations of the authority established in Part 2 of the bill. Gerry Brownlee has shown himself to be one of those people who are not interested in what the police have to say about safety, or about how the Rugby World Cup should operate in terms in liquor licences, and I have no confidence that that would not happen over the issue I have referred to.
I think that the authority has probably been given the powers it needs to do its job, with the exception of what is happening in Part 4. I congratulate the committee, which has made a number of minor changes in Part 2, particularly in relation to the functioning of the administrative secretariat in clause 15. The functions have been varied somewhat in order to allow the secretariat to provide advice to the authority, which, again, is useful because the authority will have to act quickly. It needs all of the people around it that it can get. I think that it is important to note once again, in this debate on Part 2, that Labour supports the Rugby World Cup 2011 strongly—
We certainly do. Nikki Kaye can interject across the Chamber. I say that this side of the Chamber supports the Rugby World Cup 2011, and we have done so from the beginning, I tell Ms Kaye.
JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) Link to this
One has to wonder at Labour’s priorities when its members stand up in this Chamber and deliberately act as spoilers of the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill.
Jo GoodhewWell, I just think that it speaks volumes for the commitment of Labour members to the Rugby World Cup, and I think probably it says that Trevor Mallard—who is no longer the Minister for the Rugby World Cup, Labour having lost the Treasury benches—is throwing a bit of a tanty and doing all he can to spoil the progress of this bill.
New Zealand wants the Rugby World Cup, the Government is behind the Rugby World Cup, and the New Zealand Rugby Union and all the sub-unions around the country are firmly in favour of this Rugby World Cup. Who is acting as the spoiler? Trevor Mallard and his band of little merry men are acting as spoilers for this legislation. I say “Shame on them—shame on them!”.
There are a couple of points that I will pick up here. In terms of liquor licensing, the amendment about liquor licensing that was indicated—
The CHAIRPERSONOh, thank you, Mr Chair. Seeking to introduce new material into the debate after the select committee process—and I am referring directly to the provisions in Part 2—is contrary to whatever Labour members have said in the past about introducing new material and truncating the Committee process. Labour is merely trying to spoil this process. Trevor Mallard has his nose seriously out of joint because he is no longer the Minister for the Rugby World Cup, and this is just his little tanty to try to slow down the Committee process. He is being aided and abetted in a shameful way by the members of the select committee who, I understood, when we met in consideration of Part 2, acted constructively all the way through the select committee process. In fact, all the way through the consideration of Part 2 we had good, robust debate when going through issues such as the membership of the authority, which the member opposite has just stood up and decried. Well, that is news to me, because during the select committee process we had good discussions on that and general agreement—
I do not see any minority report being brought before the Committee in relation to any of the provisions in Part 2. Let us call this what it is: Labour members are filibustering, they have their noses out of joint, and they do not support the Rugby World Cup. I think that that is a terrible shame, and an indictment on the Labour members of how low they are prepared to go to act as spoilers of what should be wonderful legislation to enable a wonderful, marvellous Rugby World Cup event. I hope they come to their senses and start supporting this bill, and supporting the spirit of this bill, as does the Government.
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North) Link to this
I appreciate the opportunity to enter the debate on the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill for the first time in the Committee of the whole House, and to speak to Part 2, which refers to, and deals with, the establishment of the Rugby World Cup Authority. It is a pleasure to follow Jacqui Dean, who was interested in broadening out the debate. I appreciate that she wanted perhaps to go a little beyond Part 2, and I am happy to speak to some of her concerns about why there was no minority report from the Opposition members on the Government Administration Committee with reference to Part 2. That is because the Labour members actually support Part 2. What we are concerned about is the fact that there are good provisions in Part 2; however—
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY Link to this
Nikki Kaye asks why there was no minority report. She can continue to interject, and I am happy to respond to her interjections, but perhaps she would let me get to my point. The reason that there is no minority report for Part 2 is that the Labour Opposition actually supports Part 2, but Part 2 is undermined by the provisions in Part 4.
Part 2 establishes the Rugby World Cup Authority as a body corporate and sets out its functions and powers, which include determining all applications, making recommendations to the Minister, and granting urgent applications. That is a good role for the authority, but the problem is, of course, that Part 4 completely undermines the authority. We may as well not even bother to have the authority, because Part 4 says the Minister can just override it and ignore it. So we speak in favour of this part, but we highlight the fact that other clauses of the bill undermine it. Jacqui Dean brought this issue into the debate; she wondered why Labour had a problem with this bill, and it is because this part, which is a good, valuable part of the bill, is completely undermined.
I will refer specifically to the amendment to clause 9(2) made by the select committee. One of the things that the authority had to take into account in the original wording was “the safety of individuals participating in or attending the Rugby World Cup 2011;”. That has been amended by the select committee—and I think it is a positive move—to read: “public health and safety are protected as far as it is reasonably practicable during the period of the Rugby World Cup 2011”. That amendment made by the select committee is important, because it acknowledges the fact that the event, the Rugby World Cup, will have an impact on New Zealand as a nation and on our community as a whole, not just, as the original wording said, on “individuals participating in or attending the Rugby World Cup 2011”. It is a positive change. I think it is fair to say it is an unusual change for this Government to support, given the use of the term “public health” and the Government’s general abhorrence for public health.
But what concerns me is that although Part 2 has that provision in it and the authority should be making recommendations to the Minister about what, in practical terms, can be done to ensure public health and safety, and although the authority will no doubt be taking advice from organisations like the police, the Fire Service, public health services, and district health boards—all those organisations will be able to feed into the process and advise the authority, which can then advise the Minister—the Minister can turn round and say: “No thanks. It is too difficult and too expensive. We will assume there is no issue of public health and safety.”, in the interests of expediency or of securing profits for sponsors. It could be any reason; in fact, the Minister does not particularly need to give a reason. In that way, Part 4 undermines what is a very, very good clause here in Part 2 of the bill. As I said, I think the amendment to clause 9(2) is a good amendment, because it recognises that the issue is about not just safety but also public health. When we have a gathering of people, as we will do with a tournament like this, we have to think beyond just safety issues in terms of alcohol or driving.
NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central) Link to this
I am pleased to take a call on the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill. Firstly, I think we have seen Labour’s true colours in regard to this legislation. We are seeing that those members are clearly trying to undermine good legislation going through the House in support of what will be the largest sporting event that New Zealand has ever held. It will be a time when 4 billion people will be watching us, with 2,000 media. Frankly, it is quite embarrassing, because members opposite sat in the select committee and went through a reasonable process—and members on this side of the Chamber have talked about that process—but then those members did not put in a minority report. They have far too much time on their hands, and Mr Mallard has stirred them up, taking them down a little garden path. My concern is that we have had a very, very clear process there, but there was no minority report. My colleague said it very well by saying that we need to call members opposite for exactly what they are doing. They are filibustering, and they are showing a lack of support for New Zealand by not supporting this legislation.
