Urgent Debates

Mr SPEAKER Link to this

I have received letters from the Hon Trevor Mallard and Dr Russel Norman seeking to debate under Standing Order 380 the Government’s application to the Rugby World Cup Authority for an extension to the Queens Wharf Fanzone, Festival and Showcase Event area.

This is an event of recent occurrence for which there is ministerial responsibility. The Government’s application was made yesterday. Ordinarily, such an application might not justify an urgent debate, on the grounds that the urgent debate procedure is a means of holding the Government to account where decisions have been made. However, as I indicated yesterday, this is an important and controversial matter. There is a significant element of urgency. Where there is no other parliamentary means for debating an urgent matter in the reasonably foreseeable future, this is a relevant consideration for the Speaker in considering whether a matter requires the urgent attention of the House.

Given the element of urgency, I consider that the matter does now require the immediate attention of the House. I therefore give priority to the first application I received—that from the Hon Trevor Mallard. I call upon him to move that the House take note of a particular case of recent occurrence.

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

I move, That the House take note of a matter of urgent public importance. National’s sudden decision to take control of the waterfront is, in my belief, an admission that the Government failed to ensure the security and safe passage of Kiwi fans and international visitors on the Rugby World Cup opening night. It is obvious to all of us that the focus of the Government has been on photo opportunities, on smiling, on waving, and on making speeches that I think even you, Mr Speaker, would describe as inept, to millions of people. It has not focused at all on the details that are important as far as safety, security, and related matters are concerned.

I think all of us know that last Friday was a debacle, and we will get into the reasons for that as the debate goes on. But what we are seeing now, I think, can fairly be described as damage control and the covering of some relatively exposed butts. John Key and his Ministers have let down rugby fans. They have damaged our reputation enormously internationally. All around the world we have seen pictures being shown of New Zealand being unable to organise what might be described as a piss-up in a brewery.

The Prime Minister, who gave an absolute guarantee that the event would run smoothly, is the one whose butt is most exposed at the moment, and he has given Murray McCully the job of trying to cover it up. We have still not had from the Minister of Transport any assurance whatsoever that the transport issues will be resolved. In fact, he has reversed the recommendations of the Minister for the Rugby World Cup, and recommended to people that they drive their cars to Eden Park in future. He has recommended further use of private vehicles rather than public transport. Therefore, we are likely to have a reverse of the situation.

I think it is fair to say that when I was the Minister in charge probably too many groups were set up, but, certainly, groups were set up that had regard for safety—both international security and the physical safety of people. Groups were set up to do with transport, and there were recommendations by the bucket load.

But what we have heard from the Hon Murray McCully is that he did not deign to read the reports he received on becoming the Minister for the Rugby World Cup. I am sorry to say I am not surprised. Mr McCully on some occasions appears to be a person for detail. He picks the colours of the jacket for the Prime Minister to mince in. He gets down to that level of detail and that level of hands-on control. We could see hands-on control all over the place on Friday night—we could see that on Friday night. But he did not get hands-on, as a Minister should have, to make sure that policies were in place to ensure the safe running of this cup.

We have had repeated assurances from the Prime Minister that this event would run smoothly. He said the thing he wanted to be judged on the most, after the economy, was his ability as the Minister of Tourism and Prime Minister to run a smooth Rugby World Cup. Well, the chickens are coming home to roost. What we have is a Prime Minister who did not even ask the Minister for the Rugby World Cup and the Minister of Transport whether they had checked out the relevant policies and the relevant decisions of officials.

I do not know whether all of us found the approach of the previous Prime Minister particularly comfortable on occasions, but we know that her Ministers would be grilled in Cabinet and pre-Cabinet over months in advance of major events. I have a feeling that I was asked more questions in the period leading up to the bid being made for the Rugby World Cup than the present Prime Minister asked his Ministers in the 3 years they have been responsible for this event. That is the role of the Prime Minister. It is the role of the Prime Minister to lead the team and to check that they are doing the work. That is the core of the role of the Prime Minister. It is to show that leadership and to make sure that his Ministers are doing the work they should be doing.

What has become clear is that dozens of photos have appeared, like this one I have here of the Minister for the Rugby World Cup and the Minister of Transport taking credit—taking credit—for the transport. What did they do? They went to the railway station but they did not ask the questions. They went to the railway station, they had their photos taken at numerous photo opportunities, but the Minister of Transport did not ask whether there would be enough buses scheduled. The Minister of Transport did not ask whether any trains would be coming in from the west other than those scheduled. He did not ask: “Will more trains be coming in from the west, other than those that come in every Friday night?”. No, he did not ask that question. He did not know that they would fail to provide trains going that way. He did not know what would happen if the same thing happened as had previously occurred at a concert, where too many people were on the trains and they got jammed up.

What we have is the same situation, after a series of warnings. At the Minister of Transport’s meeting 99 days out from the Rugby World Cup with the Auckland Council and the transport officials he got a warning—in fact, the Minister of Transport got a long list of warnings. But did he ensure that those warnings were followed through and that proper contingency arrangements were put in place? No, he did not, and we saw the results of his laziness last Friday night. We saw the results of having two Ministers who are more concerned about the optics than the facts. Well, in the end, if they do not care about what actually happens, it comes back to bite them on the backsides. It bites the Minister of Transport on the backside, and his bench mate the Minister for the Rugby World Cup, who has been savaged in his butt as a result of the exposure that has been made clear on this occasion.

What of the Prime Minister? Who was the leading person inviting people to come to party central? Who was the person who for 18 months said: “Come down to party central and have a great time. Come from around the world to party central, come from around New Zealand to party central, and come from around Auckland to party central.”? Then he was surprised when more than 12,000 people came. Maybe he has never been to Christmas in the Park. Maybe he has never been to an event in Auckland that has more than 200,000 people there. Maybe he was not down at the Viaduct Basin in 2003 when we won the America’s Cup. Maybe before he was Prime Minister he did not go to test matches where Eden Park was full. I do not know what sort of different world the Prime Minister lives in, but when Kiwis are told there is a party on, they come. He told Kiwis there was a party on and they came, and he said he was surprised. I think that is exceptionally sad, and it was sadder still to see that he was gobsmacked that they took his advice. Well, every now and again people will take the Prime Minister’s advice when he invites them to come to a party.

