Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill

Part 2 of the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill establishes the Rugby World Cup Authority. I want to make very clear and explicit that Labour supports the establishment of the Rugby World Cup Authority. Like my colleague Grant Robertson I was working for Helen Clark when we won the bid for the Rugby World Cup. It was a very exciting time, and it remains a very exciting time for New Zealand. We need a bill like this to facilitate what that event will bring to us. But that does not mean giving a Minister carte blanche to make the final decisions. That is why we are establishing, under Part 2, the Rugby World Cup Authority.

I say also as the MP for Christchurch Central, host to the AMI Stadium, which is the natural centre of rugby in New Zealand given the success of the Canterbury team and the Crusaders team, that the stadium will be hosting no less than seven games during the Rugby World Cup—no less than seven games—and that includes two quarter finals. That is very important for Christchurch, particularly at this time. It is very important given the economic boost it will bring, most especially because of the economic devastation that the earthquake brought to my city.

We are looking forward to the Rugby World Cup, but we will not do it in a way that gives carte blanche to a Minister of Mr McCully’s reputation. I will give an example of aspects of this bill that are still quite perturbing and disturbing. I note, for instance, that Part 2 gives the right to the Rugby World Cup Authority to award liquor licences. Then it goes on to say that in doing so and in exercising its functions under this Act, the authority must “ensure the efficient, safe, and lawful conduct of the Rugby World Cup 2011”, and “that public health and safety are protected as far as is reasonably practicable during the period of the Rugby World Cup 2011.”

I draw to the attention of the Committee the advice of the police on the issue of alcohol being served in stadia. For a 6-month period, from October last year through to March this year, the police conducted a very strong campaign, lobbying their own Minister, Judith Collins, the Minister for the Rugby World Cup, and the Minister for Economic Development. They said to those Ministers that very serious consideration should be given to providing what they call wet-pour beer facilities as part of the public investment being made in upgrading stadia for the Rugby World Cup. The logic of the police, as revealed in an Official Information Act request that I lodged with the Minister in March this year, is that they were having ongoing discussions with the Rugby World Cup management about the risk management of excessive alcohol consumption. The Rugby World Cup 2011 management was arguing that the cost was high, but the police had made very, very clear that worldwide the move to the provision of wet-pour facilities together with low alcohol or zero alcohol in the bowl area of stadia was happening and that wet-pour facilities were already available at Eden Park when cricket matches were being held. So cricket matches at Eden Park have wet-pour facilities.

However, the Government’s position remained adamant throughout the 6-month police campaign. It kept saying that this had to be because of the economic advantage that it brought. The police continued. They brought it up to the level of the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Rob Pope, who in a note to the Minister dated 9 December of last year advised the Minister that the police considered the legacy investment in the Rugby World Cup facilities should include investment in infrastructure necessary to allow wet-pour facilities. He asked that this briefing be forwarded to the Minister for Economic Development, the Minister of Justice, and the Minister, Mr McCully.

The rationale for the police’s position in supporting a wet pour—that is beer being poured into plastic glasses rather than the proposal that won the day in the final analysis, which was for beer to be served in cans—was, and I am quoting from the police’s own paper: “That the misuse of alcohol, violence, and disorder are associated with major events, and the police’s position is supported by international studies which clearly show the relationship between sporting events and offending and victimisation and that the provision of alcoholic beverages in foam or plastic cups tends to reduce the potential—

Speaking to Part 2 of the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill gives me the opportunity to congratulate my colleague the Hon Dr Nick Smith on the excellent work he has been doing in his electorate of Nelson, together with the host city of Nelson, for the Rugby World Cup. As I have previously outlined, the city of Nelson is hosting the teams from Italy and the United States of America. I congratulate the Hon Dr Nick Smith on the excellent work he has done as the local member of Parliament with the local authority to make this event happen for Nelson. That kind of commitment from a local member of Parliament is being replicated all throughout the South Island, at least, by colleagues on this side of the House, and also in the North Island by the many constituency MPs located in the North Island. It will ensure that the Rugby World Cup will be a raging success. I hope that Nelson has a roaring time hosting a couple of games and a couple of teams, and that it will make the very most of the opportunity it has grasped with the assistance of its local member of Parliament. It will make this Rugby World Cup a success for Nelson.

