Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill

Although there was quite a bit of questioning on this part of the bill, it is one of the parts that was, essentially, improved by the very good work of the Government Administration Committee, and I compliment David Parker for his chairing of that committee. I say also that as far as this part is concerned, useful contributions were made by Government members of the committee. Except in some areas of interpretation, there was a degree of unanimity on this legislation.

I also, at this stage, thank the officials and parliamentary counsel who were involved in the drafting of the bill—and possibly apologise to them for what they are about to go through. I know that the Minister in charge of the bill, Mr McCully, is very interested in this debate, and I will call the real Minister down to the Chamber soon so that he can answer questions. I am hoping for an indication from him to officials that it is pretty unlikely that they will be required for detailed work as we go through this legislation, because it is my understanding, having looked on the Table, that there are no Government amendments to the bill, and the one Opposition amendment is something that is—

💬 Chris Tremain: That’s good. We should be able to be through it quite quickly, then.

No, no. I am indicating to the Minister that if he were a kind and generous Minister he would say to the officials that it would be cruel and unusual punishment for them to stay here today and tomorrow dealing with this particular legislation.

It is fair to say, in dealing with Part 1 on a clause by clause basis, that clause 3 is now drafted in a way that is much more easily understood than it was earlier. In changing the wording from “seventh quadrennial international rugby world championships tournament” to “Rugby World Cup 2011”, the committee, in doing its work, has the focus back on to tidier legislation that is easier to understand. I think that as the people in the various parts of the Auckland Central electorate study this bill—as they study it in Ponsonby, probably late at night, with the local member—they will be more easily able—

💬 Hon Nathan Guy: Speak for yourself.

The only time I ever see the member out is late at night. Having “Rugby World Cup 2011” means it will be easier to understand, and I thank the member for her contribution in making that change.

A lot of clauses were changed by the select committee—and I think it is good to have preliminary provisions describing a bill and making clear to people what is coming later—but clause 2 is one of the few clauses—

💬 Hon David Parker: It’s not in Part 1.

Sorry, subclause (2) of clause 3—I apologise to my colleague—is one of the few subclauses in this part of the legislation that has gone through unchanged. It outlines what comes later, though probably not in quite the sort of detail that some of us would like, especially in relation to the obnoxious Part 4 clauses that I will not get into now. But if we are to be clear in subparagraphs (i) and (ii) of paragraph (2)(c), it would have been better, as part of those subparagraphs, to make it clear that the Minister, although subject to a recommendation of the authority, is not really subject to it, which is probably an important point to ask about. Subparagraph (ii) of clause 3(2)(c) states that this Act, under Part 4: “empowers the Minister, subject to a recommendation of the Authority, to grant urgent approvals for activities … that, for good reason, were not foreseen;”. The question I have asks whether the Minister is in fact subject to a recommendation of the authority. The answer is that he is not.

The question now is whether the subparagraph is false and misleading. In fact, I apologise to the Committee: I sat on the select committee but had not really focused on that particular subparagraph as we were working through the bill. But there is a question about whether the Minister is subject to the recommendation of the authority. “Having received a recommendation from the authority” is probably the right wording, but I do not think—

💬 Hon David Parker: We like this wording.

Well, if it were true, the litigation would be interesting but the buildings could be gone. It might make some interesting case law. I am not a lawyer, but from memory I think that the specific might override the general. It could well be that the specific in Part 4 overrides the general in Part 1. My learned colleague David Parker is nodding; I think he is nodding because he is agreeing rather than going to sleep. It would be my view that, if the legislation got to a court, the lines in clause 3(2)(c)(ii) of Part 1 are misleading—

💬 Jacqui Dean: Nonsense.

Well, the legal expert from Temuka tends to indicate that she knows better than my colleague, who has been a member down there for some time.

The other paragraph, paragraph (d), of clause (3)(2), which refers to Part 5, refers to the “temporary process under which the authority may grant Rugby World Cup liquor licences.” Again, I am not certain that that totally covers it, because restrictions about gambling arrangements, or changes to gaming licences, within that part are made as part of that clause. Again, it is a question of whether we should be worried about having a description that is short of the full description—of what actually happens—or whether we should go with the flow. For the Minister in charge of the bill, Mr McCully; for his Associate Minister, Mr Brownlee; and for the Minister in the chair, Mr Thompson—

💬 Grant Robertson: Coleman.

—Mr Coleman—as far as they are concerned, it is pretty good to have preliminary provisions to work on there.

But I think the more interesting parts of this part will be the limitation to applications of this Act and certain other Acts. We will be focusing, and I will focus in my next series of calls, on this particular part, and on whether the limitations to the application of this Act and certain other Acts are in fact appropriate. I think that that is where the debate about override will come.

I might start with a geography lesson for Trevor Mallard. Clearly he and other members of the Labour caucus do not know the South Island terribly well. Their presence down there is not notable. In fact, Temuka is part of the Rangitata seat held by the most excellent Jo Goodhew, who is doing a wonderful job down in Rangitata. My own electorate of Waitaki goes round that area, and contains a lot of the middle of the South Island. In fact, a member in the Chamber had designs on that electorate, but seems to have given up. Perhaps that is another story for another day—[Interruption]—although we can talk about it now.

In the Committee stage of the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill I will continue the theme of the geography lesson, which is so clearly needed by the members opposite.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: How many games are there going to be in Waitaki?

