Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill

We are debating Part 2 of the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill, and in particular the establishment of the Rugby World Cup Authority. The Labour Party supports the establishment of this authority because we see that it is a reasonable mechanism by which to hear urgent matters that may arise in the build-up to the Rugby World Cup. However, as we have stated several times during this debate, we have grave concern about the fact that, having established this authority, the Government is then putting in place a process by which the Minister for the Rugby World Cup, Murray McCully, in consultation with Gerry Brownlee and Nick Smith can override, vary, ignore, and do whatever he likes with that decision. The example I was giving when I spoke before was the question of wet-pour facilities at Eden Park. I note that some material obtained under the Official Information Act actually shows that Gerry Brownlee was refusing to listen to the advice from the police about health and safety concerns over not having wet-pour services for alcohol at Eden Park.

From our point of view this raises a grave concern about the approach that Ministers are taking. A Minister has received advice from the police—the people charged in our community with protecting community safety—that they believe that wet-pour facilities are essential for the health and safety of New Zealanders. If that advice is simply ignored by the Minister, what sort of case does it set for the authority being established in Part 2 of this bill? The authority will give consideration under clause 9. An example of the kind of thing the authority would do is to grant liquor licences. It would go away and it would seek advice—in this case from the police. The police came back and said they believed wet-pour facilities needed to be provided at Eden Park. The Minister got that advice and said that he does not really consider it to be significant, and he is not going to go along with it. That is the concern we have, because the establishment of the authority is a useful process.

To see the kinds of people who are going to be appointed to the authority, we look at clause 11 of Part 2, “Membership of the authority”. The membership of the authority will have someone “who is a current, former, or retired Judge or a lawyer of at least 7 years’ standing”. That implies a quasi-judicial type of role for this authority, which clearly is required, given that it will have to look at the potential amendment of Acts of Parliament. A serious job is being given to this authority, and serious people are being brought in. Under clause 11(2)(b), there needs to be another member of the authority “who is a lawyer of at least 7 years’ standing to be its deputy chairperson.”; then “In appointing members, the Minister must ensure that the Authority has available to it sufficient members with the knowledge, skill, and experience relevant to the Authority’s functions”. The clause then lists some of that required experience.

Being on the authority will be a serious job, and serious people will be undertaking that job, yet in Part 4 the Government is trying to put a process in place that will fundamentally undermine that work. So from our point of view, when we look at Part 2, we see a part that on the face of it we can support but that is undermined by other parts, and that is disturbing to us.

The process by which the authority will work is then laid out in clause 12 of Part 2, and that is through appointing panels. Again, in looking at the case raised specifically by the police wanting wet-pour facilities to be established, the kind of panel we would establish in relation to that would no doubt have police involvement. Those people whom the authority would have brought in to determine what they would do about those sorts of issues would talk to the police.

But Gerry Brownlee on three occasions has had the police go to him, and I have the notes from each of those meetings here. On each of those occasions, Gerry Brownlee declined to go along with police advice about their health and safety concerns; rather, he said he did not feel that the Rugby World Cup 2011 justified putting in place that activity. The police then said they believed that the activity would be a legacy investment that the Rugby World Cup 2011 should put in place for the health and safety not only of New Zealanders but also of visitors to our country.

Part 2 of this bill certainly provides for the authority to make decisions about liquor licences. That was a decision related to the question of the provision of liquor and the provision of licences, and that was an example of the Associate Minister for the Rugby World Cup deciding that he wanted to ignore that decision. He will be one of the people whom Murray McCully, as Minister for the Rugby World Cup, turns to in order to decide what to do about the recommendations of the authority established in Part 2 of the bill. Gerry Brownlee has shown himself to be one of those people who are not interested in what the police have to say about safety, or about how the Rugby World Cup should operate in terms in liquor licences, and I have no confidence that that would not happen over the issue I have referred to.

I think that the authority has probably been given the powers it needs to do its job, with the exception of what is happening in Part 4. I congratulate the committee, which has made a number of minor changes in Part 2, particularly in relation to the functioning of the administrative secretariat in clause 15. The functions have been varied somewhat in order to allow the secretariat to provide advice to the authority, which, again, is useful because the authority will have to act quickly. It needs all of the people around it that it can get. I think that it is important to note once again, in this debate on Part 2, that Labour supports the Rugby World Cup 2011 strongly—

💬 Nikki Kaye: No, you don’t.