Overall, I say to Martin Snedden and his team—and to Jock Hobbs, who was there on Friday night but unacknowledged by the Prime Minister; he was at the ground but not mentioned by the Prime Minister—congratulations on the job they have done. They have done a damn fine job putting together things around the cup, the rugby, and the related things for the teams. It has gone exceptionally smoothly. I say to the people who have been associated with the cultural festival associated with the Rugby World Cup that they, too, have been doing a damn fine job, and I congratulate them.

I say, though, to the people in charge—particularly the Minister for the Rugby World Cup and the Minister for Economic Development, Mr Brownlee, and his team—that the business programme around the Rugby World Cup is shocking. It is much, much weaker than the programme around the America’s Cup in 2003, notwithstanding their having a lot longer to plan for it.

But I will get back to saying that in the end, we will be judged by this event, and it is very, very clear that the Prime Minister is a Prime Minister who is happy to pose for photos, and is happy to take credit. I have heard no acknowledgment from the Prime Minister crediting Helen Clark for going to Korea via Dublin to get this event. I have not heard a word from him giving credit to the previous Government for getting the event. He was taking all of the credit, but when it turned to custard, where did he go? He hid away and left it for the hapless Minister Murray McCully to front on the issue.

Members opposite said they were not into finger-pointing. How does Len Brown feel now? John Key said he was not into finger-pointing. He pointed the finger directly at Len Brown. What about the poor people who were sick and needed to get off the trains? The Prime Minister called them drunks. He called the pregnant woman who needed to get off the train to go to the toilet a drunk. That is what he did. That is the sort of approach the Prime Minister has been taking.

This weekend will not be quite so big, but the following weekend we will have the All Blacks versus France game at Eden Park. That will be big.

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Transport) Link to this

I always understood that in these sorts of debates one would allocate a bit of time at the beginning for rebuttal, but I listened to that speech from Trevor Mallard and I did not hear anything at all from him that I could respond to, because he made up a whole bunch of stuff, and apart from that he did not say much. But I did enjoy at the end of that speech his willingness to offer assistance. That rang a bell for me, because I recall how good he was in Auckland back in 2006. Perhaps Mr Mallard was offering a bit of assistance with diplomacy. I have here a few press clippings from 2006, when Mr Mallard ducked and weaved his way across Auckland, trying to organise himself a Rugby World Cup. He started off diplomatically by suggesting that Auckland had no vision. That was Trevor’s opening shot in the New Zealand Herald—that Auckland had no vision. He said, with regard to a revamped Eden Park, that it was a poor second option that showed a lack of imagination by the city. He said it showed a city that did not have a vision. Of course, that went down with Auckland, according to the newspaper, about as easily as Mr Mallard’s Heineken moment.

Moving along, what was his next step in diplomacy and working with Auckland? He said once again that the choice of stadium showed a city that did not have a vision, but that it might be what Auckland wants. Clearly, he had been told off, and he admitted it. Then John Armstrong wrote: “Mallard plays hardball in his Field of Dreams”. As we know, Trevor is a sensitive and an inclusive guy, and he said that he was quite happy for Aucklanders to choose whichever stadium they wanted, as long as it was the one that he planned to build, because he was always right. Then on 23 November the newspaper pointed out that “Residents and businesses in Auckland City can expect big extra rates bills for years to come if city councillors today opt … for a stadium on the waterfront.”—that is, Trevor Mallard’s stadium. Brian Rudman, who is normally a friend of the Labour Party—certainly he is recently—said “Let’s hope ARC has courage to vote no” on Trevor Mallard’s stadium, and pointed out that Aucklanders did not want it. But Trevor Mallard continued. He then went on and got together with the mayor. I think we might recall the mayor, actually: a chap called Dick Hubbard. The paper stated: “Trevor Mallard and Auckland Mayor Dick Hubbard can stumble about in grief and frustration muttering that their waterfront stadium is not dead, but it is.” And, of course, it was as dead as a duck. Finally, the New Zealand Herald finished, on 22 December, by stating that “Mallard’s loss may be people’s gain”, and so it proved to be. If that is the sort of assistance Mr Mallard would like to offer in Auckland, then I think Auckland would tell him politely to disappear off somewhere else.

The reality is that New Zealand is having a tremendous time with this tournament. It is a wonderful tournament, which has started extremely well. I for one have enjoyed—and I do not often get to watch rugby these days; I am not quite sure why that is—a few games that I never thought I would watch. I was watching on TV the other night that South Africa - Wales game in Wellington, which was a fantastic game. I also saw a bit of the poignant commemorations in New Plymouth of the US rugby team, which had to play on the 10th anniversary of 9/11. I also saw that energetic game at Eden Park last week. I saw a bit of the Scotland-Georgia game last night—only about 15 minutes. That was a dour struggle in the deep south. Wherever the rugby goes, the crowds have been large. When Canada upset Tonga the other night in Whangarei the crowds were large.

We also had a wonderful opening ceremony—a wonderful opening ceremony—at Eden Park. I do not know about other New Zealanders, but I always get a little bit nervous at those sorts of events. I wonder how good the opening ceremony will be. Well, I was proud from beginning to end. It was a wonderful opening ceremony. I congratulate those who put it together. There was a wonderful atmosphere down at the waterfront, for the most part, with 200,000 people and a fireworks celebration that was truly wonderful. New Zealanders are in a mood to celebrate. Apart from that crowd over on the other side of the House, New Zealanders are in a mood to celebrate. They have had just about enough of Labour’s forensic analysis as it desperately tries to lift itself off the canvas by ripping down the rest of the country. New Zealanders have had enough of that. They have had enough of Labour desperately trying to lift itself up on to the shoulders of the people in New Zealand who are determined to enjoy the Rugby World Cup.