I thank the member so much. Trevor Mallard asked me the most wonderful question. It leads me on to what I want to talk about in my contribution. The question really highlights the ignorance of Trevor Mallard, who lives somewhere in the North Island—goodness knows where; his constituents certainly do not. The question was: “How many games are going to be held in the electorate of Waitaki?”. I will tell the member what is going to be held in the electorate of Waitaki, and that is the Golden Oldies Rugby Festival, which will be part of the Rugby World Cup festival celebrations. That is good news. That is good news for regional New Zealand, and that is exactly the spirit of this Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill. So I thank Trevor Mallard, who is woefully ignorant about the geography of the South Island, as is his colleague who has given up on the electorate of Waitaki. I can tell members that I am committed to the Waitaki electorate, and I am very excited about the opportunity that the Rugby World Cup presents to the provinces of New Zealand.

Those of us who are committed to the provinces are taking full advantage of the opportunity that is being given to us through the Rugby World Cup, and that has its voice in the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill. I will start in the northern part of the South Island, in Nelson, which is the electorate of Nick Smith, who is a most excellent member of Parliament for Nelson, and has been for many years. He has been working closely with his local authority, the Nelson City Council, which is really on top of its game in terms of the Rugby World Cup and the opportunities it presents. I visited Nelson last week—many National members of Parliament visit Nelson; we are a very busy caucus—and I was able to visit the city council. It is grasping the opportunity of the Rugby World Cup. It is speaking to its community, it is speaking to its business community, and it is hosting a couple of teams—and I invite Trevor Mallard to name those teams.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: Which ones?

No, he does not know. But I can tell the Committee that those two teams are Italy and the United States of America. I am sorry that Trevor Mallard is so out of touch, but, clearly, on this side of the Chamber we are not. Nelson is taking full advantage of the opportunities that have been presented to it.

I will go a little bit further south now to Waitaki and to the town of Ōāmaru, which is my home town, where we are hosting the Golden Oldies Rugby Festival. It will be the Waitaki Wasps versus the rest of the world. If that is not a small community taking full advantage of the opportunities that the Rugby World Cup is presenting, then I do not know what is.

💬 Chris Tremain: And this man wants to put it all at risk.

Well, I cannot speak for the Opposition, but I can say that Government members of Parliament are fully behind the Rugby World Cup, are fully behind the opportunity that the Rugby World Cup presents, and are fully behind the intention of the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill.

Opportunities are being presented by this legislation to the North Otago Rugby Football Union, which is a small but, I have to say, very successful rugby union, on account of its contesting the Meads Cup against Wanganui next Saturday. I would not mind wagering a chocolate fish with anybody that it is going to be successful. It is one of those small rugby unions that are taking the mettle—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: Chester wouldn’t eat it!

Yes, well, I am very willing to wager a chocolate fish with Mr Borrows at any time, because he is another member of Parliament who is fully committed to his own electorate, which is Wanganui.

I am going to address Part 1 of the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill and, in particular, I will deal with limitations to the Building Act. The Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill sets out the ways that normal rules are being suspended or modified for the Rugby World Cup 2011. Part 1 lists the various Acts that are affected, and also lists those that are not affected. Amongst those that are affected is the Building Act, and this is an issue that we delved into in great detail at the Government Administration Committee. The underlying problem that seeks to be addressed here is that there will be a one-off influx of some 50,000 people; I think that was the estimate—

💬 John Hayes: 85,000.

I am told 85,000 by John Hayes. Between those two numbers, there will be a large number of extra people in Auckland, and we do not have enough visitor accommodation for them. We do not have enough hotels and motels to accommodate between 50,000 and 85,000 extra people in Auckland, and it certainly would not be economic for providers of accommodation to build extra accommodation in order to provide for them for that one event. That would not be economical for those who would be building that accommodation. Therefore it would not happen; therefore we would have a shortage of accommodation unless we open up some other existing accommodation for temporary use during the Rugby World Cup 2011. That is what this legislation attempts to do: it attempts to prescribe what we should do to facilitate that, whilst having some safeguards.

The normal rules that apply to visitor accommodation are quite stringent. Because we need to have our visitor accommodation normally meeting the needs of people with disabilities, we have rules relating to ingress and egress; if it is a multi-storey dwelling, we now generally require lifts. That, obviously, is not practical in respect of some of the multi-storeyed residential accommodation, which currently does not have to have lifts.

💬 Jacqui Dean: They have lifts.

I am sorry, but I tell Jacqui Dean that that is not correct. Not all multi-storey buildings used for residential accommodation and that are suitable for—

💬 Jacinda Ardern: I live in one.

Jacinda Ardern lives in one. There are many multi-storey buildings in Auckland. I am not talking about 20-storey buildings here, but I am talking about multi-storey buildings that are suitable for use as temporary accommodation for visitors during the Rugby World Cup 2011 but would not meet the normal planning and Building Act controls for transient accommodation for visitors. The committee grappled with the issue about what we should do to limit the application of the Building Act that would otherwise apply. We did that by inserting clause 5A. We said that there are some circumstances when normally it would be illegal to have temporary visitor accommodation provided on a commercial basis to visitors, but that that accommodation should be exempted from those normal rules in order to facilitate visitor accommodation.

In respect of clause 5A, one has to understand a bit of background in order to understand its meaning. The provision does not apply to single-storey dwellings; we learnt from officials that single-storey dwellings are not within the definition of what is caught by clause 5A(1)(a)(i). They are already exempt, so we did not need to do anything for those dwellings. If the Minister in the chair, the Minister of Immigration, thinks that I have got that wrong, he can correct me, because I am not 100 percent sure in my recollection of that, but that was my understanding. I think that the definition of “household unit” from the Building Act somehow exempts single-storey units. In any event, multi-storey buildings generally are caught, and we wanted to provide for the ability for multi-storey buildings to be used for short-term accommodation. There are lots of apartments where people live from day to day; if it is safe enough for them to live there from day to day, it is safe enough to have some temporary accommodation in them during the Rugby World Cup 2011 without lots of red tape around that.