The Government Administration Committee spent a lot of time in consideration on Part 2 of the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill, which establishes the Rugby World Cup Authority. This authority is being given temporary powers, and I need to restate that they are temporary powers. I think at this point in time that it would be good to remind ourselves of the purpose of this bill, which seems to have escaped members opposite. The purpose of this bill—[Interruption] That got them going, did it not? Just like that, I talk about the purpose of the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill—those members are not in Government, and that makes them really cross. Anyway, the purpose of this bill, which we should remind ourselves of, is to allow consent and regulatory approvals for temporary activities related to Rugby World Cup 2011 to be considered expediently to align with the—

💬 Hon Members: Expeditiously.

—expeditiously, expediently, whatever—we are in favour of it. Unfortunately, members opposite are a little ambivalent. But, however one says it, members of the Government side know exactly what it means. We want the Rugby World Cup 2011 to happen. We know that it will happen.

In the consideration by the Government Administration Committee, those of us who had an open mind on this bill spent a lot of time talking about not only the functions of the authority but also, and probably more important, the membership of the authority. If members go to clause 11, they will see that the Minister must appoint “a member of the Authority who is a current, former, or retired Judge or a lawyer of at least 7 years’ standing” to be the deputy chairperson of the authority. We then spent a lot of time thinking about the skills that would be required by members of the authority. Paragraphs (a), (b), (c), and (d) of clause 11(3) describe those members and, rather than describe the person, we have described the qualities. The members’ knowledge, skill, and experience relating to enactments relevant or likely to be relevant to those functions is what matters.

A key point is the matters that are likely to come before the authority. What matters are likely to come before the authority? It might be a road stopping. In fact, it is probably likely to be a road stopping, because there will be a desire to have a fan zone in the city of Nelson, or in the towns of Ōāmaru and Temuka, where I know that the excellent member Jo Goodhew is working very hard with her local constituency to make this event a great success. A road stopping is, one might think, a fairly minor matter, but it will be very crucial to the smooth running of this event. It is the kind of consideration that the members of this authority will need to be familiar with. Under clause 11(3)(c) and (d) the members of the authority must be familiar with the regions where the tournament will take place. Members of the authority must also be familiar with the judicial process.

A lot of attention was given by members of the committee to the functions that will be necessary for the smooth running of the Rugby World Cup. Finally, in my contribution to this part, I will talk about the administrative secretariat.

I thank the member opposite, Jacqui Dean, for her contribution. It is fair to say that it was a relatively broad contribution to the debate, and I thank her for broadening it in that way. The member’s Freudian slip or “McCully-like” slip—mixing up “expeditiously” and “expediently”—really got to the nub of this question. When she said that Labour members are unhappy because we are not in Government for the Rugby World Cup, she is absolutely right. I know that it would not be acceptable for Labour to put together a bill in this form. The reasons for that we will get to later on in the debate, but it is fair to say that the establishment of the Rugby World Cup Authority goes to the core of the bill.

At this stage I want to give the Hon Murray McCully some credit. It happens every now and again. The Minister in the chair, the Hon Georgina te Heuheu, smiles. She is deputising for that Minister and she knows that there are not a lot of things to give him credit for. She knows that better than a lot of people. Minister McCully has been consulting as to the membership of the Rugby World Cup Authority. He has lists of individuals and possibilities, which is good. When that matter becomes more formal, I will probably be allowed to tell my caucus colleagues about it. It is fair to say there is no suggestion, as yet, that the Minister is stacking the Rugby World Cup Authority with Tory hacks who are in it only for tickets to the games. It is fair to say that he has in mind some people of some reputation and a broad range of skills, including those in the environmental law area. I would be interested to know whether the Hon Nick Smith, the Minister for the Environment, has been consulted on this.