We certainly do. Nikki Kaye can interject across the Chamber. I say that this side of the Chamber supports the Rugby World Cup 2011, and we have done so from the beginning, I tell Ms Kaye.

One has to wonder at Labour’s priorities when its members stand up in this Chamber and deliberately act as spoilers of the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill.

💬 Jo Goodhew: It’s all they’ve got.

Well, I just think that it speaks volumes for the commitment of Labour members to the Rugby World Cup, and I think probably it says that Trevor Mallard—who is no longer the Minister for the Rugby World Cup, Labour having lost the Treasury benches—is throwing a bit of a tanty and doing all he can to spoil the progress of this bill.

New Zealand wants the Rugby World Cup, the Government is behind the Rugby World Cup, and the New Zealand Rugby Union and all the sub-unions around the country are firmly in favour of this Rugby World Cup. Who is acting as the spoiler? Trevor Mallard and his band of little merry men are acting as spoilers for this legislation. I say “Shame on them—shame on them!”.

There are a couple of points that I will pick up here. In terms of liquor licensing, the amendment about liquor licensing that was indicated—

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Part 2.

Oh, thank you, Mr Chair. Seeking to introduce new material into the debate after the select committee process—and I am referring directly to the provisions in Part 2—is contrary to whatever Labour members have said in the past about introducing new material and truncating the Committee process. Labour is merely trying to spoil this process. Trevor Mallard has his nose seriously out of joint because he is no longer the Minister for the Rugby World Cup, and this is just his little tanty to try to slow down the Committee process. He is being aided and abetted in a shameful way by the members of the select committee who, I understood, when we met in consideration of Part 2, acted constructively all the way through the select committee process. In fact, all the way through the consideration of Part 2 we had good, robust debate when going through issues such as the membership of the authority, which the member opposite has just stood up and decried. Well, that is news to me, because during the select committee process we had good discussions on that and general agreement—

💬 Jacinda Ardern: No, we didn’t!

I do not see any minority report being brought before the Committee in relation to any of the provisions in Part 2. Let us call this what it is: Labour members are filibustering, they have their noses out of joint, and they do not support the Rugby World Cup. I think that that is a terrible shame, and an indictment on the Labour members of how low they are prepared to go to act as spoilers of what should be wonderful legislation to enable a wonderful, marvellous Rugby World Cup event. I hope they come to their senses and start supporting this bill, and supporting the spirit of this bill, as does the Government.

I appreciate the opportunity to enter the debate on the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill for the first time in the Committee of the whole House, and to speak to Part 2, which refers to, and deals with, the establishment of the Rugby World Cup Authority. It is a pleasure to follow Jacqui Dean, who was interested in broadening out the debate. I appreciate that she wanted perhaps to go a little beyond Part 2, and I am happy to speak to some of her concerns about why there was no minority report from the Opposition members on the Government Administration Committee with reference to Part 2. That is because the Labour members actually support Part 2. What we are concerned about is the fact that there are good provisions in Part 2; however—

💬 Nikki Kaye: Why wasn’t there a minority report?

Nikki Kaye asks why there was no minority report. She can continue to interject, and I am happy to respond to her interjections, but perhaps she would let me get to my point. The reason that there is no minority report for Part 2 is that the Labour Opposition actually supports Part 2, but Part 2 is undermined by the provisions in Part 4.

Part 2 establishes the Rugby World Cup Authority as a body corporate and sets out its functions and powers, which include determining all applications, making recommendations to the Minister, and granting urgent applications. That is a good role for the authority, but the problem is, of course, that Part 4 completely undermines the authority. We may as well not even bother to have the authority, because Part 4 says the Minister can just override it and ignore it. So we speak in favour of this part, but we highlight the fact that other clauses of the bill undermine it. Jacqui Dean brought this issue into the debate; she wondered why Labour had a problem with this bill, and it is because this part, which is a good, valuable part of the bill, is completely undermined.