What controls did we put in? We thought that there should be some obligation to take a bit of care, so we provided two of what I thought were pretty practical things. The first was that we wanted apartments to have a smoke alarm. It does not have to be a fancy, computerised smoke alarm linked throughout the building, but at least someone should have to go to the trouble of putting on the ceiling a $15 smoke alarm with a battery, so that if there is a bit of smoke in the apartment, a big loud noise goes off, and the people in the apartment know to get out. It seemed to me to be a pretty practical, cheap thing to require those apartments to have. It would not be a legal requirement for people to have an alarm in their own home, but something that they should have in any event, and if they are going to let out their house, then they must provide it. An alarm costs $15; installing one does not seem too big a step for people to take in a multi-storey apartment.

The second control we put in was that apartments ought to have an evacuation plan. That is not a difficult thing; that is what one sees on the back of every motel door. It just shows the route that one has to take out—

💬 Hilary Calvert: Do you ever look at them, David?

Is anyone going to look at them? Well, some people will, and if there was a fire, I tell Hilary Calvert, and there was not an evacuation plan, and we in Parliament had authorised temporary accommodation without either smoke alarms or an evacuation plan, I suggest that someone would be looking back after the event and criticising us in Parliament for being just a wee bit too fast and loose with the abolition of rules. I think that the two rules we have applied, which are the need for a smoke alarm and the need for an evacuation plan—the likes of which one sees when one goes into a motel—are pretty practical. On that basis we have facilitated what will be a sensible source of residential accommodation for between 50,000 and 85,000 visitors to Auckland during the Rugby World Cup 2011, and in other parts of the country. This solves a problem that would otherwise have been difficult—that is, the ability to accommodate that number of people.

In some of the other changes to this part of the bill, we made it clear that the definition of “ancillary events” should change. A doubt arose from legislation relating to liquor licensing laws. The definition in clause 4 of this bill used to read: “ancillary events means events, whether or not sporting events, wherever they occur, that are reasonably closely connected to the Rugby World Cup 2011”. There was a decision—it might have been of a liquor licensing authority of some kind—that said that a replay or even a live playing of an event at a separate physical venue might not be reasonably closely connected to the Rugby World Cup 2011, and therefore, would not have the benefit of these temporary exemptions from normal rules. We made it clear that we understood it to be the intention of Parliament that an event like the live public screening of a game was an ancillary event for the purposes of this legislation. That change seems sensible too.

Various other changes were made to the definitions in clause 4. In clause 5 we made it clear that the Acts that this legislation does not apply to include the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act. We did not think that that should be overridden by the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill. We also clarified the definition of “transport legislation” to include the Land Transport Management Act 2003, which I think had been omitted in error. Other changes to the definitions included a change to the definition of “facility”. That was a flow-on from some other changes that were made to the definition of “Rugby World Cup 2011”, which the Hon Trevor Mallard made reference to in his first contribution.

In terms of the balance that we tried to strike here, we wanted to make sure that the police have powers to learn about things during the process. We tidied up the notice provisions. In Part 1, new clause 5B(2) provides that “the following persons or bodies may apply to the Minister to declare by notice in the Gazette that an activity or a facility to which subsection (1)”—of clause 5—“applies is a major maritime event for the purposes of … the Maritime Transport Act 1994:”. That is to make clear some of the things that will happen around the waterfront, particularly in Auckland, where there will be cruise ships used as temporary accommodation. There was a desire by the authorities to have it made clear that they could claim some right to manage safety issues. There was a need to make it clear that the authorities had the ability to regulate maritime safety around these areas.

The difference between members on this side of the Chamber, who are aspirational and have a vision for New Zealand, and those people over there is that they are stuck in the fine print of detail. They are stuck in the nanny State. The chair of the Government Administration Committee, David Parker, has been sitting there, grasping every little detail. He has been and looking at Part 1 of the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill and saying we have to do this, that, and the next thing. They are losing sight of the fact that Part 1 of this bill will regulate the greatest event that has ever occurred in New Zealand’s history. It will set up a global brand for New Zealand export markets. It will set up a vision for the world for all of us. That chair of the select committee is locked in clause 5A or 5B, dealing in detail with fire alarms and other total irrelevances—absolute irrelevances.

You have to look out on the horizon and ask what in Part 1 of this bill—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I am not sure if you were entirely focused, but the member was giving you some advice as to what you should do. I think you were slightly distracted at the time. I am sure that if you were not you would have brought him back to at least referring to members of the Labour Opposition, rather than the Chair.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): I say to the member that he would be wrong to assume that the Chair is distracted, or to make any assumptions about the Chair. The Chair can be focused on many things. I tell the member that I listened attentively, and I heard the member refer to “you”. I was not particularly offended by it. I thought the member was expressing some views with passion and force, and that is not bad; we have some energy going. I invite the member to continue.

Thank you very much, Mr Chairperson. One of the things that has been bothering me for some time—and I have looked around to see if we have a grief counsellor in the Chamber—is that we are dealing with one of our number who is totally aggrieved that he will not be the Minister for the Rugby World Cup. He cannot get over it, and now—I am not allowed to say he has left the Chamber—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): Certainly not.

I did not say it. I am really concerned. In the second reading Trevor Mallard raised the possibility of a conscience vote on aspects of the Rugby World Cup legislation relating to gambling and liquor legislation, as he felt there were inconsistencies between the arrangements in the liquor and gaming areas. I think it is important to note that National is not changing the intent of all criteria for the Sale of Liquor Act; we are simply creating a faster process for approvals because we have a vision to move this country forward. Given the volume and the time constraints for this huge event that are presented by the resource consent process and other processes we have in this country, we have to find a way of speeding up the process and of turning on a world-class event.