I know it may be putting the cart before the horse here, but, clearly, we need to pass this legislation before the formal consultation can occur. I am sure that Mr McCully will be working with Dr Nick Smith in the way that he is working with members of the Opposition—

💬 Grant Robertson: Can he work with Dr Smith?

Apparently he likes working with Dr Nick Smith. It is one of those—

💬 Grant Robertson: I’ve always said he was peculiar.

I will not comment on that. The establishment of the Rugby World Cup Authority is something that goes to the core of the bill. Who was the member who was speaking just before?

💬 Grant Robertson: Jacqui Dean.

Jacqui Dean indicated that the Government Administration Committee had made some detailed decisions on the shape of the authority, the functions, and the type of people that we had been looking for. I want to make a minor correction: the select committee did not make any decisions in that area, at all. It is fair to say that the Minister, again, had consulted relatively well with the Opposition before the legislation was introduced and, at least in that part, the type of skills that were necessary had been fairly well sorted out before the bill was introduced.

My next point—it will probably be the subject of my third and fourth calls when I come back to it—concerns schedule 1, which is brought into play by clause 14. I am catching up with the modern ways of doing things in the Committee stage, so I ask whether this is where we discuss schedule 1 as opposed to the miscellaneous provisions at the end.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Correct.

Then I will get back to schedule 1, because it is an important schedule.

One of the areas where there was quite a lot of change made is in clause 15 on the functions of the administrative secretariat. I think that members are aware that that authority will sit in panels. The issue of the panels is dealt with in clause 12. Each panel will have at least three members, including, as presiding officer, a lawyer of at least 7 years’ standing, who may be the chairperson of the authority. That would mean that, as we would expect, a retired judge could be appointed, probably for the important decisions and maybe for the important Auckland panel, and we would expect that person to chair the more important hearings. The chairperson of the authority appoints the panels, and needs to have the relevant skills and experience to deal with the applications that are coming before it. Some quite big groups of applications will be quite similar. Without going into the detail of events that require liquor licences, which are later on, there is an expectation that groups of liquor licences will be dealt with as a block; those from a particular area will operate according to a consistent set of rules and police involvement, and will have their hearings together and get decisions. Those applications will be taken individually, but are more likely to be consistent with this sort of approach. But for that to occur, we need to have the panels and we need to have the administrative—is it secretaria? What is the plural of “secretariat”? Is it secretariats, secretaria, or secretariae?

💬 Hon Member: Secretariats.

It is secretariats. We are going to have to have a series of secretariats—[Interruption] It is not often that I can say that I miss Simon Upton in the Chamber. There is no doubt that “Hansel” would have been able to sort out that question. The other thing I have no doubt about is that “Gretel” would not have been able to.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): The member knows that he must refer to somebody by their proper name.

I thought that applied only to current members.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): No, no. [Interruption] I am on my feet. I am dealing with a matter here. The member knows that he must refer to someone by their correct name. I ask him to do so in the future.

I am sorry. For clarification, I was referring to my then fellow Waikato colleague. The Rt Hon Simon Upton distinguished himself by reading Homer in the Greek in the House for enjoyment when he was getting bored with debates. He certainly would have known—

💬 Grant Robertson: John Hayes reads Homer Simpson.

No, that is not true. Someone reads Homer Simpson to John Hayes. We would have worked out whether we have the plural of “secretariat” correct in the bill if Mr Upton was involved.

The other area where there is major change and where, I think it is fair to say, the Minister and those of us who were involved in the bill earlier did not get it right is in respect of deposits to be paid to the administrative secretariat. There is concern that some people will have a bit of a try-on with this; some people will try to slip through applications in the more general area, which we will come to in Part 3 of the bill, and even more so in Part 4, which relates to Minister McCully. The idea of the deposit arrangement is that the deposit is substantial, will cover all of the costs, and will be a deterrent to applications that are frivolous or try-ons, because people will end up paying not only their own costs but the costs of the other side as part of that arrangement. But under new clause 15A(3) there is an ability to refund the excess amount to the applicant.