We are very clear that this Part 2 of the legislation is about setting up the Rugby World Cup Authority, but we are hearing a lot of contradictions coming from the other side, as well. Yesterday those members said that they supported the process for the establishment of the authority. In fact, Mr Mallard even said yesterday that he supported the fact that Mr McCully was consulting members opposite regarding that membership. But we just heard from Mr Lees-Galloway that—actually, no—because of the provisions about urgent consents, it is Labour’s position that it does not support the legislation, at all. Complete contradictions are coming from the other side of the Chamber. We know what is happening here. We know that this is about wasting New Zealand taxpayers’ money, and we have just seen it via an hour of filibustering. That is not good for New Zealand, particularly when we have had pretty hard economic times.
I come back, again, to Part 2 of the legislation. We on this side of the Chamber want to be very clear that we are supportive of the authority that is being set up. A very reasonable process has been undertaken in relation to Part 2. There is a very clear process about the membership of the authority, in terms of consulting the Minister of Justice, the Minister for Economic Development, and the Minister for the Environment. They are all elected people. Again, it comes back to some of the arguments that have been raised by the Opposition, in regard to not having an urgent consent process whereby there is a power of veto by the Minister. We on this side of the Chamber would prefer to have elected representatives, rather than unelected people, accountable. That goes to the core and heart of a number of the discussions that have happened so far.
I say that we on this side of the Chamber support New Zealand, support the Rugby World Cup, and support this legislation going through, compared with a Labour Opposition that is filibustering, that is wasting the Committee’s time, and that does not support the Rugby World Cup. Those members show a lot of contradictions in terms of what they are saying. We are supportive of the Rugby World Cup, and I commend this legislation.
JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) Link to this
It is my absolute pleasure to set the record straight because, very unfortunately, several members of the Government have tried to mislead those who might be watching this debate on the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill. I am happy to restate that Labour absolutely supports the elements of Part 2—in particular, the establishment of the Rugby World Cup Authority. A robust process has been set out there. But I must restate for the benefit of those who may be watching that we do oppose the notion that carte blanche powers should be given to a Minister—powers that are unnecessary. To somehow translate that objection as Labour being against rugby—in fact, I heard the statement that Labour is against New Zealand—is, I find, a stretch.
We are trying to make good law. That is our obligation in this Committee. It is our job to make sure that we do that well. We absolutely support the Rugby World Cup, which is why we want to make sure that robust procedures are in place to make sure it happens. In my mind, I am much more comfortable with the way that the authority has been established, the membership of the authority, the procedure of the authority, and the decision-making role that it will play than I am with decisions being deferred or taken out of that authority’s hands at the whim of the Minister, which is essentially what this bill allows. I am against that, and Labour is against that.
But I will go over some questions I have for the Minister in the chair, the Hon Anne Tolley, who is obviously acting on behalf of the Minister who has responsibility for this bill. My first question is about liability. We are dealing with a circumventing of process and procedure for which the authority has been given powers as set out in this legislation. If, for instance, a Minister takes the ability to make a decision outside the hands of the authority, where does the liability for that decision lie? Does it then lie directly with the Crown, or does it then fall to the authority, which may have made a counter decision to that of the Minister? That is one of my questions on the issue of liability, because we are dealing with quite contentious issues.
The Rugby World Cup is an event that has the potential to have significant health and safety issues attached to it, and that could potentially become litigious. I note in Part 2, clause 12, that the ability to question the chairperson’s exercise of his or her discretion before the courts is removed. I imagine that holds for all of the authority’s decisions. In terms of litigation, the power to pursue that via the court is removed; does that power then exist if a decision is made by the Minister? That is a question I put to the Ministers themselves in relation to the issue of liability. It would be useful to have that clarified.
Otherwise, I think this bill sets out quite clearly the criteria by which the authority must consider various decisions that are within its ambit, and I think those criteria are very, very robust. I see that the select committee made one change in particular, highlighting the importance of ensuring that “public health and safety are protected as far as it is reasonably practicable during the period of the Rugby World Cup 2011.” It then also sets out a range of other criteria. I wonder whether the Minister could point out whether it is intended that the Minister would use the same criteria given to him or her, if the Minister exercises the power given to him or her in Part 4. Will any of those requirements that we are asking the authority to take into account—to which the select committee has given a lot of consideration—be taken into account by the Minister, as well, to fulfil that set of obligations, or does the Minister have different criteria altogether?
I also thought it was useful that in clause 9(2)(e) of that part, it is pointed out that one of the criteria is “the desirability of maximising the benefit to be derived during or after the tournament from things done in preparation for, and in support of, the tournament.” I have another question for the Minister there. Because the select committee has split it out—instead of referring to the Rugby World Cup as a whole, the provision refers just to the tournament—does that criterion not apply for the ancillary events that I notice the select committee has split out? Does that mean that the authority does not need to take into account the desirability of maximising the benefit derived, when we are talking about ancillary events? Is there a separate set of criteria for those?
CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) Link to this
I am very happy to take a call on Part 2 of the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill, and from the very beginning I say that I am quite excited about the Rugby World Cup coming to New Zealand. It will be a major event for this country and I am looking forward to it. I am also very broadly supportive of the establishment of the Rugby World Cup Authority, which is what the second part—
Mr Mallard also supports Part 2, “Establishment of Rugby World Cup Authority”. I will talk about some of the powers that the authority has, some of the considerations about membership, and, in particular, how the authority will be supported.
Part 2 establishes the Rugby World Cup Authority as a body corporate. It sets out its functions and powers, which include determining all applications, making recommendations to the Minister for the Rugby World Cup, and granting urgent applications.
One of the issues that the Government Administration Committee took into consideration and had some significant discussion on was how best to support the authority in exercising its powers and in making decisions. Effectively, we are taking some of these functions and powers off local authorities, and, for matters related to the Rugby World Cup, transferring them to this authority. But the expertise and the local knowledge, which is quite critical in many of the decision-making processes that will take place, will still reside with those local authorities. So the question is whether a secretariat should be established that would specifically serve the Rugby World Cup Authority, or whether it would be better to draw on local expertise and knowledge from within the existing local authorities. Of course, I tend to go with what the bill has ended up with, which is that it is better to draw on the expertise and knowledge of the existing local authorities. However, the question then becomes whether we can meet the objectives of the bill, which are to speed the process up and make sure we do not have undue delay. Can we do that if we are relying on the local authorities to provide the process and secretarial support?
In the case of larger local authorities such as the Wellington City Council or the new Auckland Council, they are likely to have significant resources behind them, and it will not be a problem for them to supply good-quality, robust secretarial support to the authority and to meet those constrained time frames and time pressures that the authority will face. However, if we move to a much, much smaller local authority, that will not necessarily be the case. Even Hamilton, which is not tiny, but which is not a big local authority either—
Sue Moroney—the fourth-largest city in New Zealand—may not have the staff and the support available to support this authority to meet the time frames that it is required to meet. There will have to be a balance between relying on local authorities to support the new Rugby World Cup Authority and providing additional advice and support.
I think it is important that we understand what the functions of the administrative secretariat will be. As I have said, the administrative secretariat will have to be supplied by existing local authorities. Clause 15 sets out what is required of the local authorities and clause 15(4) sets out the functions of the administrative secretariat. I think the important provision here is clause 15(4)(ba), which states: “to provide advice to the Authority, in accordance with its requirements, for matters relevant to any determinations of the Authority:”, and then clause 15(4)(bb), which begins “to act on the instructions that the Authority gives”. Ultimately, the local authorities, the councils, will still be the ones that have to implement whatever decisions the authority makes. So although the authority gets the power that currently resides with the local authorities, that does not simply mean the local authorities do not need to be involved. Whatever decisions the Rugby World Cup Authority makes, the local councils will still be ultimately responsible for implementing them.