A number of things happened last Friday that we all believe should not have happened. They were in relation to two matters: the handling of the crowds down at the waterfront, and the transport issues that arose during the evening in Auckland. Nobody was happy with those outcomes. On Tuesday morning I met with the mayor and also with Auckland Transport in Auckland, and we had a very good discussion. Yesterday afternoon the Auckland Council published the reviews of those events, and it made a number of comments. Under the letterhead of the organisation Auckland Tourism, Events and Economic Development—ATEED—it noted in terms of its own organisation a number of things it was unhappy with that need to be sorted, which were the crowd management on Quay Street, insufficient provision of services, the main screen gantry being too close to the ferry building, and some technical failure of the big screens. The council has put its hand up and said it will work with the Minister for the Rugby World Cup and fix those issues.

In relation to transport, there is no doubt that the numbers of people who tackled the public transport in Auckland last Friday night were much larger than anybody expected, and there were a number of issues. As a result, Auckland Transport has stood up and said it will make some changes for this weekend, and I support those changes. It will arrange much larger capacity between Britomart and Eden Park, with 100 additional buses. It will offer additional security: there will now be 100 staff at Britomart, whereas previously there were 60. It is increasing its security presence across the network, placing security staff in all carriages, limiting loadings to 10 percent below the maximum, and improving the number of announcements on the trains. I think those are good moves. I am confident that Auckland Transport has taken on the responsibility and the lessons from last weekend, that it will act on those this weekend, and that it will act on—

KEITH LOCKE (Green) Link to this

There is definitely ministerial responsibility for this debacle, and it is ministerial responsibility that goes back many years. As has come out in the reports on the debacle that were released last Friday night, the big problem was the lack of sufficient transport infrastructure, particularly rail infrastructure, combined with, on the day, a lack of fall-back options in terms of extra buses, communications between trains and control centres, and things like that. And, of course, there was a problem with underestimating the numbers. That should not have happened. As I wandered around Mount Eden last week all sorts of flags of different nations were going up on people’s houses and cars. Everyone was getting into it, so the size of the crowd in the downtown area, particularly with the fireworks display and everything else, was to be expected, and adjustments should have been made.

The real problem is the lack of transport infrastructure in Auckland. We have a city of something like 1.4 million, which is about the same size as Perth in Western Australia. Yet Auckland could not handle 60,000 rail passengers, when Perth manages twice that amount, 120,000, every day. There is ministerial responsibility for that, as the Deputy Mayor of Auckland, Penny Hulse, pointed out on Radio New Zealand National yesterday morning. She said that all the mayors had gone down to Wellington years back—4 years back—to plead for money for rail and electrification and they had been turned down.

The Green Party was pushing and pushing and pushing and had petitions and everything else in 2006. We were saying we had to move ahead fast with the electrification, but there was stalling and stalling and stalling. We were saying at the time the Rugby World Cup was granted to New Zealand: “This is our target: 2011. We can get electrification by that stage. Let’s get the money in. Let’s do it.” Of course, as the lack of funding continued, that target had to be cut back, but at least we could have got one of the railway lines to Eden Park electrified. Mike Lee, as mentioned by the previous speaker, was pushing that as well. The present Government has slowed up the process even more by knocking off the fuel tax that was going to pay for some of these improvements, including electrification. There has been delay and delay and delay, and look where we are now.

It is not a problem of Aucklanders not wanting public transport. When the North Shore busway came on stream, the patronage was much greater than expected. Everyone has liked that busway. Even on rail, despite its great inadequacies, the patronage has gone up over the last decade from 1 million journeys to 9 million journeys. So there is no problem of people not wanting public transport. The event last Friday showed that if there is a bit of push to use the rail, if people can see it will be useful, they will take the rail. Sixty thousand people tried to and, of course, the infrastructure did not match up.

Steven Joyce has been pooh-poohing for the last couple of days—and the last few weeks—the idea of a central business district tunnel. He is saying it is too expensive, it is not needed, and all the rest of it. Surely if that silliness on Friday showed one thing, it was that we do need it. Anyone with a bit of common sense knows that if we had had a tunnel, and if we had had a circle—as they have in Sydney, for example, and other major cities that have circles, connected routes, and things like that—all of the people stuck at the Britomart Transport Centre on Friday night could have gone out on the trains two ways, rather than one way as at present.

The situation in Auckland has been covered around the world now. Our public transport system and rail system is a laughing stock around the world because of the delays over years. It is tragic right now when 35 times more is being spent on roading in the current Budget than on public transport infrastructure. That is a disgrace.

Then there is the question of the extension of the party zone. It is a common-sense thing to do—to have more room for people to move, and to have more toilets and other facilities down there. That is a common-sense decision. But for the Minister for the Rugby World Cup to just kick the mayor and the council in the face—the council that the Government, in effect, put in place with its legislation—to say the council has failed, and to declare an extension of the party zone is completely unacceptable. A very interesting article in a Victoria University paper has just come out, I think yesterday or today. It is by Dean Knight, a lecturer there. He said that the Minister himself was breaching the law and that the way these urgent applications worked under the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Act was that the authority had to receive the application and then make a recommendation to the Minister to decide. If the Minister decides in advance of that recommendation going before the authority, then the Minister should disqualify himself. I ask now that Murray McCully disqualify himself from that decision—I do not think it has, technically, been made yet—and let another Minister decide, as suggested by Dean Knight in this legal journal.

It shows the problem of the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Act and the Major Events Management Act—the two Acts that were passed in preparation for this World Cup. Although there is good reason for streamlining some of the consent processes for such a big occasion, what these two Acts have done, in some ways, is make the situation worse. Ministers and planning people have thought that if anything goes wrong at the last minute, they can just rush through what they like. And there has been a dramatic failure of planning over the years. The legislation, as well as being a bit of a transgression on people’s rights, also allows Ministers like Murray McCully to strut around saying they can rule what they like, even though, technically, they are going against the fine print of the legislation. That concept of all-powerful legislation is one that the Green Party has opposed in this and other cases. I think this is a good case for Parliament to be more considered in what legislation we pass.

