Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill

I am happy to take a call on Part 3 of the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill. This part deals with approvals and declarations. First, I want to set out what the scope of this particular part is. It sets out the scope of the applications that may be made and how they are to be lodged. The applications may seek approvals, declarations, or a change of conditions of an approval or declaration or of existing approvals granted under other enactments. In addition there is a provision for applications relating to events that are not connected with the Rugby World Cup 2011 but for which event organisers wish to test whether a proposed activity—for example, traffic management—is likely to be adequate for the same purpose in relation to the Rugby World Cup 2011.

I want to talk about that in particular, because here in Wellington, earlier this year, at the Westpac Stadium we had an event that was designed specifically to test whether the stadium, the security facilities, and all those who were going to be involved in hosting the Rugby World Cup events in Wellington were adequately prepared and ready. For example, Westpac Stadium wanted to put in place some changes around how traffic management worked. I think it is important that if it had required additional authority for, for example, road closures and those kinds of things, it would have needed a provision for that to happen, as there is under this legislation. Even though the Wellington event—I think it was an All Blacks test match—was not directly connected with the Rugby World Cup, it was important that it could be used as a tester to make sure that the systems being put in place for the Rugby World Cup were going to work.

This bill allows the authorities to determine that events not directly connected with the Rugby World Cup can be deemed to be like Rugby World Cup events for the purpose of testing things and making sure they will work. In order for that to happen, an applicant needs to establish that measures have been undertaken to obtain the necessary approval or declaration through the normal processes but that it is unlikely that it could be obtained in time. That is an important principle that runs through this legislation, and it is something we talked about a lot at the Government Administration Committee. It is really important that this bill is not seen simply as a short cut for sloppy management or bad practice.

Things will come up in the course of organising the Rugby World Cup that are unforeseen, that cannot be dealt with through normal processes, and that will, therefore, need a truncated or a shortened process. But that is not an excuse for people to simply put everything on hold and say: “We know that the authority is being established and that the Minister will have extra powers, so we just won’t worry about it yet. We’ll worry about it further down the track.” That is not the message we want to send to anybody who is involved with Rugby World Cup activities.

The message we want to send is: “Do it now if you can, use the regular processes, and don’t wait, but if you need to, then obviously these powers will be available.” So unless the enactment that would normally apply to an application makes no provision for public notice to be given, all applications must be publicly notified by the authority. I think it is important to stress that at this point.

We want to respect existing democratic processes and ensure that this legislation is not used in such a way as to curtail the rights of New Zealand citizens to have a say in quite significant approvals processes. Any submission must be made no later than 10 working days after the date on which public notice of an application is given. Ten working days is a reasonably truncated time frame, so it will be important that those who have an interest in these issues are keeping a close eye on what is going on.

If the authority considers it necessary, or if a person with a right to be heard requests to be heard, a hearing will be heard no later than 10 working days after the closing date for submissions. By the time we have a 10-day notification period and, potentially a 10-day process for submissions to be heard, we are already up to 20 working days, potentially, for something that will be considered under this part. Any appeal must be brought not later than 5 working days after the authority has notified its determination, so we are now looking at a period of 25 days, potentially, for decisions to be made.

Although this part provides for some truncation of the process, it does not unnecessarily restrict the ability of people to make submissions and to be heard. There was some discussion at the Government Administration Committee about the notification provisions and whether, given the shortened periods, notification in the daily papers was required. For example, if we are talking about a 10-day time period for notification, depending on the timing of dealing with newspaper classified advertising deadlines, it might not necessarily be practical to advertise something in the way it would normally be advertised, by using the newspapers. The question then became whether it was possible for advertising to be done on a website, and so forth.

This part sets out the methods of making any application that is to be considered under it. It is important. It sets out that applications must be made in writing and in a form and manner prescribed by regulations or as approved by the authority. I think it is important that applications are in written form. People will not be able to ring up the authority, say they have a great idea, and ask for approval. There have to be robust processes for doing that. Making sure that an application is in writing is important. It has to be lodged for registration with the administrative secretariat and accompanied by any information the case may require and any deposit that the administrative secretariat may require.

The previous part, Part 2, which we have dealt with, allows the administrative secretariat to put in place provisions for the deposit, and a bond in some cases. That can all be part of the written application process that the secretariat and the authority may put in place. There were some significant changes to the way this section of the bill was structured by the select committee. The changes were mostly technical, so I will not go into those in great detail.