Having the administrative secretariat supplied by the local authorities will certainly assist in making sure that that process works effectively, but we should also acknowledge the resource constraints that that will potentially place on some of the smaller local authorities that may have to deal with that issue.
STUART NASH (Labour) Link to this
I was in my office listening to the television when I heard one of the National members stand up and say that Labour is anti-rugby. At that point, I thought I had to come down to the House and defend the honour of my Labour colleagues. The reason I have a dodgy shoulder and a stuffed hamstring at the moment is that at my age I am still pulling on a rugby jersey and representing this House on rugby fields around the country. I love rugby. Every Saturday I take my son to play rugby, but I am not unusual. This weekend will be based around rugby. It reminds me of a league player who was asked whether he liked the game of league and would die for it. He said that he did not know whether he would die for it—go into a deep coma maybe, but not death.
I have looked at the part of the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill that provides for the make-up of the Rugby World Cup Authority. I love rugby but I also value democracy. Democracy is a fundamental principle that underpins everything we do in this House, and that is what the authority represents. When I look at the make-up of the authority, I understand why Labour is supporting Part 2. The chair of the authority must be a retired judge or a lawyer of at least 7 years’ standing. The deputy chair must be a lawyer of at least 7 years’ standing. This is not an authority that has been just thrown together, made up of people who are passionate about rugby; this is an authority of people who have vast knowledge and competency in organising events, in law, in local town planning, and everything. Clause 12(1) states “When any application is received by the Authority under this Act, the chairperson must appoint—(a) a panel…”. Clause 12(2) states the panel “must comprise at least 3 members including, as presiding officer, a lawyer of at least 7 years’ standing (who may be the chairperson of the Authority).” Clause 12(3) states “the chairperson must have regard to the need for the panel to have available to it sufficient members with the knowledge, skill, and experience relevant to the particular application before it.” The process is very robust, and the authority will not say it does not like rugby, it does not like New Zealand, and it will hold up the Rugby World Cup event, for whatever reason.
The reason the authority is being put in place is to ensure that due diligence is undertaken, that due process is followed, that the event is not a shambles, and that we do not ride roughshod over the taxpayers and the citizens of New Zealand. That would be undemocratic. To have a clause in this bill that states the Minister can make decisions without input from any other person is so undemocratic as to be abhorrent. I love rugby but I also love democracy.
I come back to the point made by my colleague Mr Hipkins. Napier will be a proud host. I am thinking the final might even be played in Napier! The bill says the Minister will appoint members of the authority in consultation, etc., but it must have people who understand the local requirements of the region to which the application before it refers. The process is very robust. As it is, it bypasses the standard legal procedure of this House, but it is a very robust process. I cannot understand for the life of me why the Government would want to bypass the authority. It is set up, it is supported by Labour, and it is an authority whose members are supported, I think, by the Minister for the Rugby World Cup in consultation with three of his colleagues. The process is so robust as to be almost watertight.
I also see that clause 9(2) states that “the Authority must, to the extent relevant, have regard to—(a) the desirability of making proper preparation for the Rugby World Cup;”. That is what we are all about. The authority needs “to ensure the efficient, safe, and lawful conduct of the Rugby World Cup;”. Efficient, safe, and lawful conduct? Goodness me! We are all for that. Every single member of Parliament supports that. Clause 9(2) also refers to “the desirability of supporting the appropriate delivery of services by or through Rugby New Zealand 2011 Limited;”. Every single member in this House supports the authority. It is what is needed to ensure that the Rugby World Cup event held in New Zealand is a very, very successful venture. It will be successful—of that I have absolutely no doubt.
PHIL TWYFORD (Labour) Link to this
I want to respond to the comments made by the member for Auckland Central. I have never heard such self-righteous cant in the last 2 years in this House as we heard from Nikki Kaye in this debate. She did not so much wrap herself in the flag as in an All Black jersey in her enthusiasm to accuse Labour members in this Parliament of not supporting the Rugby World Cup, of not even liking rugby, and of being unpatriotic. How pathetic! Members on the Government benches are threatened by the fact that Opposition members would dare to criticise one part of this bill. I emphasise that it is one part of this bill. We have made it crystal clear at the Government Administration Committee, in public statements, and in the entirety of this debate so far that we are voting for every part of the bill, bar one. We have made that clear in the first reading, in the second reading, and in the entirety of the Committee stage to date. We support this bill; we support the Rugby World Cup; and any attempt to make this an argument about patriotism and whether we support rugby and the Rugby World Cup is absolute nonsense. The member for Auckland Central should know better.
The member for Auckland Central said that it was embarrassing to see Labour make all these criticisms of the Murray McCully provisions in this bill. She asked why Labour has not put up a minority report. Nikki Kaye should ask herself why any Opposition member would not put up a minority report. It is because members on the Government benches are making a habit of voting down and rejecting minority reports.
It is absolutely true. We saw it at the Law and Order Committee and we are now seeing it at other committees, too. The Government is so defensive and insecure that it cannot brook any dissent from the Opposition in the form of minority reports, which, after all, are a mechanism that this House has developed over many years to allow the Opposition to have its say and to have a dissenting opinion. In this case we are talking about only one part out of—how many parts are in this bill?
There are seven parts. Labour has made it clear that we oppose only one part, yet the member for Auckland Central cannot tolerate the slightest criticism of her bill without going into paroxysms of outrage and self-righteousness by suggesting that Labour does not support the Rugby World Cup. I say to members opposite that they should listen to what the Opposition is saying. We oppose the granting of unfettered powers to the Minister for the Rugby World Cup to override the recommendations of eminent specialists who have been recruited into roles to administer the Rugby World Cup Authority. We think that is undemocratic and we are saying so. That is a perfectly justified opinion. Members opposite should take a deep breath and recognise that this is a debating chamber. This is where we carry out the democracy of our country and we scrutinise legislation. That is what this debate is all about. I am glad to see that the outrage on the part of members opposite seems to have dissipated and we can get on with debating Part 2 of this bill.
The select committee very usefully clarified some points in relation to the powers of the Rugby World Cup Authority. It made it absolutely explicit in the bill that, in relation to any powers exercised by the relevant statutory body that will be granting liquor licences and considering and issuing consents, the same powers would carry across to the Rugby World Cup. So there is absolutely no doubt about that in relation to the powers of the authority, which are contained in Part 2; it is a very, very useful amendment.
Part 2 also deals with the role of the administrative secretariat. My colleagues have already made the point very clearly that we are entirely happy with the powers of the administrative secretariat. They have been thoughtfully and usefully put together.
A party vote was called for on the question,
That the question be now put.
Ayes 69
Noes 51
Motion agreed to.
CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) Link to this
I am happy to take a call on Part 3 of the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill. This part deals with approvals and declarations. First, I want to set out what the scope of this particular part is. It sets out the scope of the applications that may be made and how they are to be lodged. The applications may seek approvals, declarations, or a change of conditions of an approval or declaration or of existing approvals granted under other enactments. In addition there is a provision for applications relating to events that are not connected with the Rugby World Cup 2011 but for which event organisers wish to test whether a proposed activity—for example, traffic management—is likely to be adequate for the same purpose in relation to the Rugby World Cup 2011.