The whole question of the Government attacking a local body, as Murray McCully has done over the last couple of days, is very important. It is just not the way that democracy should work. As Brian Rudman said, another person with a surname beginning with “M” tried to make the trains—I think in this case the Italian trains—go on time. Every time we see that sort of behaviour rearing its ugly head we should be concerned.

A lot more can be done to look at this whole matter and, hopefully, to point the way ahead for greater public transport infrastructure: to put the money in, to speed up the process, to speed up the electrification, to speed up the central business district rail tunnel, and to speed up a railway to the airport. It would have been great to have that for our visitors for the Rugby World Cup. And there is also the connection with the North Shore. That might have helped when there is a block-up on the ferries. An underground rail tunnel from the North Shore that brought people into the central city would have been great, too.

Obviously, people want to come downtown. They want to develop the wonderful Auckland downtown. Of course, there is a lot to do in terms of the waterfront. The Wynyard Quarter has been a big step forward, but there is a lot more to do. But if we are to develop the downtown, we have to have the transport to bring people into it.

We should do more in this Parliament to discuss this issue. My colleague Gareth Hughes asked that the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, I understand, hold some sort of inquiry that fits under that select committee. That was turned down by the majority on the committee. We cannot run away from this. We have to take responsibility as a Parliament. We are discussing ministerial responsibility here, but as a Parliament we have to deal with this.

The Green Party will be making the question of public transport in Auckland, particularly rail transport, a major issue in this election. I think the people of Auckland see that this Government and, I am sad to say, the previous Government have failed to really speed up and provide what Auckland requires.

Hon HEATHER ROY (ACT) Link to this

I rise to speak to this urgent debate on behalf of the ACT Party. I would like to say to start with that it would be nice to see some facts involved in this debate, but perhaps that is too much to ask. Mr Mallard, when he first got up to speak, used this as an opportunity to attack the Government. He seemed more upset, I have to say, that the Prime Minister had not acknowledged the contribution of Labour in getting the Rugby World Cup here than he does about the provisions of the urgent debate itself. Minister Joyce in response took the chance to have a swipe back at Trevor Mallard by using 2006 press clippings, amongst other things. Although the Greens speaker used the opportunity to publicise much more broadly the Green Party’s public transport policy, he did, in fact, get to the crux of the matter. I was very pleased to hear him acknowledge Dean Knight’s contribution, his paper Nationalisation of RWC party central?. This is the only summary I have seen—the only comprehensive narrative on the issue—that actually gets to the crux of the matter of this urgent debate.

Anyone listening, of course, would be much more taken, I think, with the political bickering opportunities that have been taken in this debate than with an examination of the facts involved, which largely revolve around the two laws put in place: the Major Events Management Act and the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Act. I would contend that this action is much more about perception than it is about reality. I think it does bear some examination. What exactly is it that the Minister for the Rugby World Cup has done? What does the announcement made by Minister McCully mean?

The Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Act was passed late last year to provide for special procedures for regulatory approvals for Rugby World Cup activities and liquor licences. Of course, the independent Rugby World Cup Authority was constituted to consider these applications. The legislation itself allows for application and the process it follows, but also it provides for an even more expedited process “in circumstances of urgency that for good reason was not foreseen”. A much higher threshold was required. A different and more expedited process was provided for, as I have said, but rather than being determined by the Rugby World Cup Authority, as some seem to think is the case, the authority itself only assesses the application and makes a recommendation to the Minister for the Rugby World Cup. There is no obligation to subject the application to a participatory process; it is merely a handing on once it is assessed.

The decision about whether the approval should be granted then falls not to the authority itself but to the Minister responsible, Minister McCully. He is obliged to consult the Minister for Economic Development and any other relevant Ministers. He must take into account, but is not to be bound by, the recommendation of the Rugby World Cup Authority, and his decision is final at that point. And that is it. Those are the only special powers under the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Act, and we should not lose sight of that, notwithstanding the events of last Friday that have sparked this debate today. The Minister’s role, which should be noted, is a reactive role as ultimate decision maker once an urgent application is made, and then only after the independent Rugby World Cup Authority has scrutinised it.

The Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Act, thankfully, does not give the Minister the ability to take control of the waterfront or to run parties on that waterfront. A jolly good thing that is too; I do not think any of us would want to see that. So what is it that is happening now that the applications have been made? The applications presently being made urgently are conjoint applications by the Ministry of Economic Development and Auckland Council’s events team. It seems that these applications were already in the process of being prepared collaboratively before the Minister’s announcement, and the fast-tracked approvals currently being sought are, I have to say, largely mundane. The most recent application is a joint one between the Ministry of Economic Development and Auckland Council’s events unit. The Ministry of Economic Development is seeking to use Captain Cook Wharf for fanzone events, and the Auckland Council is seeking to extend the existing liquor licence over the wharf. So that will now be passed on to the Minister to decide. The Rugby World Cup Authority is considering both applications following a brief period for public submissions, and it is holding a public hearing today.

So what exactly are the problems arising from that? Well, in listening to the debate today, I think that probably nobody is very clear what the problems are, but from an ACT perspective this is how we see things. This is not about taking control, and, as I have already said, that is a good thing. This is not about taking control of the waterfront or taking control of any parties. Rather, it is a perception that the Government is doing something. So, on the other side, I contend that the Government has made a meal of this when in fact very little, other than what has already been talked about, is happening.