There is quite a significant clause—clause 19—that deals with the information that needs to be supplied with applications for approvals and declarations. So the House, in passing this legislation, is giving some quite detailed instructions to the authority on the process that we want it to be engaging in. I think it is really important that when we are truncating a democratic process, which we are doing in this case—by removing the power from existing decision-making bodies and giving it to the authority—we still have a very robust process in place for the authority that will be making those decisions and dealing with that.

I note, just to give an example, some of the things that clause 19 talks about in terms of the information that must be supplied. It refers to “all the information required under the enactment that would, but for this Act, apply;”. So if people are applying for a licence, permit, or whatever, they will still need to supply all the same information that they would need to supply under the existing Act were it not for this truncated process. That is a very important provision.

Clause 21A talks about the procedure in the event of overlapping applications to the statutory person, or body, or authority for the same activity, and I will not go into those in any great detail. Subpart 2 talks about jurisdiction, public notification, and the making of submissions. I think that is really important. Again, it is quite prescriptive in terms of the process for the notification and submissions to be determined, and also for the determination of an affected person’s status. All these things would be regularly covered by established systems and processes, were the normal processes to apply. Here we are talking about a truncated process—establishing something that will be operating for a very short period of time in, potentially, quite a pressured environment, given the time constraints on it.

I think it is really important, given that the authority will not have time to establish its own processes, systems, and body of precedent or case law, or whatever we want to call it, that the House be quite prescriptive about how we expect it to operate and function. That is what this part does. It sets out in great detail the provisions relating to notification, submissions, and consultation. For example, clause 25 specifies what the contents of a public notice must be, and it includes things like the nature of the application, including “the activity, facility, or test activity or facility for which approval is sought …”, and so forth.

Chris Hipkins, the previous speaker, strung together a lot of highfalutin words, which gave the illusion that he was smart enough to understand the game, but I reflect and suggest that he was stupid enough to think that what he was saying was important.

💬 Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I am generally pretty comfortable with robust debate, but I am not sure whether it is in order in this House—in fact, I am absolutely certain it is not—for a member to call another member stupid.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Is the member taking exception to that—

💬 Chris Hipkins: I am indeed.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): —under Standing Order 116, “Personal reflections”?

💬 Chris Hipkins: That is correct.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I ask the member to withdraw that comment.

Thank you, Mr Chairperson. I certainly did not intend to—

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): No, I have ruled.

I withdraw and apologise, and I certainly did not intend—

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): No, no.

I withdraw and apologise.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): That is it.

Part 3 of the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill provides for this country to organise and have the greatest contest that it has ever experienced in the whole period of New Zealand’s existence. Part 3 is quite critically important in allowing 48 rugby matches to take place in 13 locations in this country. We are trying to use Part 3 and the other clauses of this bill to create a “Stadium New Zealand”—a vision to help to move this country forward. The vision set out and prescribed in Part 3 will enable us to portray ourselves as a great country on the world stage.

Part 3 will help us to manage the 85,000 visitors to this country, who, hopefully, will leave a lot of money behind to support all sorts of small businesses: homestays, taxi drivers, bus drivers, and other people. On top of that, we will have a huge global television audience. That is what this bill is about. This bill, in Part 3, is about creating New Zealand’s greatest event ever. Instead of celebrating this, we are dealing with words like “truncated”. They are strung-together words that sound important, but I can assure members that they are not. They are big words. The outcome of what we have seen in the House earlier this afternoon was having members just trying to be like Helen Kelly and hobbits. Part 3 is about trying to set up the underpinning of the greatest event that will occur in New Zealand in our lifetime. The Opposition is trying to pull this apart with negative comments about Part 3.

This legislation will move this country forward. It will set up a Rugby World Cup Authority to help to do that. The authority established by this legislation will enable the granting of all sorts of applications for activities related to licensing, and the prescribing of the use of land areas for other events where the Rugby World Cup will be involved. Clause 31(6) prescribes that—

💬 Sue Moroney: “Prescribes” is a big word.

I draw the member’s attention to the bill. If she had taken the trouble to read it, she would find that the word “prescribes” is in the bill. For example, clause 31(6) states: “The Authority may prescribe any other conditions that it considers appropriate, including—(a) conditions that apply to any of the activities, facilities, or class of activity or facility to which the declaration relates;”. That is great jargon. What we need to keep very firmly focused on here is that this legislation will allow the greatest event to take place in New Zealand that this country has ever seen. I think it is critically important that this legislation allows our country to show itself off on the world stage in a way that leaves it full of credit and praise, that adds significantly to the economy, and that portrays New Zealand as the very highly organised host of a world-class, brilliant event. Thank you.