I am deeply sorry for the member of this Committee who is desperate to somehow return to the status of boss of the Rugby World Cup. I have news for him: he is not going to get there. Part 1 can never ever provide for that member to get back there.

The legislation is not inconsistent in the approach that has been taken to liquor. It is not necessary for the public’s enjoyment of the Rugby World Cup to allow access to gambling. Our committee decided during its deliberations that people did not need access to gambling machines while they were watching the Rugby World Cup on television. The restriction of the operation of cruise ship casinos while in New Zealand waters will be no different from the restrictions that apply to other forms of accommodation that will host visitors for the Rugby World Cup. There is a prohibition on new casino licences in the Gambling Act 2003 and the bill does not override that.

I very briefly come back to the member who would have loved to be the Minister for this event. I say to him that we need a process that will most likely never ever be used, but if in this huge event for New Zealand, which will market New Zealand to the world, we have to unblock problems—problems of detail that the committee chair outlined—we need a mechanism in place to deal with them and address them quickly. It will not be a one-man band making these decisions; it will be a designated Minister, who, in consultation with another designated Minister and a responsible Minister—for example, the Minister of Police if it is a policing issue—will get consultation and will probably also consult Cabinet.

This legislation will not be used lightly. It is not designed to drive a bulldozer through the structure of our legislation in New Zealand. This country must turn on a world-class event and this legislation has been set up to do exactly that. Thank you.

It is my pleasure to follow on from John Hayes, in particular, on the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill, and point out the irony of his statement accusing the Labour Opposition of getting into the detail and losing—I do not know what it was—

💬 Grant Robertson: The big-picture focus.

The big-picture focus. On one hand, it is obviously the Committee stage, and it is incumbent upon us to get into the detail on this occasion. But also, I think that perhaps his statements are indicative of why this bill has far too many broad, sweeping powers entrenched within it. It is because that Government has been unwilling to iron out the detail in the here and now. I am sure the Government Administration Committee may have tried, and I know that my colleagues would have tried to rein in some of the powers that have been granted to the Minister for the Rugby World Cup to try to make them perhaps more appropriate, but obviously we can all count, we know the numbers, and back here we are again, with the Government trying to avoid a discussion about the detail. It is not good enough to simply gift broad, sweeping powers as a default or a fall-back for an unwillingness to get into the detail.

I refer specifically to Part 1, because that is the part that we are debating, despite John Hayes’ contribution. The statement there in the explanation of Part 4 states that Part 4 “empowers the making of regulations, subject to a recommendation of the Authority, to declare an activity, facility, or class of activity or facility as a Rugby World Cup permitted activity in circumstances of urgency that, for good reason, were not foreseen;”. I wondered whether the Minister could take a call and explain to the House what kinds of things we might see classified under Part 1—what kinds of events or subjects. Surely, with the term “not foreseen”, there has to be a level of anticipation as to whether something is going too far or whether it is necessary. I simply do not believe that there has not been some discussion on the kinds of circumstances where such a power would be acceptable and necessary. The Minister simply refers to something being unforeseen, and if that were the case in all of our legislation, then we would have a very broad brush indeed in our laws—in some of them we do have that, and that has been under this Government in particular.

The second part of the explanation of Part 4 points out that it “empowers the Minister, subject to a recommendation of the Authority, to grant urgent approvals for activities and facilities in circumstances of urgency that, for good reason, were not foreseen;”.

The one other point I want to make is that we are currently in October. We are in very close proximity to the Rugby World Cup being upon us. If we cannot currently encapsulate in this legislation all of the circumstances that we might deal with, then obviously something is going badly wrong in our planning. So if that is what these clauses are about, then we need a little bit of honesty from the Minister about the fact that we might be a bit behind and we need to have some enabling legislation. Let us at least have some honesty about that. If that is not the case, let us at least have a discussion on some of the hypothetical situations that the Minister sees as being consistent. We know that those using this legislation will interpret it by looking back on the discussion that was had in this Committee and on the words of the Minister to find some kind of guidance as to what is acceptable. Some really subjective language is used in these clauses, and I think people will seek some guidance from the Minister and from this Parliament. So I think in that regard it is important that the Minister take a call. If that does not happen within Part 1, then I know that my colleagues are very keen to discuss those particular clauses at greater length.

I want to move on to some other changes that the Government Administration Committee made. I was not a member of that select committee, and I look to those members for guidance as to some of the interpretation over what has been included and the changes that have been made. I think it makes very good sense for the committee to have separated out some of the definitions and, in particular, to have split off those events of the tournament that are very specific to the matches themselves from the ancillary events that will take place. I wonder whether the Minister or other select committee members could talk about some of the differences in the way they expect those two different activities to be treated.

I am very pleased to speak on the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill. I say to members on this side of the Chamber that I feel empowered, and I will tell them why I feel empowered. It is because when I look through Hansard I will see a contribution from the Hon Trevor Mallard that talks about the great contribution that members on this side of the Chamber made to the legislation.

He also mentioned the contribution that I make. He mentioned the hard work I do late at night for the people of Auckland Central. There have been many nights when I have been working hard for an electorate that is integral to the Rugby World Cup, and I have seen the lights off in the Labour offices two doors away from my electorate office in Auckland Central.

💬 Jacqui Dean: Really?