I want to talk about that in particular, because here in Wellington, earlier this year, at the Westpac Stadium we had an event that was designed specifically to test whether the stadium, the security facilities, and all those who were going to be involved in hosting the Rugby World Cup events in Wellington were adequately prepared and ready. For example, Westpac Stadium wanted to put in place some changes around how traffic management worked. I think it is important that if it had required additional authority for, for example, road closures and those kinds of things, it would have needed a provision for that to happen, as there is under this legislation. Even though the Wellington event—I think it was an All Blacks test match—was not directly connected with the Rugby World Cup, it was important that it could be used as a tester to make sure that the systems being put in place for the Rugby World Cup were going to work.
This bill allows the authorities to determine that events not directly connected with the Rugby World Cup can be deemed to be like Rugby World Cup events for the purpose of testing things and making sure they will work. In order for that to happen, an applicant needs to establish that measures have been undertaken to obtain the necessary approval or declaration through the normal processes but that it is unlikely that it could be obtained in time. That is an important principle that runs through this legislation, and it is something we talked about a lot at the Government Administration Committee. It is really important that this bill is not seen simply as a short cut for sloppy management or bad practice.
Things will come up in the course of organising the Rugby World Cup that are unforeseen, that cannot be dealt with through normal processes, and that will, therefore, need a truncated or a shortened process. But that is not an excuse for people to simply put everything on hold and say: “We know that the authority is being established and that the Minister will have extra powers, so we just won’t worry about it yet. We’ll worry about it further down the track.” That is not the message we want to send to anybody who is involved with Rugby World Cup activities.
The message we want to send is: “Do it now if you can, use the regular processes, and don’t wait, but if you need to, then obviously these powers will be available.” So unless the enactment that would normally apply to an application makes no provision for public notice to be given, all applications must be publicly notified by the authority. I think it is important to stress that at this point.
We want to respect existing democratic processes and ensure that this legislation is not used in such a way as to curtail the rights of New Zealand citizens to have a say in quite significant approvals processes. Any submission must be made no later than 10 working days after the date on which public notice of an application is given. Ten working days is a reasonably truncated time frame, so it will be important that those who have an interest in these issues are keeping a close eye on what is going on.
If the authority considers it necessary, or if a person with a right to be heard requests to be heard, a hearing will be heard no later than 10 working days after the closing date for submissions. By the time we have a 10-day notification period and, potentially a 10-day process for submissions to be heard, we are already up to 20 working days, potentially, for something that will be considered under this part. Any appeal must be brought not later than 5 working days after the authority has notified its determination, so we are now looking at a period of 25 days, potentially, for decisions to be made.
Although this part provides for some truncation of the process, it does not unnecessarily restrict the ability of people to make submissions and to be heard. There was some discussion at the Government Administration Committee about the notification provisions and whether, given the shortened periods, notification in the daily papers was required. For example, if we are talking about a 10-day time period for notification, depending on the timing of dealing with newspaper classified advertising deadlines, it might not necessarily be practical to advertise something in the way it would normally be advertised, by using the newspapers. The question then became whether it was possible for advertising to be done on a website, and so forth.
This part sets out the methods of making any application that is to be considered under it. It is important. It sets out that applications must be made in writing and in a form and manner prescribed by regulations or as approved by the authority. I think it is important that applications are in written form. People will not be able to ring up the authority, say they have a great idea, and ask for approval. There have to be robust processes for doing that. Making sure that an application is in writing is important. It has to be lodged for registration with the administrative secretariat and accompanied by any information the case may require and any deposit that the administrative secretariat may require.
The previous part, Part 2, which we have dealt with, allows the administrative secretariat to put in place provisions for the deposit, and a bond in some cases. That can all be part of the written application process that the secretariat and the authority may put in place. There were some significant changes to the way this section of the bill was structured by the select committee. The changes were mostly technical, so I will not go into those in great detail.
There is quite a significant clause—clause 19—that deals with the information that needs to be supplied with applications for approvals and declarations. So the House, in passing this legislation, is giving some quite detailed instructions to the authority on the process that we want it to be engaging in. I think it is really important that when we are truncating a democratic process, which we are doing in this case—by removing the power from existing decision-making bodies and giving it to the authority—we still have a very robust process in place for the authority that will be making those decisions and dealing with that.
I note, just to give an example, some of the things that clause 19 talks about in terms of the information that must be supplied. It refers to “all the information required under the enactment that would, but for this Act, apply;”. So if people are applying for a licence, permit, or whatever, they will still need to supply all the same information that they would need to supply under the existing Act were it not for this truncated process. That is a very important provision.
Clause 21A talks about the procedure in the event of overlapping applications to the statutory person, or body, or authority for the same activity, and I will not go into those in any great detail. Subpart 2 talks about jurisdiction, public notification, and the making of submissions. I think that is really important. Again, it is quite prescriptive in terms of the process for the notification and submissions to be determined, and also for the determination of an affected person’s status. All these things would be regularly covered by established systems and processes, were the normal processes to apply. Here we are talking about a truncated process—establishing something that will be operating for a very short period of time in, potentially, quite a pressured environment, given the time constraints on it.
I think it is really important, given that the authority will not have time to establish its own processes, systems, and body of precedent or case law, or whatever we want to call it, that the House be quite prescriptive about how we expect it to operate and function. That is what this part does. It sets out in great detail the provisions relating to notification, submissions, and consultation. For example, clause 25 specifies what the contents of a public notice must be, and it includes things like the nature of the application, including “the activity, facility, or test activity or facility for which approval is sought …”, and so forth.
JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa) Link to this
Chris Hipkins, the previous speaker, strung together a lot of highfalutin words, which gave the illusion that he was smart enough to understand the game, but I reflect and suggest that he was stupid enough to think that what he was saying was important.
I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I am generally pretty comfortable with robust debate, but I am not sure whether it is in order in this House—in fact, I am absolutely certain it is not—for a member to call another member stupid.
Part 3 of the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill provides for this country to organise and have the greatest contest that it has ever experienced in the whole period of New Zealand’s existence. Part 3 is quite critically important in allowing 48 rugby matches to take place in 13 locations in this country. We are trying to use Part 3 and the other clauses of this bill to create a “Stadium New Zealand”—a vision to help to move this country forward. The vision set out and prescribed in Part 3 will enable us to portray ourselves as a great country on the world stage.
Part 3 will help us to manage the 85,000 visitors to this country, who, hopefully, will leave a lot of money behind to support all sorts of small businesses: homestays, taxi drivers, bus drivers, and other people. On top of that, we will have a huge global television audience. That is what this bill is about. This bill, in Part 3, is about creating New Zealand’s greatest event ever. Instead of celebrating this, we are dealing with words like “truncated”. They are strung-together words that sound important, but I can assure members that they are not. They are big words. The outcome of what we have seen in the House earlier this afternoon was having members just trying to be like Helen Kelly and hobbits. Part 3 is about trying to set up the underpinning of the greatest event that will occur in New Zealand in our lifetime. The Opposition is trying to pull this apart with negative comments about Part 3.