I will start by once again stating what Part 3 is all about. I take into account what the previous speaker said, which is that this bill is about enabling the greatest sporting event that New Zealand has ever put on to take place. I do not think this bill is doing that. That was done a few years ago when the Government of the day had the vision to go out and grab this opportunity. This legislation simply makes sure that the event can run smoothly, once the vision has been seen and accomplished.

Part 3 sets out the scope of the applications that may be made and how they are to be lodged. It is quite technical in nature. In many ways it sets out the process. As my colleague said, it is a more truncated or, if you like, shortened, abbreviated, or reduced process than we would otherwise have.

💬 Phil Twyford: Shrunken.

Shrunken, minimalised, truncated—it could be seen in a whole lot of different ways. In fact, that member himself could be seen as somewhat truncated, shortened, or made smaller as a result of his recent operation. I have to say he looks much better for it. However, this legislation, truncated as it stands, allows the process to enable this Rugby World Cup to go ahead in a smooth and easy way. Part 3 sets out the scope of the applications that can be made, how they are to be made, and how they are to be lodged. The applications may seek approvals. They can seek declarations and a change in conditions of an approval, or of existing approvals granted under other enactments. The key point is that we are following a process, if we have to do this. As David Clendon said yesterday, we are quite good at putting on events like this. It seems that particularly in the transport area, which was mentioned specifically in Part 3, we have done a very, very good job in preparing ourselves. I do not think this legislation will be needed; nevertheless, Part 3 goes into a great deal of detail. If we do need to use it, at least it enables the process to be carried out with the fewest possible problems.

There is provision in Part 3 for applications relating to events that are to test whether a proposed activity—for example, traffic management—is likely to be adequate for the purpose, in relation to the Rugby World Cup 2011. This has happened in my electorate, which encompasses the Eden Park venue. An enormous amount of planning has been going on, in and around that area, particularly in the transport management area but also relating to the Kingsland railway station, which has been modified dramatically in order to take people to and from the venue.

I will touch on one point. We are now seeing, for the first time, people starting to take trains to go to these venues, both in and out of the city and from the west and the south, rather than using their cars. It is part of a general move that we are witnessing right across the Auckland region. The transport Minister may want to take note of that when he looks at the future of New Zealand rail.

Part 3 will enable the smooth running of activities in the period during which the Rugby World Cup will be held. I want to look at clause 31, “Determination of applications for declarations”. It states: “(1) In determining an application under section 16(2) or (5) or 17 for a declaration, a test declaration, or a change to the conditions of a declaration or a test declaration, the Authority must have regard to any adverse effects on the environment that would be, would be likely to be, if the application were granted, more than minor as determined in accordance with section 31A.” This section is extremely important, and again I use the example of the Eden Park venue. Two historic houses were removed in order to enable transport to flow more freely. To be perfectly honest, I think that was unnecessary. We are changing our environment—I am talking about the urban environment here—dramatically in order to cater for the Rugby World Cup, and I am pleased that some safeguards will be encompassed in this bill that will enable these environmental impacts, which would be classified as major, as they are certainly not minor, to be heard and to be used in an adequate way.

Clause 31(1A) states: “The Authority must not grant the application if the activity, facility, or class of activity or facility that is the subject of the application is prohibited by another Act.” Once again, I think that provides the safeguards. It goes back to Part 2, which we have just discussed, which covers the make-up of the authority that will be hearing the applications under this part of the Act. I believe that the authority is being set up in a way that it will have the utmost respect for the process, and a senior judge of 7 years’ standing has been appointed chair of the authority.

Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

It is my pleasure to take my first call on Part 3 of the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill. Before commencing, I want to hark back to the contribution made by my colleague John Hayes. He seems to really resent the fact that the Opposition is exploring some of the detail of this bill in the Committee stage—as it is imperative that we do. My colleague Iain Lees-Galloway described him as being monosyllabic in his contribution. I think that if we distil down my colleague John Hayes’ contribution on Part 3 we would find that if he had his way this bill would simply state: “Part 1 Let’s Have Party. Commencement Date: Now.” He seemed to utterly reject the notion that we should have any discussions on the way that some of the detail of the Rugby World Cup should be dealt with. Members on this side of the Chamber see this as quite an important job and one that we will continue to undertake with vigour.

Part 3 is a really important, substantive part of the bill. The whole intention, of course, is that the bill balances the need to reduce any delay in time and unnecessary bureaucracy but still makes sure that due process is undertaken when granting the authority power to undertake certain activities that would otherwise go through quite a rigorous separate procedure. Getting that balance right is absolutely critical. A lot of that occurs, to a certain degree, in Part 3.