This is to do with the Minister’s special power to approve urgent applications under the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Act. It does raise a potential issue of law. It is a basic principle of administrative law that decision makers exercising statutory powers must keep an open mind and must not predetermine the outcome of applications. That ensures applications are properly considered and there is no conflict of interest. Keeping that in mind, there is a live question about whether Minister McCully’s directives and public statements mean he has compromised his ability to personally consider the urgent applications. My Green Party colleague Keith Locke raised that very pertinent point in the speech he has just delivered. In such circumstances there is provision for something else to happen. Under section 7 of the Constitution Act 1986, another Minister is able to exercise that power. One of the things that I think this House should be interested in, in the interest of transparency and accountability, is to see whether that does in fact happen. Again, my Green Party colleague raised that matter.

Looking more broadly, what is more worrying, I think, of the issues that have been raised as a direct result of the events on the Auckland waterfront of last Friday afternoon is the fact that the Government does appear to be saying publicly that it has no confidence in the new Auckland Council to handle these waterfront events. If it has no confidence, that is indeed worrying not just for the Rugby World Cup but, I would contend, well beyond. It is something that we will certainly be looking at.

I will finish by saying that we politicians as legislators need to be very careful before putting in place legislation that gives wide-ranging powers to a Government or to Ministers. We need to be very careful about empowering legislation and the power that it gives, particularly, to individuals.

I hope that I have injected a little factual information into this debate and taken it away slightly, if only temporarily, from a “he said, she said” debate about who is doing the best job of getting the Rugby World Cup here and how it is being run, because that is not what this debate should be about. It should be on the provisions in place in law already and how those are being put into effect.

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

Tēnā koe. Kia ora tātou katoa. I have to say, I was sort of standing in the middle of the field, listening to the Hon Heather Roy. Get it? In the middle of the field? Anyway, I digress. On the one hand, I have that sense of real pride around the events in the opening ceremony, because I was there with a number of colleagues, and, on the other hand, I experienced the other side and the issues that have been well documented. For that little group of parliamentarians in the New Zealand Parliamentary Rugby Team—which won the Parliamentary Rugby World Cup, I might add—a range of events happened. For example, I arrived early. I got there on private transport and went straight into the game with no problems. The crowd was great. Yet all of my colleagues rolled in at various times, having come in on public transport, and were telling me about their stories. Some missed the start of the opening, and they were pretty brassed off, I would have to say. Some even missed the start of the game, and they felt worse.

Across the length and breadth of that Friday evening, we had the full range of things that one could actually think about in terms of this particular debate. But the one thing that really worries me about this whole debate—and it is not to get into what the Minister for the Rugby World Cup should or should not do—is the issue of public safety. If there is an issue of public safety, then I reckon we have to do everything we can to make sure that that is dealt with.

I have to say that there were some warnings. There were some warnings. I can report that in my first reading speech on the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill—looking back, it was on 22 June last year—I spoke about three key things. The first one was the problem of one person, namely the Minister, making all the decisions over matters pertaining to the Rugby World Cup. That was problem No 1. The second issue I suggested was that of the involvement of the Minister of Māori Affairs with the Rugby World Cup Authority. I thought that was quite important. The third issue that I spoke about was alcohol consumption. There were three issues, and I have to say that there were some warning signs there right from the very start.

Following on from that, on 17 November last year my colleague Rahui Katene said these words—I think they are quite important, which is why I pulled them up—“We have been keen to ensure appropriate management to avoid public disturbances or mass arrests from the specific liquor-licensing requirements, but I raise the concern that we might be placing too much emphasis on liquor licensing and allowing people the opportunity to become inebriated while watching the rugby. For a significant sector of our population, simply getting to the game itself will be an issue.” She carried on to say: “alcohol is already playing too prominent a role in the World Cup, and we are concerned that the Minister for the Rugby World Cup has too much power under the bill,”. That is what my colleague Rahui Katene said and, lo and behold, here we are today just after the start of the World Cup, and most of those issues have come to pass. I reckon we sort of got it right.

In reflecting on this, the key concern that I had was around public safety. Clearly, it is not a good idea to have a lot of people in a small space with alcohol. We know the various reports about delays, the aggression of some people spilling out into the crowds, hundreds of people on stalled trains, and crowds packed in like sardines. There were elements there that could have caused some serious chaos. For all intents and purposes, all of us agree that the scale was just huge; it was immense. In fact, Mr Shane Jones was talking about it yesterday in the Māori Affairs Committee. He reckoned that it just needed something to spark and it could have turned that whole environment into something pretty dangerous. Having been down to the Cloud I saw that one piddly little iron fence by the side of the water might not have saved some people from going in.

The reports also talked about some technical difficulties with some big screens further up Quay Street. That also contributed to people massing down at the waterfront. There were technical delays, there were transport delays, there was alcohol misuse, and, of course, as has come to light more recently, some of our waka paddlers were assaulted and abused. Again, they recount that alcohol was at the heart of it. We had this awesome scene of 20 waka coming down the Waitematā Harbour and berthing there, and our paddlers getting out, doing the haka, and trying to get back to where they came from. Lo and behold, we had some alcohol-fuelled crazies who decided for whatever reason that they wanted to take certain feathers and also get in the road of our people. Young people—young girls—were assaulted and all of that. Bottles were thrown, and the paddlers were physically and verbally abused, simply while they were walking from point A to point B. Hair was pulled and taonga were taken. Some were questioning why the carriers—the waka kaihoe people—did not hold their waka paddles up high. Instead, they held them down the side as a form of protection for those people involved, especially the young people.

I was pretty sad and brassed off to read the account from a 14-year-old girl who attends Te Kura Kaupapa Māori o Puau Te Moana Nui a Kiwa. Her name is Binny McGee-Repia. Binny’s memory of the grand opening of the Rugby World Cup was of getting pushed back and hit on the head, which eventually led to a CAT scan to investigate a possible head injury. One other girl suffered from shock, and another girl ended up with broken ribs. All of this is not a good look, and it sort of soured the occasion, really, because it was such a good day.

I have to say that the other unfortunate aspect of this particular situation about the kaihoe was that despite calls for help to the police and security people, or indeed to the general public, there was no attempt to intervene.