Yes, I have. I have seen the lights off in the Labour offices. But we are here because we believe that we have to ensure there is a legislative environment for the people who will be coming here for the Rugby World Cup. There will be 85,000 visitors, we will have 4 billion people, potentially, watching us, and there will be 2,000 media representatives, and we need to ensure not only that we have accommodation for these people but that we show them such a good time that they spend their money here in the future.

So one of the aspects of this bill—and I refer to Part 1—is accommodation, which is particularly relevant for Auckland Central. We know that unless we get these provisions in the bill right, then people will be paying extraordinary prices for accommodation. So I am very pleased to have been part of a select committee process that, very clearly, made it easier to provide temporary accommodation. The Government Administration Committee made a couple of changes to the bill to ensure that certain multi-storey dwellings can be used for temporary accommodation without the owners having to go through all the rigmarole that they would normally have to go through. We were very clear, though, that those people will have to do two things: the first is to ensure that there will be a smoke alarm, and the second is to ensure that there will be adequate evacuation procedures. But I think it is a very good thing, not only for the people of Auckland Central but for New Zealand, to be able to accommodate as many people as possible via temporary accommodation. So I am very pleased that the select committee made those changes.

The second aspect of Part 1 that I want to talk about is the changes we made to the definition of “ancillary events”. When the select committee got this legislation we saw that it was focusing just on core sporting events. We said that there might be New Zealanders, either people within Auckland or within other parts of the country, who would want to go down to their local pub and watch a game. We wanted to know that local pubs would have the ability to go through a special licensing procedure and put on a special event. So I am very pleased that the select committee made changes to Part 1 in that area as well.

I am pleased that we will be delivering for all of the many visitors who are coming not only to Auckland Central but to New Zealand. We have made a lot of progress. Stadia have been completed—the Eden Park redevelopment looks fantastic—and we have sold, I think, 500,000 tickets. We are on track from an infrastructure perspective. Both Part 1 and the rest of the legislation are about ensuring that we are able to put in place a legislative environment that will make sure that this Rugby World Cup is the greatest thing that has happened to New Zealand. Thank you.

It is a pleasure to follow on from Nikki Kaye, the hard-working MP who is always in her office burning the midnight oil. The lights might be on, but there is no one home—no one home. Jacinda Ardern is out in the Auckland Central electorate meeting constituents, talking to business associations, and the lights are on in Nikki Kaye’s office but no one is home.

I am happy to take a call on Part 1 of the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill, and, in particular, on the purpose of it. I think all members on this side of the Chamber want the Rugby World Cup to be a success. I was working in Helen Clark’s office when the bid was successful, and it was a hugely encouraging and great time to be a New Zealander, when New Zealand won the right to host the Rugby World Cup. There was a huge amount of work done by people in Rugby World Cup Ltd, in the Ministry of Economic Development, and in towns and cities around New Zealand to get New Zealand ready for the Rugby World Cup. On this side of the Chamber we are more than happy to support legislation that will make the Rugby World Cup a successful event. For the large part, this bill does that.

But in some critical ways it does not. In Part 1 and in the purpose and overview clause, clause 3, we can see where those problems emerge. Although Mr Hayes might not want us to look at the detail of this bill, it is important. That is our job in this House, I say to Mr Hayes: to look through pieces of legislation and to ensure that they are appropriate laws to be passing. This is serious legislation, and I want to credit the Government Administration Committee for the time it took to get this bill right. It is important to know that if we are giving additional powers, or changing powers, under different Acts of Parliament, we are seriously considering what those changes will mean, and, much more important than that, what safeguards are required in order that New Zealanders’ health, safety, and well-being, are protected.

That was my concern when I first took a look at the purpose and overview clause—clause 3. Clause 3(1) states “The purpose of this Act is to enable applications to be determined expeditiously for activities or facilities reasonably necessary for the proper conduct of the Rugby World Cup 2011.” The key phrases in that clause are “expeditiously” and “reasonably necessary”, and they need to be in balance. Of course, we want things that need to happen to happen, and happen expeditiously, if we find ourselves close to the Rugby World Cup and not able to put on the event that all New Zealanders want us to put on. But it must be what is reasonably necessary to be done, and it is quite clear that the select committee has worked its way through the rest of this bill and asked whether we have that balance, between expeditiousness and reasonably necessary, right. The concern I and a number of members on this side of the Chamber have, when we come to Part 4 of this bill, is whether the process that has been set up to look at things that need to be done urgently has those rigorous safeguards in it. The conclusion we reached was that, as the bill is written, it does not.

At this stage the bill puts in the hands of the Minister, Murray McCully, an amount of power that is out of proportion to what is required for what is reasonably necessary, under the purpose of this bill. We have already heard from some members opposite that Mr McCully will have to consult with Mr Brownlee, and, possibly, with other Ministers, but, despite having set up a whole process under Part 2 and Part 3 to have an authority that will look at applications, at the end of the day the Minister can still do whatever the Minister wants under this legislation. On this side of the Chamber we are not prepared to let that kind of overarching, sweeping power take hold. Members on the other side of the Chamber need to be able to answer why it is that a single Minister—admittedly, one listening to the authority if he feels like it, or, if he feels like it, listening to another Minister—has such power over the additions and alterations to legislation. Although the purpose of the bill is reasonable, when we work our way through to clause3(2)(c) in particular, we have major issues about whether there are sufficient limitations on the powers of the Minister.

I will pick up on a number of other clauses within Part 1, as well. I accept that the Government Administration Committee, as Nikki Kaye has just said, did reasonably extend the definition of the Rugby World Cup to take in ancillary events. But, again, that is all the more reason to make sure we have sufficient safeguards in place, because now we are talking about a wider scope. That is good, because the Rugby World Cup is more than the games that will take place on the field. But it therefore behoves us even more to be clear about the bill’s restrictions and the safeguards. As I said before, in relation to Part 4—which we will come to later in more detail—we on this side of the Chamber do not believe those safeguards are there.