My colleague Chris Hipkins has already outlined some of the time lines that may apply to certain applications under this part. I think his rough estimation, at its longest point, was that we may see delays in an application, which perhaps had public notification attached to it, of roughly 25 working days. With the Rugby World Cup being in such a short time, even the longest process that we might see could be perceived to be an impediment to undertaking an activity.

So I wondered whether any Government members, anyone on the Government Administration Committee—whether any members of the committee wish to contribute on this question—or the Minister in the chair, the Hon Judith Collins, wished to take a call. I note that no calls have been taken by a Minister in the chair up until this point, which is disappointing. It would be useful if the Minister could outline to us the longest period that it is anticipated an application could take to be processed. It would be useful to understand that from the Government’s perspective.

Is it intended, for instance, that the ministerial power for unforeseen circumstances—and the Government is unable to explain to us what that might look like—could be used to override a process that is taking too long under the jurisdiction of the authority? Is that the intention, or does it fall outside the ambit of what the Government anticipates that extraordinary ministerial power being used for? Some clarification on that point would be useful.

I think it is interesting to reflect on clause 19(2)(c). That clause goes into some of the additional requirements that have been set out. The select committee clarified that an application going through this shortened process must be specific to the Rugby World Cup. It must include, for instance, information on the steps an applicant must take to ensure, as far as reasonably practical, the health and safety of those undertaking the activity, maps and plans of a location, and any conditions the applicant considers appropriate for the declaration—a few things that are specific to the Rugby World Cup.

Again, I reflect on the fact that the select committee in its definition split the notion of tournament events—the actual sporting events—from ancillary events, for instance the public screening of an event in a public place, or an additional liquor licence for a pub in a remote area to extend its usual licence requirements to screen an event. I would be interested if the Minister could clarify whether it is anticipated that we split the way that those are dealt with by the authority, because, although I concede I am new to looking at this legislation, that is not entirely clear to me on a cursory glance.

I come specifically to clause 21A, which deals with overlapping applications between the statutory bodies that would usually deal with the applications. The authority will now deal with with those applications in a circumvented process. I think it is right that we have quite clear procedural direction as to what happens when we have duplicate applications through either of those bodies, but I still have some question marks over, for instance, arbitration and those who have a higher delegation of power between those two bodies. I just want to raise those.

Clause 21A states that if there are overlapping applications that are the same or substantially the same as an application already lodged with a statutory body or person, the application to the relevant statutory person or body is to be treated as having been withdrawn from the relevant statutory person or body and must be transferred to the authority in accordance with the regulation made under this Act. It is quite a significant power to basically instruct that a relevant statutory body must, as outlined in subclause (4): “without delay,—(a) forward a copy of all documentation it holds on the application to the Authority; and (b) cease to process the application.”

I wonder whether any arbitration can take place in a scenario where, for instance, there might be some question over whether the application fulfils the criteria set out in the bill, or where a statutory body may have some jurisdiction questions and may wish to maintain the processing of that application. We are talking about overriding what would probably otherwise be local council authority. Those are quite significant powers in that regard.

I congratulate the select committee or the Government—whichever it was—on anticipating this issue and trying its best to resolve it. It does seem curious that it has anticipated this issue but cannot anticipate the circumstances in which carte blanche powers for a Minister might be required. It is hard to imagine what kind of scenario it is wishing to anticipate.

I refer to clause 21A(6)(b), which states: “the statutory time limits applying to the relevant statutory person or body recommence from the date that the statutory body or person receives the documentation.” So, for instance, if an authority declines an application under its criteria for processing a liquor licence and then refers it back to the usual statutory body that processes it, that relevant statutory body must treat the decision and the reasons of the authority as irrelevant for the purpose of the decision on the application.

It seems to me that although there is no judicial oversight to challenge a decision made by an authority, we do have a backstop measure. Basically, someone who makes an application could just go back to the statutory body, make the application again, have it processed in time for the Rugby World Cup, and still come out with the relevant requirements and legal rights to proceed, even though an authority had already made a decision otherwise. So I would be interested in hearing the rationale from the Government or from members of the select committee. Perhaps the Minister in the chair might like to tell us why the authority’s decision is not full and final and why we still have, in a sense, an additional judicial process that someone can go through. It is an extra layer of bureaucracy, really, and I am curious as to why those decisions are not full and final. Actually, at the end of the day we are leaving local authorities to, potentially, be the final arbiter. I wonder whether that was the intention of the Government. Some clarification of that would be good.

