Major Events Management Bill

Thank you, Madam Chair—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: You’ll have trouble being relevant on this.

Oh, the Minister should watch this. I can handle this. [Interruption] I was going to say that I will take a very short and final call on this bill and speak to Part 5, but if I am going to be taunted and aggravated by the other side I might choose to speak for 15 minutes on it.

Part 5, under the glorious title of “Miscellaneous”, covers clauses 76 to 80. It deals with emblems and words protected under other Acts, and necessary amendments to the Flags, Emblems, and Names Protection Act 1981. It also contains provisions for the making of regulations to make the legislation work. I am bound to say—

💬 Darren Hughes: Read it again.

If the junior Labour whip would like to take a call, he will have the opportunity after I have finished speaking. I do have to say that it is somewhat of a challenge, even for myself, to hold the attention of the gallery, let alone members opposite—not to mention those watching on television and listening to the radio—on what really is just a very, very practical catch-all to draw this legislation to a close.

But I do want to conclude my comments, since the challenge on the other side to continue has not been that great, by saying that what we have in the five parts that we have been debating, and progressively passing, tonight is the pulling together of a large number of interests, ambitions, and efforts of a large number of voluntary people, business interests, sporting organisations, and the Government to create legislation that is not only workable but will give New Zealand the opportunity to host the Rugby World Cup 2011.

I will make just one last comment while listening to the squawking from the other side—and it has taken them a while to come alive; they normally get into me a bit earlier than they have done. Every New Zealander will be taking a lot of reassurance from the knowledge that come 2011, the Minister who will be acting under this legislation will be a Minister representing a National Government.

So often one is put off by a heading like “Miscellaneous”, and that is what Part 5 is headed. I would just like to explore an angle that probably has not been sufficiently considered by the Committee, and until a few moments ago I had not fully reflected on its significance either. It stems from clause 78. The Minister in the chair, the Hon Trevor Mallard, has opened the bill to look at this. Clause 78 is headed “Application of Regulations (Disallowance) Act 1989 and Acts and Regulations Publication Act 1989”, and the key part is in subclause (1): “An Order in Council made under section 6 or 7 is a regulation for the purposes of the Regulations (Disallowance) Act”.

Now, I am reasonably sure that the Minister has no comprehension of the significance of that. So let me tell him what it is. If one goes to the Standing Orders of Parliament, one finds in Standing Order 3 a definition of regulation: “regulation means a regulation within the meaning of the Regulations (Disallowance) Act 1989”. I sense that the Minister may be on the trail, but not quite there. So I draw his attention to this. These Orders in Council are made under clauses 6 or 7. If he turns back and looks at those clauses, he will see that those are the very clauses where declarations of major events are made.

What does all this mean in legal terms? Well, it is something quite simple, actually. What it means is that the Regulations Review Committee will have a jurisdiction to determine whether what the Governor-General asserts is a major event is or is not a major event. That is a hugely extended jurisdiction that this legislation confers. It is actually quite unusual. The jurisdiction is not only in respect of clause 6 but also in connection with clause 7, which is about major event emblems and words. So we have this very interesting situation. Let us say that the America’s Cup is declared by the Governor-General to be a major event. The Regulations Review Committee will have the jurisdiction to say “not so”. That will open up these provisions that are to be found around Standing Orders 314 and 315 where the Regulations Review Committee, which comprises eminent, respected, and competent people, will be looking to see whether there are Standing Orders grounds that are breached by what the Governor-General and his advisers have done. So I just offer a view for those who follow me in the future that when one comes to provisions headed “Miscellaneous, such as Part 5, little jewels are often tucked away, and this is one such jewel.

I think there are two points that should be made here. The first is in response to Mr Peachey. I give him an absolute assurance that the recommendations under clauses 6 and 7 will be made by a Labour Minister and not by a National Minister. I am prepared to wager $1,000 on it, now.

💬 Dr Richard Worth: I seek leave of the House for that wager to be recorded in the Journals of the House, as distinct from Hansard.

That is not necessary, but if we could have an acceptance from Mr Peachey right now, then we will go for it. Is he prepared to put his money where his mouth is?

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The question is that Part 5—

💬 Allan Peachey: I would be delighted to.

What did he say? I am sorry, I missed it.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Look, this is out of order—

💬 Hon Member: He said yes.

OK, that is good. I am still going, Madam Chair.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Will the member just come back to the bill.

I am happy to come back to the bill in the way that this works in, but I think I should give the member a chance to say that this does not happen in the year of the event. This happens, in this case, quite a long time beforehand and might even happen over the next few weeks, so if he wants to—[Interruption] No, no, we are talking about the Rugby World Cup, and if the member wants to withdraw in his ignorance I am prepared to let him do it, because it will be a bit of an unfair bet.

💬 Allan Peachey: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. Could somebody tell me what the hell the Minister is talking about, because I have absolutely no idea.

It is the wager that he just bet $1,000 on—in ignorance, I think. I am prepared to let him withdraw.

💬 Maryan Street: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I thought the Gambling Bill was the next item on the Order Paper.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): That is a good point.

I will leave it to the member to decide later on. The other point, which I think is an important point, that Dr Worth has raised—

💬 Darren Hughes: A doctor?

He is a doctor—a part-time doctor, but he is a doctor.

💬 Darren Hughes: Really, a quack?

No, not one of them. He is one of the doctors who makes one sick, not one that makes one well.

The point to make to that member is that the regulations disallowance area was something that was very, very deliberate on the part of the Government. We have a very high test here, and we want to make sure there is a degree of unanimity about it in Parliament before it is applied. I accept that some of the powers are along the lines of what Keith Locke has said, and that they are somewhat draconian. There is some loss of civil liberties and some balances occurring here, and we wanted to make sure that through the Regulations Review Committee and Parliament there was a wide basis of support for the application of this legislation in each and every case.

Part 5 agreed to.

Schedule agreed to.

Clauses 1 and 2