This legislation will move this country forward. It will set up a Rugby World Cup Authority to help to do that. The authority established by this legislation will enable the granting of all sorts of applications for activities related to licensing, and the prescribing of the use of land areas for other events where the Rugby World Cup will be involved. Clause 31(6) prescribes that—
I draw the member’s attention to the bill. If she had taken the trouble to read it, she would find that the word “prescribes” is in the bill. For example, clause 31(6) states: “The Authority may prescribe any other conditions that it considers appropriate, including—(a) conditions that apply to any of the activities, facilities, or class of activity or facility to which the declaration relates;”. That is great jargon. What we need to keep very firmly focused on here is that this legislation will allow the greatest event to take place in New Zealand that this country has ever seen. I think it is critically important that this legislation allows our country to show itself off on the world stage in a way that leaves it full of credit and praise, that adds significantly to the economy, and that portrays New Zealand as the very highly organised host of a world-class, brilliant event. Thank you.
DAVID SHEARER (Labour—Mt Albert) Link to this
I will start by once again stating what Part 3 is all about. I take into account what the previous speaker said, which is that this bill is about enabling the greatest sporting event that New Zealand has ever put on to take place. I do not think this bill is doing that. That was done a few years ago when the Government of the day had the vision to go out and grab this opportunity. This legislation simply makes sure that the event can run smoothly, once the vision has been seen and accomplished.
Part 3 sets out the scope of the applications that may be made and how they are to be lodged. It is quite technical in nature. In many ways it sets out the process. As my colleague said, it is a more truncated or, if you like, shortened, abbreviated, or reduced process than we would otherwise have.
Shrunken, minimalised, truncated—it could be seen in a whole lot of different ways. In fact, that member himself could be seen as somewhat truncated, shortened, or made smaller as a result of his recent operation. I have to say he looks much better for it. However, this legislation, truncated as it stands, allows the process to enable this Rugby World Cup to go ahead in a smooth and easy way. Part 3 sets out the scope of the applications that can be made, how they are to be made, and how they are to be lodged. The applications may seek approvals. They can seek declarations and a change in conditions of an approval, or of existing approvals granted under other enactments. The key point is that we are following a process, if we have to do this. As David Clendon said yesterday, we are quite good at putting on events like this. It seems that particularly in the transport area, which was mentioned specifically in Part 3, we have done a very, very good job in preparing ourselves. I do not think this legislation will be needed; nevertheless, Part 3 goes into a great deal of detail. If we do need to use it, at least it enables the process to be carried out with the fewest possible problems.
There is provision in Part 3 for applications relating to events that are to test whether a proposed activity—for example, traffic management—is likely to be adequate for the purpose, in relation to the Rugby World Cup 2011. This has happened in my electorate, which encompasses the Eden Park venue. An enormous amount of planning has been going on, in and around that area, particularly in the transport management area but also relating to the Kingsland railway station, which has been modified dramatically in order to take people to and from the venue.
I will touch on one point. We are now seeing, for the first time, people starting to take trains to go to these venues, both in and out of the city and from the west and the south, rather than using their cars. It is part of a general move that we are witnessing right across the Auckland region. The transport Minister may want to take note of that when he looks at the future of New Zealand rail.
Part 3 will enable the smooth running of activities in the period during which the Rugby World Cup will be held. I want to look at clause 31, “Determination of applications for declarations”. It states: “(1) In determining an application under section 16(2) or (5) or 17 for a declaration, a test declaration, or a change to the conditions of a declaration or a test declaration, the Authority must have regard to any adverse effects on the environment that would be, would be likely to be, if the application were granted, more than minor as determined in accordance with section 31A.” This section is extremely important, and again I use the example of the Eden Park venue. Two historic houses were removed in order to enable transport to flow more freely. To be perfectly honest, I think that was unnecessary. We are changing our environment—I am talking about the urban environment here—dramatically in order to cater for the Rugby World Cup, and I am pleased that some safeguards will be encompassed in this bill that will enable these environmental impacts, which would be classified as major, as they are certainly not minor, to be heard and to be used in an adequate way.
Clause 31(1A) states: “The Authority must not grant the application if the activity, facility, or class of activity or facility that is the subject of the application is prohibited by another Act.” Once again, I think that provides the safeguards. It goes back to Part 2, which we have just discussed, which covers the make-up of the authority that will be hearing the applications under this part of the Act. I believe that the authority is being set up in a way that it will have the utmost respect for the process, and a senior judge of 7 years’ standing has been appointed chair of the authority.
JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) Link to this
It is my pleasure to take my first call on Part 3 of the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill. Before commencing, I want to hark back to the contribution made by my colleague John Hayes. He seems to really resent the fact that the Opposition is exploring some of the detail of this bill in the Committee stage—as it is imperative that we do. My colleague Iain Lees-Galloway described him as being monosyllabic in his contribution. I think that if we distil down my colleague John Hayes’ contribution on Part 3 we would find that if he had his way this bill would simply state: “Part 1 Let’s Have Party. Commencement Date: Now.” He seemed to utterly reject the notion that we should have any discussions on the way that some of the detail of the Rugby World Cup should be dealt with. Members on this side of the Chamber see this as quite an important job and one that we will continue to undertake with vigour.
Part 3 is a really important, substantive part of the bill. The whole intention, of course, is that the bill balances the need to reduce any delay in time and unnecessary bureaucracy but still makes sure that due process is undertaken when granting the authority power to undertake certain activities that would otherwise go through quite a rigorous separate procedure. Getting that balance right is absolutely critical. A lot of that occurs, to a certain degree, in Part 3.
My colleague Chris Hipkins has already outlined some of the time lines that may apply to certain applications under this part. I think his rough estimation, at its longest point, was that we may see delays in an application, which perhaps had public notification attached to it, of roughly 25 working days. With the Rugby World Cup being in such a short time, even the longest process that we might see could be perceived to be an impediment to undertaking an activity.
So I wondered whether any Government members, anyone on the Government Administration Committee—whether any members of the committee wish to contribute on this question—or the Minister in the chair, the Hon Judith Collins, wished to take a call. I note that no calls have been taken by a Minister in the chair up until this point, which is disappointing. It would be useful if the Minister could outline to us the longest period that it is anticipated an application could take to be processed. It would be useful to understand that from the Government’s perspective.
Is it intended, for instance, that the ministerial power for unforeseen circumstances—and the Government is unable to explain to us what that might look like—could be used to override a process that is taking too long under the jurisdiction of the authority? Is that the intention, or does it fall outside the ambit of what the Government anticipates that extraordinary ministerial power being used for? Some clarification on that point would be useful.
I think it is interesting to reflect on clause 19(2)(c). That clause goes into some of the additional requirements that have been set out. The select committee clarified that an application going through this shortened process must be specific to the Rugby World Cup. It must include, for instance, information on the steps an applicant must take to ensure, as far as reasonably practical, the health and safety of those undertaking the activity, maps and plans of a location, and any conditions the applicant considers appropriate for the declaration—a few things that are specific to the Rugby World Cup.
Again, I reflect on the fact that the select committee in its definition split the notion of tournament events—the actual sporting events—from ancillary events, for instance the public screening of an event in a public place, or an additional liquor licence for a pub in a remote area to extend its usual licence requirements to screen an event. I would be interested if the Minister could clarify whether it is anticipated that we split the way that those are dealt with by the authority, because, although I concede I am new to looking at this legislation, that is not entirely clear to me on a cursory glance.