💬 Jacqui Dean: The member doesn’t understand the bill.

I think I just heard Jacqui Dean offer to stand up and clarify the position on that area. I would perfectly happy to hear her contribution, given that her contributions to date on this legislation have been somewhat shallow.

💬 Hon Member: Too far, too far.

I am happy to make that accusation given that the only thing I have heard from that member is that Labour hates rugby. What a full contribution that was!

I just make a few brief comments on Part 3, because it is very significant and is quite technical, in a way; it is quite detailed. Essentially, within this part, we are told by what means, by what mechanisms, people will have their rights reduced and will have their opportunities to participate reduced. We are told to what extent and by what means ordinary members of the public will be denied their usual access to decision making about events, activities, structures, facilities, and so on that actually could influence them in their day-to-day lives. Of course, there are some quite substantial provisions put in place in Part 3—all in the name of the Rugby World Cup and getting a good event. We all do look forward to that event and hope it goes well, and also hope that we might leverage off the event to the maximum amount available. That is a point I will return to.

But, initially, having made the point that Part 3 is the nitty-gritty, this is where we are told how the authorities, served by the numerous secretariats, will diminish people’s rights—take away our access, our right to participate—but in a sense this part is almost redundant—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I just check whether you are aware of what the member is saying.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Absolutely.

To an extent, Part 3 is almost superfluous because the sting in the tail, if you like, is that no matter what decisions are made at this level, no matter who informs those decisions, or by what means they are made, ultimately one person will have the say-so in terms of what may or may not occur. That is the one step too far that has clearly brought Labour on to the side of opposing this bill: a place where the Greens have been from day one on this bill.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: That’s in Part 4; not in this part.

Indeed, it is, but I am sure we have had reference to that issue already.

I give a couple of quick examples as to some of the diminished ability that people will have to participate. There is the matter of public notice, which has been commented on earlier; that information and supporting documentation about particular applications may be limited to being placed on one website. Potentially people who wish to make submissions may be obliged to make submissions only through electronic means. For many people that will not be a problem—it is commonplace—but we must recall that not every household in New Zealand has access to electronic media. Not everybody chooses to use that form of communication. I think we should be respectful of choices in the ability that people have to make submissions.

It is interesting that the matter of standing is addressed in Part 3—that standing will be needed to be proved. We are basically going back to the bad old days of town and country planning when not everybody had standing, as of right, as is generally the rule under our new resource management approach. It is required that a person must have an interest in the matter greater than that of the general public. There are various statements about “affected persons”, and statements that the Rugby World Cup Authority, for example when it is considering what constitutes an adverse effect, must ignore effects of a temporary nature. That means that communities of people could be subjected to significant noise over a period of days and weeks without any opportunity to object to that because the effect is deemed to be temporary. That is just not acceptable.

I mentioned earlier that the justification underpinning a lot of these conditions is that this event will put New Zealand on the world stage. The various provisions in Part 3 are there because of the implied argument about the greater good for the country. It is interesting that in 2005, when the event was first awarded to New Zealand, we were told, amidst great rejoicing, that we estimated some 60,000 extra visitors would come here. That is a very debatable claim in itself, given that very robust European research demonstrates that, most often, the expectation about extra visitors for an event is overstated. In 2005, the expectation was for 60,000 people; today the expectation is 85,000 extra visitors. The expectation has been inflated by some 40 percent in 5 years. In 2005 we understood that 3.4 billion people would witness this extravaganza on television; now that number has gone up to 4 billion people. For every one of the intervening 5 years, another 120 million people have an interest in rugby!

I am pleased to speak with regard to Part 3 of the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill. First, I want to say this is a pretty momentous moment in the Chamber, because some really great analogies are happening between the legislation we are debating, which is designed to benefit New Zealand from an economic perspective in terms of world exposure, and the fact that at 7.20 this evening the Prime Minister of New Zealand saved The Hobbit. This country is seeing a real contrast between the two sides of the Chamber, particularly with regard to Part 3. National is putting legislation in place for the economic benefit of New Zealand, with 4 billion people expected to watch the Rugby World Cup in our country, and the Prime Minister moved swiftly to save The Hobbit for New Zealand and save thousands of jobs for this country. Those on the opposite side of the Chamber are putting a whole lot of obstacles in the way of the average New Zealander who just wants a job at the moment. I am proud that we have a Prime Minister who acted to save that film for this country.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Order!