As Jacinda Ardern said, it would be good to hear from members opposite of some examples where they believe sweeping powers, placed in the hands of one individual, will be necessary.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: Even two examples.

Two examples would be all right.

💬 Phil Twyford: How about knocking down a heritage building?

That is right. That is the concern on this side of the Chamber. What will it extend to? We have not heard from the Government, at all, about what that would be.

I do not want to make this about personalities, but the Minister in this situation is Murray McCully. Mr Hayes does not like people to meddle in the detail. Well, Mr McCully is known for meddling in the detail—goodness, is he ever! Whether it is from the Ministry of Tourism or the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, there are a few stories to be told about Mr McCully meddling in the detail. There are legitimate concerns on this side of the House about the extent to which Mr McCully will be down in the flax roots trying to change things around.

The other parts of Part 1 that are interesting in that regard are the limitations to various Acts in clause 5. My colleague David Parker has already talked about the inclusion of a number of bits of legislation that this bill does not limit or affect. That is good. It is a useful thing. But it begs the question of the Acts that it does affect. When we look at the lists, we see that the select committee included the Burial and Cremation Act, the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act, and the Coroners Act, in addition to things like the Food Act, the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act, and the Health Act. These are important Acts to protect, but there are a lot of things that are not there. A lot of power is being placed in the authority, and then in an overriding way the Minister has the ability to limit or affect that.

It is all very well for members on the other side of the Chamber to say to us that we are not supporting the Rugby World Cup and that they are getting in behind it. We are all getting in behind the Rugby World Cup, but we need legislation that effectively enables that event but protects the health and safety of New Zealanders, and upholds the whole reason why we are in this House: to make laws that are good for New Zealand, and to protect the rights of New Zealanders. We have seen from the Government, a few times in its term in Government, the overriding of this House, be it in Auckland with the Auckland governance legislation, or even with something as simple as national standards, which it rode roughshod through the House. We will be analysing this bill in detail, because we want to make sure that an event is held that is not only good but that New Zealanders know takes place with their health and safety in mind, and with the health and safety of those people who come to New Zealand to visit in mind also.

Mr Hayes said earlier tonight that up to 85,000 people would be coming to New Zealand. That is a huge influx of people. We obviously have to make changes to enable that to happen. We can support those changes. But it also means that it puts more pressure on New Zealand and on our laws. We need safeguards in place that make sure those laws are working.

I do not have much more to say about Part 1 at this time, except to note that I think the select committee has done a good job on parts of Part 1 in updating it, extending out the definition of the Rugby World Cup, and making sure there is some clarity around other definitions in this bill. But what really concerns members on this side of the House is clause 3, the purpose and overview clause, because although we certainly support the idea of moving expeditiously on what is reasonably necessary, we do think that the process that has been put in place, which has been outlined in clause 3(2)(a), (b), and (c), unfortunately does not give us the balance we are looking for. It puts too much power in the hands of the Minister and it takes power away from the authority that has been set up specifically to advise the Minister. On this side of the Chamber we want to see change to Part 4, as noted in clause 3(2)(c), for us to be able to support this bill.

But that is in no way an indication of our support for the event. That remains unstinting from when it was first awarded to New Zealand. We have continued to support that. We worked cooperatively on this bill at the select committee but we are not prepared to sit here in this Committee tonight and give Mr McCully the kinds of powers that Part 4 of this bill does.

I am pleased to take a brief call on the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill simply to once again voice the Green Party’s opposition to this bill, as we have opposed it from its introduction, and to touch on some of the reasons for that as we go through Part 1. As has just been noted, the purpose of the legislation is to expeditiously allow for reasonable facilities and activities necessary for the proper conduct of a rugby tournament. After all, that is what we are talking about. The Rugby World Cup, in its essence, is a series of rugby games that will be held over a number of weeks. There will be one ultimate winner, and we all share an aspiration as to who that winner might be. But I think we ought not to get too engaged in suggesting there is something incredibly complex, unexpected, or unusual about the task of organising a rugby tournament. Clearly it is a very large event, notably the largest sporting event held in this country, and for that reason it is different in scale but not in type.

We see further down that this bill will empower the making of regulations, establish activities and facilities, and so on “in circumstances of urgency that, for good reason, were not foreseen”. In earlier speeches I have challenged, and I continue to challenge, and question why significant elements, aspects, facilities, and activities will not be foreseen. From the point at which New Zealand was granted the right to host the cup to the date of the first game was a 6-year window of opportunity to get it right. We are quite good at sporting events in this country. We are quite good at managing events and at project-managing in this country. We have struggled from day one to understand why we need legislation that can be fairly described as Draconian to make up for the perceived lack in our ability to organise a sporting event. The word “Draconian” is often used, and is probably overused, but I believe that certain specific aspects or provisions of this bill richly deserve the term “Draconian”. I think some serious thought ought to be given to this. I am pleased that the Labour Party has come onside in terms of opposing the bill, based on its having gone at least one and, indeed, several steps too far away from reasonable public participation, reasonable fairness, and reasonable application of the power of this Parliament and of laws.