I come specifically to clause 21A, which deals with overlapping applications between the statutory bodies that would usually deal with the applications. The authority will now deal with with those applications in a circumvented process. I think it is right that we have quite clear procedural direction as to what happens when we have duplicate applications through either of those bodies, but I still have some question marks over, for instance, arbitration and those who have a higher delegation of power between those two bodies. I just want to raise those.
Clause 21A states that if there are overlapping applications that are the same or substantially the same as an application already lodged with a statutory body or person, the application to the relevant statutory person or body is to be treated as having been withdrawn from the relevant statutory person or body and must be transferred to the authority in accordance with the regulation made under this Act. It is quite a significant power to basically instruct that a relevant statutory body must, as outlined in subclause (4): “without delay,—(a) forward a copy of all documentation it holds on the application to the Authority; and (b) cease to process the application.”
I wonder whether any arbitration can take place in a scenario where, for instance, there might be some question over whether the application fulfils the criteria set out in the bill, or where a statutory body may have some jurisdiction questions and may wish to maintain the processing of that application. We are talking about overriding what would probably otherwise be local council authority. Those are quite significant powers in that regard.
I congratulate the select committee or the Government—whichever it was—on anticipating this issue and trying its best to resolve it. It does seem curious that it has anticipated this issue but cannot anticipate the circumstances in which carte blanche powers for a Minister might be required. It is hard to imagine what kind of scenario it is wishing to anticipate.
I refer to clause 21A(6)(b), which states: “the statutory time limits applying to the relevant statutory person or body recommence from the date that the statutory body or person receives the documentation.” So, for instance, if an authority declines an application under its criteria for processing a liquor licence and then refers it back to the usual statutory body that processes it, that relevant statutory body must treat the decision and the reasons of the authority as irrelevant for the purpose of the decision on the application.
It seems to me that although there is no judicial oversight to challenge a decision made by an authority, we do have a backstop measure. Basically, someone who makes an application could just go back to the statutory body, make the application again, have it processed in time for the Rugby World Cup, and still come out with the relevant requirements and legal rights to proceed, even though an authority had already made a decision otherwise. So I would be interested in hearing the rationale from the Government or from members of the select committee. Perhaps the Minister in the chair might like to tell us why the authority’s decision is not full and final and why we still have, in a sense, an additional judicial process that someone can go through. It is an extra layer of bureaucracy, really, and I am curious as to why those decisions are not full and final. Actually, at the end of the day we are leaving local authorities to, potentially, be the final arbiter. I wonder whether that was the intention of the Government. Some clarification of that would be good.
I think I just heard Jacqui Dean offer to stand up and clarify the position on that area. I would perfectly happy to hear her contribution, given that her contributions to date on this legislation have been somewhat shallow.
I am happy to make that accusation given that the only thing I have heard from that member is that Labour hates rugby. What a full contribution that was!
DAVID CLENDON (Green) Link to this
I just make a few brief comments on Part 3, because it is very significant and is quite technical, in a way; it is quite detailed. Essentially, within this part, we are told by what means, by what mechanisms, people will have their rights reduced and will have their opportunities to participate reduced. We are told to what extent and by what means ordinary members of the public will be denied their usual access to decision making about events, activities, structures, facilities, and so on that actually could influence them in their day-to-day lives. Of course, there are some quite substantial provisions put in place in Part 3—all in the name of the Rugby World Cup and getting a good event. We all do look forward to that event and hope it goes well, and also hope that we might leverage off the event to the maximum amount available. That is a point I will return to.
But, initially, having made the point that Part 3 is the nitty-gritty, this is where we are told how the authorities, served by the numerous secretariats, will diminish people’s rights—take away our access, our right to participate—but in a sense this part is almost redundant—
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I just check whether you are aware of what the member is saying.
To an extent, Part 3 is almost superfluous because the sting in the tail, if you like, is that no matter what decisions are made at this level, no matter who informs those decisions, or by what means they are made, ultimately one person will have the say-so in terms of what may or may not occur. That is the one step too far that has clearly brought Labour on to the side of opposing this bill: a place where the Greens have been from day one on this bill.
Indeed, it is, but I am sure we have had reference to that issue already.
I give a couple of quick examples as to some of the diminished ability that people will have to participate. There is the matter of public notice, which has been commented on earlier; that information and supporting documentation about particular applications may be limited to being placed on one website. Potentially people who wish to make submissions may be obliged to make submissions only through electronic means. For many people that will not be a problem—it is commonplace—but we must recall that not every household in New Zealand has access to electronic media. Not everybody chooses to use that form of communication. I think we should be respectful of choices in the ability that people have to make submissions.
It is interesting that the matter of standing is addressed in Part 3—that standing will be needed to be proved. We are basically going back to the bad old days of town and country planning when not everybody had standing, as of right, as is generally the rule under our new resource management approach. It is required that a person must have an interest in the matter greater than that of the general public. There are various statements about “affected persons”, and statements that the Rugby World Cup Authority, for example when it is considering what constitutes an adverse effect, must ignore effects of a temporary nature. That means that communities of people could be subjected to significant noise over a period of days and weeks without any opportunity to object to that because the effect is deemed to be temporary. That is just not acceptable.
I mentioned earlier that the justification underpinning a lot of these conditions is that this event will put New Zealand on the world stage. The various provisions in Part 3 are there because of the implied argument about the greater good for the country. It is interesting that in 2005, when the event was first awarded to New Zealand, we were told, amidst great rejoicing, that we estimated some 60,000 extra visitors would come here. That is a very debatable claim in itself, given that very robust European research demonstrates that, most often, the expectation about extra visitors for an event is overstated. In 2005, the expectation was for 60,000 people; today the expectation is 85,000 extra visitors. The expectation has been inflated by some 40 percent in 5 years. In 2005 we understood that 3.4 billion people would witness this extravaganza on television; now that number has gone up to 4 billion people. For every one of the intervening 5 years, another 120 million people have an interest in rugby!
NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central) Link to this
I am pleased to speak with regard to Part 3 of the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill. First, I want to say this is a pretty momentous moment in the Chamber, because some really great analogies are happening between the legislation we are debating, which is designed to benefit New Zealand from an economic perspective in terms of world exposure, and the fact that at 7.20 this evening the Prime Minister of New Zealand saved The Hobbit. This country is seeing a real contrast between the two sides of the Chamber, particularly with regard to Part 3. National is putting legislation in place for the economic benefit of New Zealand, with 4 billion people expected to watch the Rugby World Cup in our country, and the Prime Minister moved swiftly to save The Hobbit for New Zealand and save thousands of jobs for this country. Those on the opposite side of the Chamber are putting a whole lot of obstacles in the way of the average New Zealander who just wants a job at the moment. I am proud that we have a Prime Minister who acted to save that film for this country.
I shall relate that point back to Part 3. Part 3 is about the Rugby World Cup 2011. We know that the tournament is expected to bring 85,000 visitors to New Zealand, and the numbers watching The Hobbit will be pretty similar.