I shall relate that point back to Part 3. Part 3 is about the Rugby World Cup 2011. We know that the tournament is expected to bring 85,000 visitors to New Zealand, and the numbers watching The Hobbit will be pretty similar.

The Opposition’s whole debate this evening has been about opposing one specific provision. We have heard a lot of contradiction from the Opposition team. Iain Lees-Galloway said that because of the provision Labour opposes this bill. Then all the other Labour speakers said that, no, actually Labour supports the Rugby World Cup. Well, if those members did support the Rugby World Cup, they would be standing up this evening and supporting this legislation.

Let us go back to the actual provision. The Rugby World Cup Authority will go through a process in terms of consents—it gives people their democratic rights. National has said that this event is so important to our country that we will go through the process of consulting the Opposition over whom we appoint to that authority, different Ministers of the Crown will be consulted and we will get advice, and we will ensure that the authority is well resourced. However, there could be an unforeseen situation. I know that members have asked what that unforeseen situation is—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: This is Part 4, Nikki. Wrong part!

—but we have said very clearly that it is unforeseen. Mr Mallard interjects, but my point is very relevant to Part 3, because that part deals with applications to the Rugby World Cup Authority; I am talking about a process that is relevant to applications to the authority. Yes, it is dealt with in Part 4, but I am saying that our Government believes that this event is the greatest event this country will ever hold, and it is very important to New Zealand. I am very pleased. I am saying today that we do not want to use this process; however, we are putting a process in place that provides that if an unforeseen situation occurs, our Government would act. There is a very clear decision for New Zealand, a clear contrast between the two sides of the Chamber. The Government is ready to act in the best interests of our country. This moment is very important for people to watch, because they will see a Government that is prepared to act in the best interests of New Zealand; prepared to say, yes, there is a process, but if something goes terribly wrong and there is an unforeseen situation, then we will allow our elected members of Parliament to be accountable for that. We will allow that to happen.

I am very proud to be a supporter of the Government. I am a supporter of the Prime Minister, John Key. I say good on him for saving The Hobbit. I am a supporter of the Ministers who have been behind that decision. And I am a supporter of this Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill because it is good for New Zealand. It will create jobs, and that is what this side of the Chamber is about.

I thank you, Mr Chairperson, for your liberal approach to the previous speaker, Nikki Kaye, in broadening the debate. There are a couple of points that I would like to make. Labour welcomes the fact that The Hobbit is to be made in New Zealand. We think that is very good. We know that Gerry Brownlee was part of the meeting that sorted out the industrial relations issue on 14 October, and we congratulate him on taking Helen Kelly’s advice to bring that meeting together and on the results. Gerry Brownlee did a good job.

If we can mix The Hobbit, the relationship with Warner Bros, and the Rugby World Cup, I think it is fair to say the Prime Minister is wearing the No. 2 jersey today. He is wearing the No. 2 jersey, and one could say he has been on his knees to Warner Bros. The Prime Minister has been royally screwed by Warner Bros, and as a result of that the company will be laughing all the way to the Bank of America. It will be laughing—

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): I have just reflected on a phrase that the member used. It is inappropriate. Do not use it again. It related to a tool.

I am sorry. I think that “screwed over” is OK.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): No, it is not. Do not go there.

He has been done. We will work our way through the analogies, but what has happened is that the failure to have the $140,000 dinner to keep the relationship going has meant that it has cost $15 million. We are told that the money is only for The Hobbit, so it is not general. If Kiwis want to make a major production, they do not receive the money. If Warner Bros want to make a film, the money goes to Warner Bros. It is just absolutely, absolutely outrageous, and we will work our way through the analogies.

To return to the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill, I want to respond to the comments made by John Hayes, who said Labour hates rugby. It is fair to say Labour worked very hard to get the Rugby World Cup to New Zealand. I am trying to remember, but I think that the former Prime Minister was on her way to Korea and went via Dublin in order to make a difference. There is a common factor in Premier House. On two separate occasions the former Prime Minister entertained the executive of the International Rugby Board at Premier House, as part of the exercise that led to New Zealand getting the hosting rights to Rugby World Cup, because she knew that it was important to build relationships rather than to do things on a crisis basis, which is the way that National seems to approach them.