I thank the member for Waitaki, Jacqui Dean, for giving us one of the most enjoyable moments of the day in the Chamber as she paused between self-flattery and boosterism to reveal that expediency is the underlying principle of the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill, particularly in its application of the McCully principle, which we come to in Part 4. Perhaps there is a typographical error in this bill that the drafters might like to consider. “Expeditiously” appears throughout the document and probably a find and replace should be done to replace it with “expediently”, if Jacqui Dean is right—and I am guessing she is.

I want to comment on clause 11 in Part 2, which deals with the membership of the authority. I say right up front that Labour is satisfied with the provisions that have been put in place around the structure and membership of the Rugby World Cup Authority. The Minister for the Rugby World Cup will appoint persons to the authority after consulting with three other Ministers: the Minister of Justice, the Minister for Economic Development, and the Minister for the Environment. He must appoint a member of the authority who is a current, former, or retired judge—that makes eminent sense—or a lawyer of at least 7 years’ standing to the chair of the authority. I have no doubt that we will end up with someone chairing the authority who is suitably qualified and has the weight of experience and has the expertise to bring to the role. A second member of the authority will also be a lawyer of at least 7 years’ standing to act as the deputy chairperson. So there is no doubt that we will have plenty of legal expertise in the leadership of the authority.

There is also a requirement under clause 11(3) that “the Minister must ensure that the Authority has available to it sufficient members with the knowledge, skill, and experience relevant to the Authority’s functions …”. So we have to assume that there will be people with the appropriate town planning experience and liquor licensing experience. We will have an authority made up of eminent people in their fields to lead and oversee the entire process of running the authority, deciding on applications, and so on. Given that this authority will be well-endowed with the kinds of skills, experience, and judgement we are looking for, why does the Government insist on going ahead with the Murray McCully provisions in this bill, which will allow the Minister to decide on so-called urgent applications and conceivably make decisions that will go against the advice and recommendations of this eminent authority? That is the question Government members have so far completely failed to address. They have not been able to give us one scenario that justifies these urgency powers that will be given to the Hon Murray McCully.

The chairperson will be appointing panels. That is how the work of the authority will be done—by panels appointed to consider applications and make determinations. A member of the authority who is a lawyer of at least seven years’ standing will be a member of each of these panels, and that is how the work will be done. It will be supported by an administrative secretariat, which has, I think, comprehensive terms of reference here. Its functions are laid out in clause (15)(4). Again, it underlines the question in our minds, which is why these excessive urgency powers are needed when we have a fully staffed authority with properly constituted panels, backed up by an administrative secretariat. Why does the Minister need the urgency powers?

I will come back to the issue of the purpose of the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill, and relate Part 2 to the purpose of the bill. Its purpose is to allow consent and regulatory approvals for temporary activities related to the Rugby World Cup 2011 (RWC) to be considered expeditiously. I emphasise, as my colleague did before, that it is expeditiously, not experimentally, expediently, excitedly, or any of the other “ex-” words that might spring to mind. It goes on to say the bill establishes the Rugby World Cup Authority as a consenting body for the purpose of determining applications for temporary regulatory approvals.

On these regulatory approvals David Clendon made the point, I think, that this Rugby World Cup has been a long time coming. We have actually organised it rather well. Somebody in my electorate, which has Eden Park in it—which will host a lot of the major games of the Rugby World Cup, including the final—will probably know that better than most people. We have had to refurbish Eden Park, which has caused huge consternation to the local residents in the area, and has been a subject of some battling and fighting for many, many years. That is one thing. Also, in and around that area transport has been completely remodelled. That has all been done through a judicial process, a consent-driven process—not necessarily to the satisfaction of everybody that is there, admittedly, but nevertheless it has happened. The roading has been completely remodelled. The railway station at Kingsland has been completely remodelled to handle the crowds.

The reason I mention many of these changes is that they have happened through a judicial process that has been agreed upon. That is exactly what Part 2 in this bill is looking at: a good temporary process through which people can be confident that they are being well heard by people who do not have a vested interest, and where there is complete accountability for the decisions that are being made.