The Opposition’s whole debate this evening has been about opposing one specific provision. We have heard a lot of contradiction from the Opposition team. Iain Lees-Galloway said that because of the provision Labour opposes this bill. Then all the other Labour speakers said that, no, actually Labour supports the Rugby World Cup. Well, if those members did support the Rugby World Cup, they would be standing up this evening and supporting this legislation.
Let us go back to the actual provision. The Rugby World Cup Authority will go through a process in terms of consents—it gives people their democratic rights. National has said that this event is so important to our country that we will go through the process of consulting the Opposition over whom we appoint to that authority, different Ministers of the Crown will be consulted and we will get advice, and we will ensure that the authority is well resourced. However, there could be an unforeseen situation. I know that members have asked what that unforeseen situation is—
—but we have said very clearly that it is unforeseen. Mr Mallard interjects, but my point is very relevant to Part 3, because that part deals with applications to the Rugby World Cup Authority; I am talking about a process that is relevant to applications to the authority. Yes, it is dealt with in Part 4, but I am saying that our Government believes that this event is the greatest event this country will ever hold, and it is very important to New Zealand. I am very pleased. I am saying today that we do not want to use this process; however, we are putting a process in place that provides that if an unforeseen situation occurs, our Government would act. There is a very clear decision for New Zealand, a clear contrast between the two sides of the Chamber. The Government is ready to act in the best interests of our country. This moment is very important for people to watch, because they will see a Government that is prepared to act in the best interests of New Zealand; prepared to say, yes, there is a process, but if something goes terribly wrong and there is an unforeseen situation, then we will allow our elected members of Parliament to be accountable for that. We will allow that to happen.
I am very proud to be a supporter of the Government. I am a supporter of the Prime Minister, John Key. I say good on him for saving The Hobbit. I am a supporter of the Ministers who have been behind that decision. And I am a supporter of this Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill because it is good for New Zealand. It will create jobs, and that is what this side of the Chamber is about.
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) Link to this
I thank you, Mr Chairperson, for your liberal approach to the previous speaker, Nikki Kaye, in broadening the debate. There are a couple of points that I would like to make. Labour welcomes the fact that The Hobbit is to be made in New Zealand. We think that is very good. We know that Gerry Brownlee was part of the meeting that sorted out the industrial relations issue on 14 October, and we congratulate him on taking Helen Kelly’s advice to bring that meeting together and on the results. Gerry Brownlee did a good job.
If we can mix The Hobbit, the relationship with Warner Bros, and the Rugby World Cup, I think it is fair to say the Prime Minister is wearing the No. 2 jersey today. He is wearing the No. 2 jersey, and one could say he has been on his knees to Warner Bros. The Prime Minister has been royally screwed by Warner Bros, and as a result of that the company will be laughing all the way to the Bank of America. It will be laughing—
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) Link to this
I have just reflected on a phrase that the member used. It is inappropriate. Do not use it again. It related to a tool.
Hon TREVOR MALLARD Link to this
He has been done. We will work our way through the analogies, but what has happened is that the failure to have the $140,000 dinner to keep the relationship going has meant that it has cost $15 million. We are told that the money is only for The Hobbit, so it is not general. If Kiwis want to make a major production, they do not receive the money. If Warner Bros want to make a film, the money goes to Warner Bros. It is just absolutely, absolutely outrageous, and we will work our way through the analogies.
To return to the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill, I want to respond to the comments made by John Hayes, who said Labour hates rugby. It is fair to say Labour worked very hard to get the Rugby World Cup to New Zealand. I am trying to remember, but I think that the former Prime Minister was on her way to Korea and went via Dublin in order to make a difference. There is a common factor in Premier House. On two separate occasions the former Prime Minister entertained the executive of the International Rugby Board at Premier House, as part of the exercise that led to New Zealand getting the hosting rights to Rugby World Cup, because she knew that it was important to build relationships rather than to do things on a crisis basis, which is the way that National seems to approach them.
I would now like to get back to—or start on, possibly—the detail of Part 3 of the bill. I was a member of the Government Administration Committee and I will take responsibility for mistakes, but I think that there is a mistake in terms of how the word “test” is used. It ends up being quite confusing as to what sorts of tests we are talking about. When you, Mr Chairperson, and I talk about the Rugby World Cup and tests, we tend to think of matches involving two countries for which caps are awarded, but if we look at clause 17, and in particular at clause 17(5)(a) and (b), it is possible that what is meant is a trial—testing something out, rather than having a test. I wonder whether within the Rugby World Cup legislation we are better to reserve the term “test” for a rugby test rather than use it to refer to a trial. I know that the Minister in the chair, Judith Collins, who is focusing heavily on texting at the moment, is more interested in trials than tests. It might be that she could take the initiative and work with her colleague Murray McCully on giving us some clarification as we work our way through this bill.
One of the problems is that the more that we look at bills, the more that we find things that could well be wrong. One of the areas that could well be wrong is new clause 31A, “Determination of whether adverse effects are more than minor”, which has come into the bill. I would like the Minister to respond to this, because I think we might have something slightly arse about face in the bill. Clause 31A lists the things that the authority must disregard when determining whether adverse effects are more than minor. But one of the things it must disregard is (a) “any adverse effect of the activity or facility that … (iii) is of a temporary nature, having regard to the duration of the approval, declaration, or test approval or declaration;”.
The problem I have is that all of these determinations are of a temporary nature. They are time-limited; they do not go on. At the completion of the Rugby World Cup, the determinations of the authority are finished. So I am not clear whether that means that because any adverse effects are of a temporary nature, all adverse effects have to be ignored. I am—
Hon TREVOR MALLARD Link to this
The member is correct. I am struggling to understand how we made that mistake in the legislation, because I think it is a mistake.
Hon Tau HenareHon TREVOR MALLARD Link to this
The member tells me not to worry about it. If the member was next to a fan zone, and all adverse effects were ignored and were not able to be taken into account in making a determination, he might get a bit grumpy, and rightly so.
Charles ChauvelHon TREVOR MALLARD Link to this
He might be next to a fan zone, actually, because he lives next to his mother-in-law, and next to her is his brother-in-law, as well. I know that situation relatively well as a result of other litigation, but we will not go back into caveats over houses at the moment, because that would be off the topic.
I have not yet seen any sign of the Minister stirring in order to answer the question, but it is a serious question. I think it may well be that my colleague Mr Chauvel needs to look at an amendment in order to clarify this issue, because all adverse effects, I think, will be temporary. If we—
Hon TREVOR MALLARD Link to this
Every now and again we make a serious comment. Where does that member come from? I cannot tell those two members apart. She is the woman from mid-Canterbury somewhere. All adverse effects will be temporary. If all temporary effects are to be ignored, what protection do the neighbours have from adverse effects, given that they must all be temporary? Again, I make it clear that I was a member of the select committee and I looked very carefully at this clause and subclause as it was drafted. It is new. It was previously in another part of the bill, but the bill was redrafted and the clause was brought into this part for clarification. I would like some member opposite, even if it is not the Minister in the chair, to clarify for us what happens around adverse effects.
On the question of the notices of determinations, I think the committee did good work. I think John Hayes did the work on behalf of the New Zealand Fire Service. He is a member who focused on that very carefully. I think it was my suggestion that Rugby New Zealand 2011 also get notices of determinations—in fact, notices of the applications—so it is aware of the issues that are being considered and of the decisions. I think some of us assume that we will get there by osmosis or some approach like that.