I will refer specifically to the amendment to clause 9(2) made by the select committee. One of the things that the authority had to take into account in the original wording was “the safety of individuals participating in or attending the Rugby World Cup 2011;”. That has been amended by the select committee—and I think it is a positive move—to read: “public health and safety are protected as far as it is reasonably practicable during the period of the Rugby World Cup 2011”. That amendment made by the select committee is important, because it acknowledges the fact that the event, the Rugby World Cup, will have an impact on New Zealand as a nation and on our community as a whole, not just, as the original wording said, on “individuals participating in or attending the Rugby World Cup 2011”. It is a positive change. I think it is fair to say it is an unusual change for this Government to support, given the use of the term “public health” and the Government’s general abhorrence for public health.

But what concerns me is that although Part 2 has that provision in it and the authority should be making recommendations to the Minister about what, in practical terms, can be done to ensure public health and safety, and although the authority will no doubt be taking advice from organisations like the police, the Fire Service, public health services, and district health boards—all those organisations will be able to feed into the process and advise the authority, which can then advise the Minister—the Minister can turn round and say: “No thanks. It is too difficult and too expensive. We will assume there is no issue of public health and safety.”, in the interests of expediency or of securing profits for sponsors. It could be any reason; in fact, the Minister does not particularly need to give a reason. In that way, Part 4 undermines what is a very, very good clause here in Part 2 of the bill. As I said, I think the amendment to clause 9(2) is a good amendment, because it recognises that the issue is about not just safety but also public health. When we have a gathering of people, as we will do with a tournament like this, we have to think beyond just safety issues in terms of alcohol or driving.

I am pleased to take a call on the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill. Firstly, I think we have seen Labour’s true colours in regard to this legislation. We are seeing that those members are clearly trying to undermine good legislation going through the House in support of what will be the largest sporting event that New Zealand has ever held. It will be a time when 4 billion people will be watching us, with 2,000 media. Frankly, it is quite embarrassing, because members opposite sat in the select committee and went through a reasonable process—and members on this side of the Chamber have talked about that process—but then those members did not put in a minority report. They have far too much time on their hands, and Mr Mallard has stirred them up, taking them down a little garden path. My concern is that we have had a very, very clear process there, but there was no minority report. My colleague said it very well by saying that we need to call members opposite for exactly what they are doing. They are filibustering, and they are showing a lack of support for New Zealand by not supporting this legislation.

We are very clear that this Part 2 of the legislation is about setting up the Rugby World Cup Authority, but we are hearing a lot of contradictions coming from the other side, as well. Yesterday those members said that they supported the process for the establishment of the authority. In fact, Mr Mallard even said yesterday that he supported the fact that Mr McCully was consulting members opposite regarding that membership. But we just heard from Mr Lees-Galloway that—actually, no—because of the provisions about urgent consents, it is Labour’s position that it does not support the legislation, at all. Complete contradictions are coming from the other side of the Chamber. We know what is happening here. We know that this is about wasting New Zealand taxpayers’ money, and we have just seen it via an hour of filibustering. That is not good for New Zealand, particularly when we have had pretty hard economic times.

I come back, again, to Part 2 of the legislation. We on this side of the Chamber want to be very clear that we are supportive of the authority that is being set up. A very reasonable process has been undertaken in relation to Part 2. There is a very clear process about the membership of the authority, in terms of consulting the Minister of Justice, the Minister for Economic Development, and the Minister for the Environment. They are all elected people. Again, it comes back to some of the arguments that have been raised by the Opposition, in regard to not having an urgent consent process whereby there is a power of veto by the Minister. We on this side of the Chamber would prefer to have elected representatives, rather than unelected people, accountable. That goes to the core and heart of a number of the discussions that have happened so far.

I say that we on this side of the Chamber support New Zealand, support the Rugby World Cup, and support this legislation going through, compared with a Labour Opposition that is filibustering, that is wasting the Committee’s time, and that does not support the Rugby World Cup. Those members show a lot of contradictions in terms of what they are saying. We are supportive of the Rugby World Cup, and I commend this legislation.

It is my absolute pleasure to set the record straight because, very unfortunately, several members of the Government have tried to mislead those who might be watching this debate on the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill. I am happy to restate that Labour absolutely supports the elements of Part 2—in particular, the establishment of the Rugby World Cup Authority. A robust process has been set out there. But I must restate for the benefit of those who may be watching that we do oppose the notion that carte blanche powers should be given to a Minister—powers that are unnecessary. To somehow translate that objection as Labour being against rugby—in fact, I heard the statement that Labour is against New Zealand—is, I find, a stretch.