Phil Twyford just went through some of these points on the powers of the authority that will be set up to do this work. Clause 10(1) states: “For the purpose of carrying out its functions, the Authority has—(a) full capacity to carry on or undertake any activity, do any act, or enter into any transaction; and (b) for the purposes of paragraph (a), full rights, powers, and privileges.” That seems to give a pretty broad brief to that authority to make the sorts of changes and alterations that, for example, we will perhaps need to see around the Eden Park area in my electorate—to look at the drinking and the liquor licensing situation in nearby Kingsland, for example. Part 1 goes on to say the authority will have the same functions, powers, privileges, and immunities in respect of every application made under this legislation as the relevant statutory person or body would have but for this legislation. There cannot be anything very much clearer than this legislation, in giving wide-ranging powers to a body that we should have full confidence in.

It was pleasing to hear Mr Mallard talk about the fact that Mr McCully has actually been sharing some of the names of the people who might be appearing on that authority as well, so this is a genuinely bipartisan approach.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: Well, I wouldn’t say Michelle Boag’s quite in that category, but, you know—not that he’s mentioned her recently.

I do not want to comment on any individuals.

I will talk about Part 2 of the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill and, in particular, the establishment of the Rugby World Cup Authority. As other speakers on this side of the Chamber have said, Labour is happy with the notion of an authority, and is confident that the Government Administration Committee has been through Part 2 and has made some minor changes to the way that the authority will work, particularly in relation to its secretariat. I think that those changes are useful. As my colleague David Shearer was working through, it is important to get the right people on to this body. I tell Mr Shearer that I am sure he will get another 5 minutes too; I am sure that the Chair would happily hear more from Mr Shearer. I think that the functions of the authority as laid out in clause 9 are the ones that are necessary: in terms of going back to the purpose clause, what is reasonably necessary to be dealt with expeditiously, as opposed to expediently, as Jacqui Dean said earlier on. I think that within Part 2 we have a clause that, in general, Labour can support.

But Part 2 highlights some of the concerns that we have been raising about the extent to which the Minister has certain powers. In particular, clause 9(1)(c) states that one of the functions of the authority is “to determine applications made under Part 5 for Rugby World Cup liquor licences;”. I want to pick up where my colleague Brendon Burns left off at the start of the debate on this particular part. He was talking then about the material that he had got under the Official Information Act from the police. He was going through their exchange with Minister Brownlee about whether it would be possible for there to be wet-pour services at Eden Park, as opposed to bottles, cans, and so on, in terms of how alcohol would be provided.

The police put through a series of briefings in December last year, and through February and into March this year, arguing with the Minister the point that from a health and safety point of view, wet-pour facilities were needed. Deputy Police Commissioner Rob Pope listed in a briefing to Mr Brownlee in December last year that a wet-pour service is a safer option, because it limits the number of servings that can be carried by a patron, and it reduces the risk of injury—cans or plastic bottles present a particular risk, given the way that intoxicated fans use them. The police went on to talk about how this service would allow them to further control the amount of alcohol sold. As Mr Burns said, wet-pour facilities have been available at cricket matches at Eden Park, yet Mr Brownlee said he did not think this could be done. He said it could not be provided for in terms of the investment.

That is our concern about Part 2 of the bill. The authority is all well and good; it is a useful body. But if Ministers like Mr Brownlee, whom Mr McCully is to consult with, are not prepared to listen to the police’s very legitimate safety concerns about the selling of alcohol, how can we then have any confidence in giving such sweeping powers to those Ministers to override the authority that is established in Part 2 of this bill?

💬 John Hayes: They’ve got the people’s mandate.

Well, I tell Mr Hayes that the police are here, trying to look after the health and safety of New Zealanders. They went to the Minister three times—I have three briefings here in my hands—and they said we needed to put in place wet-pour facilities in order to protect the people who will go to Eden Park. Mr Hayes says that is all right, because Ministers have the mandate of the people.

House resumed.

The Chairperson reported the Governor-General Bill with amendment, and progress on the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill.

Report adopted.

The House adjourned at 9.56 p.m.