There is a question arising from clause 34 in Subpart 4 around the expiry of approvals and declarations.
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North) Link to this
Before I address subpart 6, which is the part of Part 3 that I intend to talk about, I need to just discuss the misrepresentation of my position made by Nikki Kaye in her previous address. She stated that I was opposed to the entire bill. She obviously has not been listening very carefully either to my arguments or to those of all the Labour members in the Chamber tonight, because we are being quite clear that we are opposed to only one part of this bill. We will get to that part shortly, I have no doubt. The problem with that part is that it overrides so many of the other, good aspects of this legislation. I just needed to clarify that.
Ms Kaye also brought up hobbits; I was pleased that she brought up hobbits and expanded the debate a little in that area. Clearly, National is trying tonight, as it has done in the last few weeks, to sow division. It is trying to tell New Zealand that Labour hates rugby, that it is opposed to the Rugby World Cup, and that we do not want to get the job done. Actually, this is complex legislation. Part 3 is particularly complex legislation. It deals with applications, paperwork, and processes that a number of people in New Zealand will have to go through, and it is important that we as a Parliament make sure that it gets the scrutiny that it deserves so that when it is finally enacted, it is usable and it makes sense. There is a lot of red tape in here; it is funny that the ACT Party has not actually taken any calls on it. The requests that are made of territorial authorities in Part 2 are, again, areas that I thought the ACT Party would make a contribution on, but it did not.
National in its contributions this evening has been clear that it wants to drive a wedge between New Zealand as a whole and the Labour Party in its position tonight; it is quite similar to the way it has dealt with The Hobbit. We can contrast that with the way Helen Clark dealt with securing the Rugby World Cup 2011 for New Zealand. She built relationships. She built consensus. She brought all the parties together. There was even a sense of bipartisanship within the House.
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY Link to this
There you go. That is how much consensus Helen Clark sought to build around putting this bid together—indeed, she was successful in securing the bid. We can contrast that with the divisive approach that John Key has taken to The Hobbit, and the fact that he has now bent New Zealand over in the face of Warner Bros, a corporation. We are a sovereign nation, yet a corporation is coming to this country and telling us that we have to change our laws. Do members know what? We will bend right over for them.
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) Link to this
Some of the members who have now got into a regular barracking will desist.
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY Link to this
Thank you very much, Mr Chairperson. I appreciate the assistance; I did not really feel as though I needed it, but I appreciate it. I think it is reasonable, given some of the debate that we have heard from National, to contrast that approach—
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY Link to this
Yes. Again, they are misrepresenting. I think it is Jacqui Dean; it is hard to tell. Jacqui Dean is trying to misrepresent Labour’s position. Of course Labour is in support of having The Hobbit in New Zealand. Again, the Labour Government built relationships and worked very closely with Warner Bros, New Line Cinema, and Peter Jackson. We got consensus and were able to put The Lord of the Rings on in New Zealand without bending over in front of an American corporation. That is what John Key has done: he has bent this country over.
I come back to subpart 6 of Part 3 of the bill. It refers to appeal rights. Clause 43 states: “A person or body that applied for an approval, a declaration, a test approval or declaration, or a change to the conditions of an approval, a declaration, or a test approval or declaration and is dissatisfied with the determination of the Authority under section 22(1) … may appeal to the High Court,”—they may appeal to the High Court—“but only on a question of law.” Clause 43 is very tight and very specific about what grounds an applicant may appeal on, and the process through which they may appeal. But you know what? We may as well not even bother having that clause in the legislation, because we have Part 4. A savvy applicant who was not happy with the decision of the authority, if they had the right connections—perhaps if they were a member of the National Party—would simply appeal to Murray McCully. That is all they would have to do. They would have to get the Minister on side. It does not matter how out of order their application was, it does not matter where it went wrong, and it does not matter whether it was destroying a historic building or whether it was outside the scope of the Rugby World Cup—all the Minister would have to do is, with one stroke of the pen, say that it was approved.
We may as well just take clause 43 out of the legislation altogether. Although it is a very practical and sensible appeal process, it is completely undermined by Part 4—completely undermined by Part 4. Indeed, the right of appeal to the High Court may be made only on a question of law against a determination of the Authority made under clauses 30, 31, 39, or 40(4). So it is a very, very tight method by which, and area on which, an applicant can appeal. Again, that definition—that narrowing of the areas in which an applicant can appeal—may as well not be in the bill at all, because we have Part 4. It is interesting that the National members have gone awfully quiet. That is why we need to have the kind of scrutiny that we are putting on this bill. We have to question whether there are superfluous aspects of the bill, and whether we might be able to make it more efficient by simply trimming out some of the contradictions that lie within it.
Another area of absolute specificity that is dealt with within Part 3 is the area of test events. I have to agree with my colleague the Hon Trevor Mallard. When I first read it, because I was not on the select committee and I have not been involved with this bill up to this point, I was a little confused. I thought it was referring to test matches, which, of course, there will be several of during the Rugby World Cup. So it took a couple of goes to read it.
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY Link to this
Indeed. That is quite correct, although we might not think that some of them rate as test matches. On that matter I have to say I am looking forward to having the test matches involving Georgia, the Ukraine, and, I believe, Argentina—and one other team; we are waiting with bated breath to see who it is—played in Palmerston North. I am certainly looking forward to those games occurring in my city, and I know the city is gearing up for it. Running a bit of a test event, or testing out how we deal with traffic problems and all that sort of thing in the lead-up to the World Cup, shows that built in to the legislation is a concern that we need to get the nuts and bolts right. That is why we need to actually go through this legislation with some serious scrutiny to make sure every single little clause is absolutely spot on. National has absolutely rightly said that this will be a wonderful event. It will showcase New Zealand and it will put us on the world stage. If one of these things goes horrifically wrong because we have not paid enough attention to it now, we will look worse on the world stage than we do right now, bent over in front of Warner Bros. So we need to make sure that we get these things right, and it is absolutely appropriate that we pay close attention.
Aaron GilmoreIAIN LEES-GALLOWAY Link to this
The member Aaron Gilmore is absolutely correct; the situation that we find ourselves in tonight is disgusting, courtesy of the acquiescence of the Prime Minister.
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY Link to this
Now Mr Henare is concerned that I am using big words. This is not the first time that National has been upset about big words—
I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. It is about a phrase that the member used a little while ago. I have to say I was a little bit taken aback by it.
Well, “bending over for Warner Brothers”, I think it was, and I do not believe that that is a parliamentary term.
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) Link to this
I have been thinking about that phrase, and it could mean bowing, or it could mean something else. My mind is on higher things. I think the member should not transgress the laws of debate in a way that makes me think of lesser things.
I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. For a party that prides itself on its inclusiveness, I really think a phrase like that is offensive and—
I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. The problem that I have is that I found that phrase offensive, and I have taken offence to it.
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) Link to this
I have ruled on it, and I have listened very carefully to the debate all night. The issue is whether an offence has been created. I have to say that the member was probably skirting around an area where there could be an offending interpretation, but he has not crossed that line.
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) Link to this
Is this a separate point of order, because I have ruled on that matter.
[... plus a further 99 contributions not shown here]