Part 1 introduces the point that later on there will be significant discussion about liquor licences. We have a quite robust Sale of Liquor Act in this country. As set out, it very readily facilitates one-off or special events—ancillary events, as were referenced earlier. Many of us have been involved in clubs, organisations, service clubs, and schools where we may have personally facilitated the application for, and the granting and fulfilment of, a special licence. It is not a difficult thing to achieve, and we fail to understand why the entire Sale of Liquor Act must be overturned, or put aside, to facilitate these apparently unforeseen urgent applications. We know when the games will be played. We know where they will be played. We can make reasonable assumptions about what sorts of events might usefully be organised and put on to support these games.

Again, we struggle with the notion that we need to overturn the Sale of Liquor Act and put in place much less participatory or accessible legislation that will limit people’s ability to have a say in what actually goes on. There is a question on that point. The interpretation of “public notice” in this bill states: “public notice—(a) means a notice published by the Authority on an Internet site to which members of the public have free access;”. That is a completely inadequate definition of a public notice. It puts the onus on members of the public to constantly monitor a particular Internet site in order to even know what is being proposed, possibly over the fence from where they live or work and where their families or communities live or work. There is an expectation that there will be multiple venues and multiple channels for a public notice where laws are to be changed, modified, or amended. Having a single posting on a single Internet site is completely inadequate and does not meet the test of fairness or access to participation.

I stand to support the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill. The Government Administration Committee has dealt with this bill quickly and competently, and it has undertaken very carefully a consideration of the issues raised by submitters. I approve of the amendments proposed in the select committee’s report. I am confident that the bill will help to ensure that New Zealand provides an outstanding Rugby World Cup event next year.

The aim of the bill is to grant the consents and regulatory approvals essential for the smooth running of the activities related to the Rugby World Cup and for the facilities that will support this event. It is extremely important for New Zealand to host this event successfully and to take all the opportunities offered by such a large-scale event, which will, in turn, bring prosperity and opportunities to the business community and the chance to show the world that New Zealand is capable of holding such an event successfully.

Hosting an event on such a scale, which will see 85,000 overseas visitors and tens of thousands of New Zealanders attending games and watching the Rugby World Cup from different zones, will bring lots of challenges. Therefore, it is crucial that we have special legislation set up to enable the event to be a success and to ensure that we make the most out of the opportunities it brings. The administrative secretariat support to the Rugby World Cup Authority will be provided by the territorial authorities of each district in which an application is made. The ability to grant approval by the Rugby World Cup Authority will expire on 31 October 2011. All approvals under this bill are temporary and will expire no later than 31 December 2011.

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

I think my colleagues in the Chamber will know well by now that Labour would be supporting the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill if the Government was willing to entertain the amendment that the Hon Trevor Mallard has placed on the Table. It would prune back the urgency powers that this legislation would give to the Hon Murray McCully, which are a worry to everybody on this side of the Chamber. If anybody should not be given the kinds of urgency powers that this bill extends—

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): We are on Part 1.

Yes, and I will talk generally about Part 1. Thank you for your advice about that, Mr Chairperson. My colleague Trevor Mallard pointed out that clause 3(2)(c)(ii) “empowers the Minister, subject to a recommendation of the Authority, to grant urgent approvals for activities and facilities in circumstances of urgency that, for good reason, were not foreseen;”. That is a very interesting phrase right there—this bill “empowers the Minister, subject to a recommendation of the Authority,”. Well, as we will find out as we go into more detail in this debate, the Minister’s powers are not subject to a recommendation of the Rugby World Cup Authority. This bill explicitly gives him the power to override, to ignore, the recommendations and the advice of the authority that is set up by this bill. That is the objection we have, and if it were not for that issue, we would support this bill.

In spite of the problems that my Green colleague David Clendon has set out with regard to this legislation, Labour is of the view that this legislation is needed. The risks and the benefits of this mega-event for New Zealand are such that we cannot afford to put it at risk. The scale of the event is so big that the influx of visitors will be reliant on a great deal of temporary infrastructure, and it is necessary for the regulatory framework to allow for expeditious processing, not only of consents—resource consents, building consents—but also in the area of liquor licensing. We will come back to that later in this debate and spend a great deal of time talking about the “Murray McCully provisions”, as they will undoubtedly become known.

In the meantime, let us look at the general purpose. In clause 3, “Purpose and overview”, the purpose is “to enable applications to be determined expeditiously for activities or facilities reasonably necessary for the proper conduct of the Rugby World Cup”. Colleagues who have spoken before me have pointed out that there was a lot of discussion at the Government Administration Committee. That is reflected in the interpretation clause, clause 4. The definition of “ancillary events” is a needed distinction to say that events like live public screenings, like those that will be taking place down on Queen’s Wharf under the Cloud, will be considered to be Rugby World Cup events, and will be subject to all the same kinds of provisions that this bill extends to the big games. So the bill applies not just to the games themselves—the sporting events—but also to all the other associated times and places where people get together to celebrate the event or to watch the games on a big screen.

We have also heard some discussion about the limits to the application of the Building Act. In Auckland, particularly, the influx of visitors will mean that multi-storeyed, high-rise apartment buildings will be pressed into service to house many of the, I think, between 65,000 and 85,000 visitors who are expected to flood into the country for this event. They will need to be housed, and it is very likely that high-rise apartment buildings will be used.

I am pleased to be taking a call on the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill. I want to be clear: members on this side of the Chamber are very supportive of rugby, we are very supportive of the Rugby World Cup 2011, and we are very supportive of the legislation that is here before the Committee. Let me say very, very slowly that the New Zealand Labour Party is opposing this legislation. It makes me sad, because we had quite a collegial select committee process. I have looked through this legislation and I cannot see a minority report. So what happened? Something happened at the point that it came back to the House. We know there were some issues around the Canterbury earthquake provision and those members got a bit scared; we accept that.