We are trying to make good law. That is our obligation in this Committee. It is our job to make sure that we do that well. We absolutely support the Rugby World Cup, which is why we want to make sure that robust procedures are in place to make sure it happens. In my mind, I am much more comfortable with the way that the authority has been established, the membership of the authority, the procedure of the authority, and the decision-making role that it will play than I am with decisions being deferred or taken out of that authority’s hands at the whim of the Minister, which is essentially what this bill allows. I am against that, and Labour is against that.

But I will go over some questions I have for the Minister in the chair, the Hon Anne Tolley, who is obviously acting on behalf of the Minister who has responsibility for this bill. My first question is about liability. We are dealing with a circumventing of process and procedure for which the authority has been given powers as set out in this legislation. If, for instance, a Minister takes the ability to make a decision outside the hands of the authority, where does the liability for that decision lie? Does it then lie directly with the Crown, or does it then fall to the authority, which may have made a counter decision to that of the Minister? That is one of my questions on the issue of liability, because we are dealing with quite contentious issues.

The Rugby World Cup is an event that has the potential to have significant health and safety issues attached to it, and that could potentially become litigious. I note in Part 2, clause 12, that the ability to question the chairperson’s exercise of his or her discretion before the courts is removed. I imagine that holds for all of the authority’s decisions. In terms of litigation, the power to pursue that via the court is removed; does that power then exist if a decision is made by the Minister? That is a question I put to the Ministers themselves in relation to the issue of liability. It would be useful to have that clarified.

Otherwise, I think this bill sets out quite clearly the criteria by which the authority must consider various decisions that are within its ambit, and I think those criteria are very, very robust. I see that the select committee made one change in particular, highlighting the importance of ensuring that “public health and safety are protected as far as it is reasonably practicable during the period of the Rugby World Cup 2011.” It then also sets out a range of other criteria. I wonder whether the Minister could point out whether it is intended that the Minister would use the same criteria given to him or her, if the Minister exercises the power given to him or her in Part 4. Will any of those requirements that we are asking the authority to take into account—to which the select committee has given a lot of consideration—be taken into account by the Minister, as well, to fulfil that set of obligations, or does the Minister have different criteria altogether?

I also thought it was useful that in clause 9(2)(e) of that part, it is pointed out that one of the criteria is “the desirability of maximising the benefit to be derived during or after the tournament from things done in preparation for, and in support of, the tournament.” I have another question for the Minister there. Because the select committee has split it out—instead of referring to the Rugby World Cup as a whole, the provision refers just to the tournament—does that criterion not apply for the ancillary events that I notice the select committee has split out? Does that mean that the authority does not need to take into account the desirability of maximising the benefit derived, when we are talking about ancillary events? Is there a separate set of criteria for those?

I am very happy to take a call on Part 2 of the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill, and from the very beginning I say that I am quite excited about the Rugby World Cup coming to New Zealand. It will be a major event for this country and I am looking forward to it. I am also very broadly supportive of the establishment of the Rugby World Cup Authority, which is what the second part—

💬 John Hayes: So why is Mallard off the leash?

Mr Mallard also supports Part 2, “Establishment of Rugby World Cup Authority”. I will talk about some of the powers that the authority has, some of the considerations about membership, and, in particular, how the authority will be supported.

Part 2 establishes the Rugby World Cup Authority as a body corporate. It sets out its functions and powers, which include determining all applications, making recommendations to the Minister for the Rugby World Cup, and granting urgent applications.

One of the issues that the Government Administration Committee took into consideration and had some significant discussion on was how best to support the authority in exercising its powers and in making decisions. Effectively, we are taking some of these functions and powers off local authorities, and, for matters related to the Rugby World Cup, transferring them to this authority. But the expertise and the local knowledge, which is quite critical in many of the decision-making processes that will take place, will still reside with those local authorities. So the question is whether a secretariat should be established that would specifically serve the Rugby World Cup Authority, or whether it would be better to draw on local expertise and knowledge from within the existing local authorities. Of course, I tend to go with what the bill has ended up with, which is that it is better to draw on the expertise and knowledge of the existing local authorities. However, the question then becomes whether we can meet the objectives of the bill, which are to speed the process up and make sure we do not have undue delay. Can we do that if we are relying on the local authorities to provide the process and secretarial support?