I would now like to get back to—or start on, possibly—the detail of Part 3 of the bill. I was a member of the Government Administration Committee and I will take responsibility for mistakes, but I think that there is a mistake in terms of how the word “test” is used. It ends up being quite confusing as to what sorts of tests we are talking about. When you, Mr Chairperson, and I talk about the Rugby World Cup and tests, we tend to think of matches involving two countries for which caps are awarded, but if we look at clause 17, and in particular at clause 17(5)(a) and (b), it is possible that what is meant is a trial—testing something out, rather than having a test. I wonder whether within the Rugby World Cup legislation we are better to reserve the term “test” for a rugby test rather than use it to refer to a trial. I know that the Minister in the chair, Judith Collins, who is focusing heavily on texting at the moment, is more interested in trials than tests. It might be that she could take the initiative and work with her colleague Murray McCully on giving us some clarification as we work our way through this bill.

One of the problems is that the more that we look at bills, the more that we find things that could well be wrong. One of the areas that could well be wrong is new clause 31A, “Determination of whether adverse effects are more than minor”, which has come into the bill. I would like the Minister to respond to this, because I think we might have something slightly arse about face in the bill. Clause 31A lists the things that the authority must disregard when determining whether adverse effects are more than minor. But one of the things it must disregard is (a) “any adverse effect of the activity or facility that … (iii) is of a temporary nature, having regard to the duration of the approval, declaration, or test approval or declaration;”.

The problem I have is that all of these determinations are of a temporary nature. They are time-limited; they do not go on. At the completion of the Rugby World Cup, the determinations of the authority are finished. So I am not clear whether that means that because any adverse effects are of a temporary nature, all adverse effects have to be ignored. I am—

💬 Jacqui Dean: Struggling.

No, it is not funny.

💬 Jacqui Dean: Struggling.

The member is correct. I am struggling to understand how we made that mistake in the legislation, because I think it is a mistake.

💬 Hon Tau Henare: Don’t worry about it!

The member tells me not to worry about it. If the member was next to a fan zone, and all adverse effects were ignored and were not able to be taken into account in making a determination, he might get a bit grumpy, and rightly so.

💬 Charles Chauvel: He’d never be next to a fan zone.

He might be next to a fan zone, actually, because he lives next to his mother-in-law, and next to her is his brother-in-law, as well. I know that situation relatively well as a result of other litigation, but we will not go back into caveats over houses at the moment, because that would be off the topic.

I have not yet seen any sign of the Minister stirring in order to answer the question, but it is a serious question. I think it may well be that my colleague Mr Chauvel needs to look at an amendment in order to clarify this issue, because all adverse effects, I think, will be temporary. If we—

💬 Jacqui Dean: Struggling.

Every now and again we make a serious comment. Where does that member come from? I cannot tell those two members apart. She is the woman from mid-Canterbury somewhere. All adverse effects will be temporary. If all temporary effects are to be ignored, what protection do the neighbours have from adverse effects, given that they must all be temporary? Again, I make it clear that I was a member of the select committee and I looked very carefully at this clause and subclause as it was drafted. It is new. It was previously in another part of the bill, but the bill was redrafted and the clause was brought into this part for clarification. I would like some member opposite, even if it is not the Minister in the chair, to clarify for us what happens around adverse effects.

On the question of the notices of determinations, I think the committee did good work. I think John Hayes did the work on behalf of the New Zealand Fire Service. He is a member who focused on that very carefully. I think it was my suggestion that Rugby New Zealand 2011 also get notices of determinations—in fact, notices of the applications—so it is aware of the issues that are being considered and of the decisions. I think some of us assume that we will get there by osmosis or some approach like that.

There is a question arising from clause 34 in Subpart 4 around the expiry of approvals and declarations.

I move, That the question be now put.

Before I address subpart 6, which is the part of Part 3 that I intend to talk about, I need to just discuss the misrepresentation of my position made by Nikki Kaye in her previous address. She stated that I was opposed to the entire bill. She obviously has not been listening very carefully either to my arguments or to those of all the Labour members in the Chamber tonight, because we are being quite clear that we are opposed to only one part of this bill. We will get to that part shortly, I have no doubt. The problem with that part is that it overrides so many of the other, good aspects of this legislation. I just needed to clarify that.

Ms Kaye also brought up hobbits; I was pleased that she brought up hobbits and expanded the debate a little in that area. Clearly, National is trying tonight, as it has done in the last few weeks, to sow division. It is trying to tell New Zealand that Labour hates rugby, that it is opposed to the Rugby World Cup, and that we do not want to get the job done. Actually, this is complex legislation. Part 3 is particularly complex legislation. It deals with applications, paperwork, and processes that a number of people in New Zealand will have to go through, and it is important that we as a Parliament make sure that it gets the scrutiny that it deserves so that when it is finally enacted, it is usable and it makes sense. There is a lot of red tape in here; it is funny that the ACT Party has not actually taken any calls on it. The requests that are made of territorial authorities in Part 2 are, again, areas that I thought the ACT Party would make a contribution on, but it did not.