However, let me make the point that the Rugby World Cup is the third-largest sporting event in the world. It is the largest sporting event that New Zealand has ever held, and it is really important, in my view, to put that into context. When 85,000 tourists will be coming here, we need to have the infrastructure in place. All of the Government Administration Committee members recognised that, inevitably, difficult situations might arise and we need to put some legislation in place to deal with that. We have gone there. We have sold 500,000 tickets. We have moved ahead with all the stadia. Now we want to put this legislation in place that will deal with unforeseen situations as they may arise.

I want to deal now with the members opposite who have been saying that this is all about wielding great power around the Rugby World Cup. Let me bring some of those members back to planet Earth. The fact is that this is the largest sporting event ever to be held in New Zealand. We are dealing with significant numbers of people. We are dealing with significant issues in terms of infrastructure and transport. We are saying that we do not envisage these provisions being used, and we do not want them to be used, but if a situation arose it is possible that we may want to have a provision or a process that says the Rugby World Cup Authority will put forward a recommendation. It might be that the Minister for the Rugby World Cup says we disagree with that, after consulting the Minister for Economic Development and other relevant Ministers. I think that is an entirely reasonable proposition, as do most of my colleagues. We have seen some of the situations that happened in Delhi. This is New Zealand Inc on the line. This is our reputation. It is the view of members on this side of the Chamber that it is reasonable and prudent to have a process within this legislation.

Ultimately, let me say that at the end of the day the Rugby World Cup event is scheduled to take place right before an election. We believe that if a situation did arise and the Minister did exercise those powers, then it is better that the Minister is accountable to the electorate, to the people of New Zealand, than to some unelected people on the Rugby World Cup Authority. I am pleased to be supporting this legislation. Members on this side of the House are very clear that we want to have a Rugby World Cup event that runs smoothly, so that we can show the world what a great country we have and that we can hold world-class events. We support this legislation and we are proud to do so. Members on the other side are playing petty politics. I am proud to support this legislation.

I will follow on from what was a completely misleading and disingenuous statement from the previous speaker, Nikki Kaye. I am disappointed that it was made by the member who purports to represent the area that will be hosting most of these games. If any petty politics were being played in any contribution, it was in that one. Members on this side of the Chamber have been absolutely clear, through every contribution they have made, that in principle—

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. The member made an assertion that Nikki Kaye purports to represent the people of Auckland Central. We have rules around—

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): That is a debating point. [Interruption] The use of the word “purports” is a debating point.

We have claimed consistently throughout the debate on the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill that we support the Rugby World Cup being successfully held and hosted in this country. In fact, it was under Labour that we first won the right to host the Rugby World Cup. It is completely disingenuous to claim that we do not support it. In fact, we have sought from the Government the right to support this bill in its entirety, if it would simply put constraints around powers.

The Government has been unable to explain to us how it anticipates those powers being used in the first place. There is talk about the unforeseen circumstances that the Government cannot anticipate, yet almost every clause in this bill enables, to a certain degree, dealing with most situations that may arise without the need to have an unchecked and unbalanced free-for-all for the Minister.

If the Government can explain to me the kinds of circumstances, the hypothetical situation, that it envisages may arise, perhaps I may have more sympathy for its arguments. But the Government has been absolutely unable to do this. We are so close to hosting the Rugby World Cup, so what could the Government possibly anticipate going horribly wrong? Either it does not want to admit that it is unsure about where it stands currently in the planning stages, or it is unwilling to make sure we have adequate checks and balances. And that is our role. It is hard for us to stand up and put forward an argument against this. We would like to see a bipartisan approach to this legislation, but the Government has been unwilling to give us that ability. That is the challenge I extend to the Government.

The claim is that the check, the balance, is that Murray McCully has to consult Gerry Brownlee before he enacts any of his unchecked powers. I find cold comfort in that, I have to say. If we let Gerry Brownlee undertake—

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Come back to Part 1.

I guess I can say in my own defence that this is included in Part 1 because it specifically relates to clause 3(2)(c), but I do not wish to dispute the Chair’s ruling. I am happy to move on.

I have some other significant points to make. Grant Robertson referred, more broadly speaking, to the fact that these broad-brush powers extend to some quite broad-brush definitions. One in particular that I want to refer to is that the Government Administration Committee has made a change to the definition of “facility”. It means “works, a site, or a structure”. Previously it had an annotation that meant “undertaken or constructed for or in connection with the Rugby World Cup 2011,” That has been removed, and I can understand why. But that now means that we have a broad-brush approach to almost any facility that may not have been constructed for the Rugby World Cup but just exists and has some vague connection to it.

For instance, had the debate over the sheds on Queen’s Wharf been happening under these provisions, and had it not involved the Auckland Regional Council, we may have seen a completely different outcome from the very sensible decision that took into account the heritage value of those buildings. Under this bill I think we would have seen a completely different outcome. The Minister would, of course, have asked Gerry Brownlee first before he pulled them down.

There are some different definitions around the way that public notices are being used. I would be interested to hear whether a member of a select committee would be happy to expand on whether they thought that the usual way public notices are used with other legislation was not necessary, perhaps for timing reasons, or perhaps for the urgency of approvals around liquor licensing, for instance. Or is it intended that perhaps in future we do not use daily newspapers for these notifications as much? I am interested in whether we are prepared to set a precedent with this bill, or whether this was seen as very tightly constrained and specific to the Rugby World Cup. I would be happy for the Minister to speak to that point.

The final point I want to make concerns clause 5A, “Limits to application of Building Act 2004”. We had some reference from a Government member about the importance of making sure that accommodation is reasonable and accessible. Nothing in this bill, as far as I can see, does that.

I move, That the question be now put.