DAVID SHEARER (Labour—Mt Albert) Link to this

It has been a remarkable few days, and I mean remarkable in a number of ways. It is remarkable in the sense that the opening of the Rugby World Cup really was a world-class event. It is something that we are particularly proud of. As New Zealanders, I think we can be particularly proud of it. Many of the events that have been going on around the country have been remarkable as well. People have touched on some of those great games that we have seen being played already, and we are only a few days into it.

I pay tribute to the many, many people who have helped to put the Rugby World Cup together, right from its inception right through its organisation. They are the people associated with the rugby, along with the various councils around the country that have been trying so hard, and still try so hard, to make this an amazing success for New Zealand.

But the last few days have also been remarkable—and we have touched on this today—for what happened down on the waterfront in Auckland and on the way to Auckland. We had some problems and we know what those are. We know what those are. There was a failure of the public transport system. There was an under-catering for the number of people whom we expected to be down there. One cannot just ask everybody to come down and party and not think about how many people will come down.

What we really needed after that was some cool, calm thinking about what happened, what went wrong, and how to fix it for next time. But instead what we got was “Mr Panic Pants”—Murray McCully—coming down, waving himself all over the place, and saying that he will declare martial law down on the waterfront of Auckland, and he based that on the Rugby World Cup (Empowering) Act. That was a very, very dubious means to use as the basis for being able to do that, I say to Mr McCully. He might have wanted to think about what exactly he needed to do before he made all those blustering, sweaty announcements just the other day. He should have talked with the Auckland Council. He did not even give the council the courtesy of a phone call. If he had sat down with them he may have found out that they had been looking at this issue for many, many days and had actually worked out a plan of action. That plan of action was publicised yesterday, and it addresses many of the problems that we have been facing on the waterfront and in our transport system. But, no, we have had “Mr Panic Pants” coming down and blowing himself around the place and declaring that he is in charge now, yet he does not even have the legislative backing to enable him to do that.

His incompetence and his inability is matched only by that of Mr Joyce; the rear-visionary Mr Joyce, who spoke in the Parliament just a few minutes ago. Mr Joyce says he has been very busy over the last few months opening up railway stations all over Auckland. He has been claiming credit for the double-tracking of the western line, the electrification of the railway, all the increases in rolling stock, for turning up and opening the railway stations at Onehunga, New Lynn, Kingsland, and Newmarket, and also the northern bus route. But these were all things that the Labour Government put in place in its last few years. Mr Joyce has had the ability to open them, but he has given no thought to what comes next—absolutely nothing.

He has done nothing for public transport since he took on that job. All he has done is been at the opening of Labour initiatives. He has done absolutely zero. In fact, he has managed to neglect Auckland’s transport, pour cold water all over the rail-link, which is so important for Auckland’s transport future. He looks backwards and thinks what we need to do is build bigger and wider roads. Well, Aucklanders do not want that; they want a world-class transport system for a world-class city. They want to see National Party members sitting down with the Auckland Council and working this out together.

NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central) Link to this

I am very pleased to speak on this urgent debate. The first thing I want to say is that although there were a number of issues last Friday night, there have been a lot of things happening that we have to be proud of in this country. I just want to reflect on the month that built up to Friday night, because Auckland has had an incredible month. We opened Wynyard Quarter, we reopened the Auckland Art Gallery, and we opened the new Q Theatre. I personally opened many different public amenities within Auckland. When we combine that with one of the greatest fireworks displays and an early September summer, we see why we had an extraordinary turnout of 200,000 people on our waterfront.

We have to acknowledge that there were some serious issues on Friday night in respect of Auckland’s transport system and the crowd management on Auckland’s waterfront. In terms of the transport system, I am very pleased that members on this side of the House are focused on resolving these issues because the world is watching New Zealand. As I said before, we have delivered on a number of things for the Rugby World Cup. The message that I have been given from Aucklanders is that they want these issues addressed and they want them fixed, but they are very proud of all of the things that are happening around the Rugby World Cup.

In terms of transport, the Minister for the Rugby World Cup has moved quickly to meet with the Mayor of Auckland and to resolve the issues of Auckland’s transport system. In terms of the waterfront, it is not OK to just sit and do nothing. The mayor is working with the Rugby World Cup Authority to ensure an application that is currently going through will be considered by Ministers. But the real message that I want to get across today is that we are focused on fixing these issues because we have 95,000 visitors who have come here from around the world, and we are determined to ensure that they have a wonderful tournament. We are also determined to ensure that Aucklanders are able to celebrate the Rugby World Cup.

I will mention a couple of other areas where I have had incredible feedback from around Auckland, and from around New Zealand actually, about the Rugby World Cup. Firstly, there are cash injections for many small businesses happening as we speak. They have had a couple of really tough years because of the recession, but we saw figures out the other day that there is an estimated benefit of at least $400 million to the New Zealand economy. We also know that 2,000 international media have turned up, and we have exceeded expectations in terms of the 95,000 international visitors. We have 5,000 volunteers. They are ordinary New Zealanders who are stepping up to ensure that this tournament is a success. We are focused on fixing the issues with transport and fixing the issues around crowd management, but there are many great things happening around New Zealand and around Auckland. We are very proud of these things.

Let us contrast that with some of the arguments that have been raised by certain Opposition members. I can tell the House that Aucklanders are saying to me that they can see through this. Three or four arguments have been raised. The first was that we should just get rid of the super-city and that for some reason the transport problem is just a failure of the super-city. That is absolute rubbish. All of the people involved—and many Opposition members turned up to many of the openings that I mentioned—can see that Auckland is finally progressing, whether it is through the opening of Wynyard Quarter or the reopening of the Auckland Art Gallery. We are finally seeing our city come together. I am just very proud to see that the mayor and the Government are working together to resolve these issues, to ensure that we take Auckland to that next level and ensure that Auckland becomes a world-class city.