In the case of larger local authorities such as the Wellington City Council or the new Auckland Council, they are likely to have significant resources behind them, and it will not be a problem for them to supply good-quality, robust secretarial support to the authority and to meet those constrained time frames and time pressures that the authority will face. However, if we move to a much, much smaller local authority, that will not necessarily be the case. Even Hamilton, which is not tiny, but which is not a big local authority either—

💬 Sue Moroney: It’s the fourth-largest city in New Zealand.

—the fourth-largest city in New Zealand—may not have the staff and the support available to support this authority to meet the time frames that it is required to meet. There will have to be a balance between relying on local authorities to support the new Rugby World Cup Authority and providing additional advice and support.

I think it is important that we understand what the functions of the administrative secretariat will be. As I have said, the administrative secretariat will have to be supplied by existing local authorities. Clause 15 sets out what is required of the local authorities and clause 15(4) sets out the functions of the administrative secretariat. I think the important provision here is clause 15(4)(ba), which states: “to provide advice to the Authority, in accordance with its requirements, for matters relevant to any determinations of the Authority:”, and then clause 15(4)(bb), which begins “to act on the instructions that the Authority gives”. Ultimately, the local authorities, the councils, will still be the ones that have to implement whatever decisions the authority makes. So although the authority gets the power that currently resides with the local authorities, that does not simply mean the local authorities do not need to be involved. Whatever decisions the Rugby World Cup Authority makes, the local councils will still be ultimately responsible for implementing them.

Having the administrative secretariat supplied by the local authorities will certainly assist in making sure that that process works effectively, but we should also acknowledge the resource constraints that that will potentially place on some of the smaller local authorities that may have to deal with that issue.

I was in my office listening to the television when I heard one of the National members stand up and say that Labour is anti-rugby. At that point, I thought I had to come down to the House and defend the honour of my Labour colleagues. The reason I have a dodgy shoulder and a stuffed hamstring at the moment is that at my age I am still pulling on a rugby jersey and representing this House on rugby fields around the country. I love rugby. Every Saturday I take my son to play rugby, but I am not unusual. This weekend will be based around rugby. It reminds me of a league player who was asked whether he liked the game of league and would die for it. He said that he did not know whether he would die for it—go into a deep coma maybe, but not death.

I have looked at the part of the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill that provides for the make-up of the Rugby World Cup Authority. I love rugby but I also value democracy. Democracy is a fundamental principle that underpins everything we do in this House, and that is what the authority represents. When I look at the make-up of the authority, I understand why Labour is supporting Part 2. The chair of the authority must be a retired judge or a lawyer of at least 7 years’ standing. The deputy chair must be a lawyer of at least 7 years’ standing. This is not an authority that has been just thrown together, made up of people who are passionate about rugby; this is an authority of people who have vast knowledge and competency in organising events, in law, in local town planning, and everything. Clause 12(1) states “When any application is received by the Authority under this Act, the chairperson must appoint—(a) a panel…”. Clause 12(2) states the panel “must comprise at least 3 members including, as presiding officer, a lawyer of at least 7 years’ standing (who may be the chairperson of the Authority).” Clause 12(3) states “the chairperson must have regard to the need for the panel to have available to it sufficient members with the knowledge, skill, and experience relevant to the particular application before it.” The process is very robust, and the authority will not say it does not like rugby, it does not like New Zealand, and it will hold up the Rugby World Cup event, for whatever reason.

The reason the authority is being put in place is to ensure that due diligence is undertaken, that due process is followed, that the event is not a shambles, and that we do not ride roughshod over the taxpayers and the citizens of New Zealand. That would be undemocratic. To have a clause in this bill that states the Minister can make decisions without input from any other person is so undemocratic as to be abhorrent. I love rugby but I also love democracy.

I come back to the point made by my colleague Mr Hipkins. Napier will be a proud host. I am thinking the final might even be played in Napier! The bill says the Minister will appoint members of the authority in consultation, etc., but it must have people who understand the local requirements of the region to which the application before it refers. The process is very robust. As it is, it bypasses the standard legal procedure of this House, but it is a very robust process. I cannot understand for the life of me why the Government would want to bypass the authority. It is set up, it is supported by Labour, and it is an authority whose members are supported, I think, by the Minister for the Rugby World Cup in consultation with three of his colleagues. The process is so robust as to be almost watertight.

I also see that clause 9(2) states that “the Authority must, to the extent relevant, have regard to—(a) the desirability of making proper preparation for the Rugby World Cup;”. That is what we are all about. The authority needs “to ensure the efficient, safe, and lawful conduct of the Rugby World Cup;”. Efficient, safe, and lawful conduct? Goodness me! We are all for that. Every single member of Parliament supports that. Clause 9(2) also refers to “the desirability of supporting the appropriate delivery of services by or through Rugby New Zealand 2011 Limited;”. Every single member in this House supports the authority. It is what is needed to ensure that the Rugby World Cup event held in New Zealand is a very, very successful venture. It will be successful—of that I have absolutely no doubt.

💬 Jacqui Dean: Labour doesn’t support it!

To hear that member say Labour does not support the Rugby World Cup 2011 is a dreadful statement.

I move, That the question be now put.

I want to respond to the comments made by the member for Auckland Central. I have never heard such self-righteous cant in the last 2 years in this House as we heard from Nikki Kaye in this debate. She did not so much wrap herself in the flag as in an All Black jersey in her enthusiasm to accuse Labour members in this Parliament of not supporting the Rugby World Cup, of not even liking rugby, and of being unpatriotic. How pathetic! Members on the Government benches are threatened by the fact that Opposition members would dare to criticise one part of this bill. I emphasise that it is one part of this bill. We have made it crystal clear at the Government Administration Committee, in public statements, and in the entirety of this debate so far that we are voting for every part of the bill, bar one. We have made that clear in the first reading, in the second reading, and in the entirety of the Committee stage to date. We support this bill; we support the Rugby World Cup; and any attempt to make this an argument about patriotism and whether we support rugby and the Rugby World Cup is absolute nonsense. The member for Auckland Central should know better.

The member for Auckland Central said that it was embarrassing to see Labour make all these criticisms of the Murray McCully provisions in this bill. She asked why Labour has not put up a minority report. Nikki Kaye should ask herself why any Opposition member would not put up a minority report. It is because members on the Government benches are making a habit of voting down and rejecting minority reports.

💬 Nikki Kaye: That’s not true.

It is absolutely true. We saw it at the Law and Order Committee and we are now seeing it at other committees, too. The Government is so defensive and insecure that it cannot brook any dissent from the Opposition in the form of minority reports, which, after all, are a mechanism that this House has developed over many years to allow the Opposition to have its say and to have a dissenting opinion. In this case we are talking about only one part out of—how many parts are in this bill?

💬 Sue Moroney: Seven, I think.

There are seven parts. Labour has made it clear that we oppose only one part, yet the member for Auckland Central cannot tolerate the slightest criticism of her bill without going into paroxysms of outrage and self-righteousness by suggesting that Labour does not support the Rugby World Cup. I say to members opposite that they should listen to what the Opposition is saying. We oppose the granting of unfettered powers to the Minister for the Rugby World Cup to override the recommendations of eminent specialists who have been recruited into roles to administer the Rugby World Cup Authority. We think that is undemocratic and we are saying so. That is a perfectly justified opinion. Members opposite should take a deep breath and recognise that this is a debating chamber. This is where we carry out the democracy of our country and we scrutinise legislation. That is what this debate is all about. I am glad to see that the outrage on the part of members opposite seems to have dissipated and we can get on with debating Part 2 of this bill.

The select committee very usefully clarified some points in relation to the powers of the Rugby World Cup Authority. It made it absolutely explicit in the bill that, in relation to any powers exercised by the relevant statutory body that will be granting liquor licences and considering and issuing consents, the same powers would carry across to the Rugby World Cup. So there is absolutely no doubt about that in relation to the powers of the authority, which are contained in Part 2; it is a very, very useful amendment.

Part 2 also deals with the role of the administrative secretariat. My colleagues have already made the point very clearly that we are entirely happy with the powers of the administrative secretariat. They have been thoughtfully and usefully put together.

I move, That the question be now put.