The second argument raised is that somehow this problem is a failure of council-controlled organisations. As the Minister of Transport mentioned to Opposition members, council-controlled organisations have been around for a very long time in this country. The third argument raised by Opposition members is that somehow this is about public transport and a long-term problem with infrastructure investment. I am proud that our Government has invested $1.6 billion in the electrification of rail, and Auckland will be getting 57 new rail carriages. The fact is that that would not have solved the issues that happened on Friday night.

Finally, I say that we have a very clear contrast in this House. We have 95,000 international tourists in this country who are here to celebrate the Rugby World Cup, and we have many New Zealanders—a record audience—who enjoyed a wonderful opening ceremony. It celebrated our nation and our sporting prowess as a nation. I tell members that we are focused on ensuring that this tournament is a success. I am proud to be part of a Government that is not only addressing the issues but also ensuring that we are showing our best face to the world in what is the greatest tournament ever. Thank you.

PHIL TWYFORD (Labour) Link to this

I agree with one or two things in the speech made by the member for Auckland Central—amazingly, I do. She is right that some really exciting things are happening in Auckland. But you know what? Most of them were begun by the last Labour Government. The Rugby World Cup was secured by Helen Clark. The Wynyard Quarter was begun under the last Labour Government. All of the improvements to the Auckland rail network and transport system—the Northern Busway, electrification of the rail network, double tracking of the western line, new stations at Kingsland and Newmarket, and the New Lynn upgrade—were committed to and funded under a Labour Government. Nothing—nothing, as my colleague David Shearer has just said—has been added to that list of achievements since Steven Joyce became the Minister of Transport under this Government.

Nikki Kaye raised the issue of council-controlled organisations, so for the benefit of Ms Kaye and Steven Joyce, the transport Minister, I will explain to them and remind them why three Government departments advised this Government that the Auckland Transport Agency should not be set up as a council-controlled organisation. Treasury, the Ministry of Economic Development, and the Ministry of Transport all advised this Government that the transport agency would be more accountable to the public if it were run as a unit of the Auckland Council, but all that Steven Joyce could do in the House today was launch a nasty little personal attack on Mike Lee, suggesting that he wanted to manage the day-to-day operations of the transport agency. Well, no one is suggesting that. The transport agency in Auckland that is corporatised is the only transport organisation that is run by a council or that belongs to a council. It is the only one in New Zealand that is corporatised, and this Government imposed that on a reluctant Auckland against the advice of three Government departments, which all said that it would be less accountable.

If there is one issue we have been debating for the last week in this House, and if there is one issue that has jumped out of the fiasco that occurred in Auckland on Friday night, it is accountability. Day after day in this House, since the fiasco on Friday, we have seen duck-shoving by this Government, and a refusal to stand up and take responsibility for the debacle that occurred on Friday night in Auckland.

There are many reasons why this Government should be accountable for the fiasco that occurred. We have had John Key standing up and putting his smiling face in front of the camera on dozens and dozens of occasions, as he has invited the world to come down to party central, a party zone that he personally selected. It is a tiny little strip of land on Auckland’s waterfront that can hold a maximum of 15,000 people. But what has he done week after week, for the last 2 years? He has been out there exhorting the world of rugby fans to come down to party central. Is it any surprise that 200,000 people turned up to his party? No, it is not. New Zealanders love a party, rugby fans love a party, and the Prime Minister has been inviting them down there.

Because of the Prime Minister’s advocacy for party central, the original plan that was put up by the Auckland Council for a number of different fanzones, a number of different party zones, fell by the wayside as all the attention went on to party central. But where is the Prime Minister, now that it has turned to custard? He is nowhere to be seen, because you know what? No decent photo opportunities are to be had when train passengers are dangerously scrambling up banks after getting out of railway carriages they had been locked into for the previous couple of hours. That is not the kind of glamorous photo opportunity that this Prime Minister seems to like.

The Government has been micro-managing this issue; its fingerprints are all over it. Only a couple of weeks ago this Government made the decision—against the advice of Government officials—not to grant a half-day teacher-only day for Auckland schools. If the Government had taken that decision differently, 300 buses would have been freed up to run as a reserve fleet in case something went wrong with the travel arrangements last Friday night. But what did this Government do? It rejected that advice. The upshot and consequence of that was that there were no spare buses in Auckland as an emergency fleet when things went wrong with the transport operation.

This Government made that decision, yet day after day we have seen that its Ministers have refused to stand up in this House and be accountable for it. What have they done? They have taken every opportunity to sheet home the blame for what happened last Friday night to the Mayor of Auckland, Len Brown. Of all the people in this drama, Len Brown has shown a dignified, positive, and constructive response. He has been willing to take his share of the responsibility for what went wrong on Friday night—unlike this Government. Len Brown’s officials were working with Government officials from last weekend to try to sort out the problem, and to work out what needed to be done to make sure another debacle did not occur. From Sunday, council officials were working with Government officials to work out what needed to happen. But what did Murray McCully do? Just like Muldoon, he called a press conference and issued an edict. He did not even have the common decency to ring Len Brown and tell him what he was doing. Like some little tinpot dictator, he pretended to extend martial law over the Auckland waterfront as if he were the big man, as if he were taking control, and as if he were taking responsibility. But what was he doing? He was simply enacting the same reserve powers under the Rugby World Cup legislation that the council and Government officials were planning to use together in a positive and constructive way. What has Murray McCully done? He has publicly given the elected Mayor of Auckland a slap in the face.

Well, what is it with this Government? What is it with this Government that it cannot work constructively with Auckland? Its relationship ranges from finger-wagging and lecturing, to abuse. What did we see 6 months ago? We saw Murray McCully abusing the chair of the Auckland Regional Council on television, in the media, because he did not have the social skills and the political skills to negotiate some kind of constructive agreement with the elected leadership of Auckland over what was going to happen on Queens Wharf. That is typical of this Government’s relationship with Auckland. Every step along the way, the behaviour of this Government has looked like a calculated insult to the people of Auckland. The Government has treated Auckland’s elected leadership with contempt. We saw that the other day when a number of Cabinet Ministers sat down with the Auckland Council to give it feedback on the draft Auckland plan. What did those Ministers say to the Auckland Council? They said: “Oh yes, we think your plan’s really good, except don’t think that this ridiculous idea of having metropolitan urban limits in a compact city is going to fly—don’t think that is going to fly. We don’t support your idea of a compact city, and while you’re at it, you can forget this idea of a city rail link, because that’s never going to get off the ground while this National Government is in office.” They treated the Auckland Council with contempt, like a bunch of hick gangsters blowing into town and pretending that they know best.

When it comes to Auckland, this Government always knows best. We saw that in the super-city process. We saw it with all the discussions about the council-controlled organisations, where this Government insisted on corporatising Auckland Council’s operations—75 percent were turned over to the council-controlled organisations. We saw it by the way they rammed the super-city down the throats of Auckland, without giving the people of Auckland a say in a referendum.

David Shearer made the case that this Government has no interest whatsoever in modernising Auckland’s transport system, giving it an overhaul, and making it a world-class transport system. If there is one thing that we can conclude from the debacle last Friday night it is that Auckland is desperately overdue for a modern, world-class transport system. But this Government does not want to pay any attention to that. Every single opinion poll in the last 2 years in Auckland has shown that there is one thing that Aucklanders want to see fixed by the super-city, and it is public transport. Yet what is this Minister doing? He is robbing every other piggy bank in the transport budget, he is robbing rural roads, he is robbing road safety, and he is robbing urban public transport to fund his gold-plated “roads of National Party significance”. What did the Minister do when he rocked up to the Auckland Council meeting a couple of weeks ago? He poured cold water on the thing that Aucklanders most want to see: a modernisation of the rail system, and construction of the city rail link.

Friday’s debacle showed that the Auckland public transport system is antiquated and run down. We are using rolling stock that came from Perth 20 years ago. It desperately needs an overhaul. It is time this Government opened its ears and listened to Auckland, and learnt to work constructively with Auckland. That is what Aucklanders want to see.

Hon NATHAN GUY (Minister of Internal Affairs) Link to this

Labour is desperate to get back in the game—absolutely desperate. What we have heard this afternoon is more desperation from Labour members, with their rock-bottom polling results. They are worried about their marginal seats, like that of the previous speaker, Mr Twyford, in Te Atatū. So what are they doing? They are raking over a few of the issues that happened during the opening of the Rugby World Cup, and they are forgetting about all the positive aspects of the Rugby World Cup. They are raking in the mire, trying to score political points and shore up a few votes in the marginal seats of Auckland, in the last dying days of this sitting of Parliament before we move into the true campaign. But I have some news for Labour members: no one is listening to them. Not one person in Auckland is listening to them.

Let us move to some of the positive things. I was there at the opening. It was fantastic. I tell members that we showed what a fantastic culture we have. We showed our Māori and Pacific heritage; we showed the pride we have in sport and also in winning. The fantastic thing is that this was broadcast to over 200 countries around the world. Was it not fantastic when the Prime Minister got up to speak? Practically the whole of Eden Park roared with joy. I thought that was fantastic.

What we are hearing this afternoon from Labour is just what we heard when we had the debate over The Hobbit. They hate The Hobbit; now they are rugby haters. They hate The Hobbit and they hate the Rugby World Cup. What they should think about, in relation to just the first couple of days after the opening ceremony in Auckland, is the fact that it has generated, for retailers up and down the country, $2.8 million of foreign transactions over 3 days—in just 3 days. We all know that we are going to have a huge stimulus from the Rugby World Cup. Yet in the last 2½ to 3 years all we have heard from the other side of the House was: “Where are the jobs? Where’s the stimulation? Where is the regional economic development?”. Now they want to tear down the Rugby World Cup and stamp all over it. They should be ashamed.

Let us think about some of the positives that came out of that opening. April Ieremia wrote in the New Zealand Herald: “better than Olympics … a phenomenal opening ceremony, … I have been to a number of Olympic and Commonwealth Games … and it surpassed them all.” Even the Daily Telegraph had a headline, which read: “Kiwis light up night on and off the pitch”. There is already a sense of carnival taking place.

Yes, there were some issues, and I will talk about those now. I think it is appropriate that the Rugby World Cup Authority steps in and works closely with the council, and with Auckland Transport as well. Yes, there were some issues. Yes, we need to open up more capacity at the waterfront. Yes, there were some issues in transport that have now been addressed. Moving forward, they will be tested this weekend. There will be an extra hundred buses, 400 extra security staff—moving that to a hundred at Britomart—which will be really important, and extra security on those trains. Yes, there is a message that has come out of this: we need to look at getting tourists and New Zealanders to Eden Park in a multi-model system. They cannot expect just to get on trains, because when the trains stop it means that the network stops. So we have to think about getting on the buses also, utilising the trains, and using private vehicles. In some cases tourists and New Zealanders will choose to walk to the ground.

There are a couple of other things that I will conclude with. It is not often that I agree with Trevor Mallard, but this afternoon when I heard him speaking I did agree with one thing. He said that the cultural festival was a damn fine job, and well done to them. I presume what Trevor Mallard was mentioning was the REAL New Zealand Festival. The Lotteries Commission gave $9.5 million to get that off the ground, which is fantastic. It was oversubscribed: there were $74 million worth of applications, and 170 applications were chosen. Up and down the country now we see New Zealanders engaging with the Rugby World Cup, and Rugby World Cup tourists getting off the highway and engaging with provincial New Zealand, and getting involved in some of the activities that are happening from the Far North down to the bottom of the South. They are things like A Taste of Southland, the Whitianga Scallop Festival, and the celebrations in the giant rugby ball that is up in Auckland—these fantastic activities.

Labour wants to tear down the Rugby World Cup and trample all over it. On this side of the House we want to embrace it. We want to celebrate that a hundred thousand tourists are in New Zealand. We will ensure that these issues are sorted out for New Zealanders, and for our visitors. We should be celebrating the biggest event in this country, not dragging it down into a cesspit as Labour wants to do.