National in its contributions this evening has been clear that it wants to drive a wedge between New Zealand as a whole and the Labour Party in its position tonight; it is quite similar to the way it has dealt with The Hobbit. We can contrast that with the way Helen Clark dealt with securing the Rugby World Cup 2011 for New Zealand. She built relationships. She built consensus. She brought all the parties together. There was even a sense of bipartisanship within the House.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: Don Brash’s photo was in the bid document.

There you go. That is how much consensus Helen Clark sought to build around putting this bid together—indeed, she was successful in securing the bid. We can contrast that with the divisive approach that John Key has taken to The Hobbit, and the fact that he has now bent New Zealand over in the face of Warner Bros, a corporation. We are a sovereign nation, yet a corporation is coming to this country and telling us that we have to change our laws. Do members know what? We will bend right over for them.

💬 Phil Twyford: How much?

And indeed we say “How much?”. All that money is going directly to—

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Some of the members who have now got into a regular barracking will desist.

Thank you very much, Mr Chairperson. I appreciate the assistance; I did not really feel as though I needed it, but I appreciate it. I think it is reasonable, given some of the debate that we have heard from National, to contrast that approach—

💬 Jacqui Dean: There’s only one thing New Zealanders care about.

Yes. Again, they are misrepresenting. I think it is Jacqui Dean; it is hard to tell. Jacqui Dean is trying to misrepresent Labour’s position. Of course Labour is in support of having The Hobbit in New Zealand. Again, the Labour Government built relationships and worked very closely with Warner Bros, New Line Cinema, and Peter Jackson. We got consensus and were able to put The Lord of the Rings on in New Zealand without bending over in front of an American corporation. That is what John Key has done: he has bent this country over.

I come back to subpart 6 of Part 3 of the bill. It refers to appeal rights. Clause 43 states: “A person or body that applied for an approval, a declaration, a test approval or declaration, or a change to the conditions of an approval, a declaration, or a test approval or declaration and is dissatisfied with the determination of the Authority under section 22(1) … may appeal to the High Court,”—they may appeal to the High Court—“but only on a question of law.” Clause 43 is very tight and very specific about what grounds an applicant may appeal on, and the process through which they may appeal. But you know what? We may as well not even bother having that clause in the legislation, because we have Part 4. A savvy applicant who was not happy with the decision of the authority, if they had the right connections—perhaps if they were a member of the National Party—would simply appeal to Murray McCully. That is all they would have to do. They would have to get the Minister on side. It does not matter how out of order their application was, it does not matter where it went wrong, and it does not matter whether it was destroying a historic building or whether it was outside the scope of the Rugby World Cup—all the Minister would have to do is, with one stroke of the pen, say that it was approved.

We may as well just take clause 43 out of the legislation altogether. Although it is a very practical and sensible appeal process, it is completely undermined by Part 4—completely undermined by Part 4. Indeed, the right of appeal to the High Court may be made only on a question of law against a determination of the Authority made under clauses 30, 31, 39, or 40(4). So it is a very, very tight method by which, and area on which, an applicant can appeal. Again, that definition—that narrowing of the areas in which an applicant can appeal—may as well not be in the bill at all, because we have Part 4. It is interesting that the National members have gone awfully quiet. That is why we need to have the kind of scrutiny that we are putting on this bill. We have to question whether there are superfluous aspects of the bill, and whether we might be able to make it more efficient by simply trimming out some of the contradictions that lie within it.

Another area of absolute specificity that is dealt with within Part 3 is the area of test events. I have to agree with my colleague the Hon Trevor Mallard. When I first read it, because I was not on the select committee and I have not been involved with this bill up to this point, I was a little confused. I thought it was referring to test matches, which, of course, there will be several of during the Rugby World Cup. So it took a couple of goes to read it.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: Well, all the matches will be test matches.

Indeed. That is quite correct, although we might not think that some of them rate as test matches. On that matter I have to say I am looking forward to having the test matches involving Georgia, the Ukraine, and, I believe, Argentina—and one other team; we are waiting with bated breath to see who it is—played in Palmerston North. I am certainly looking forward to those games occurring in my city, and I know the city is gearing up for it. Running a bit of a test event, or testing out how we deal with traffic problems and all that sort of thing in the lead-up to the World Cup, shows that built in to the legislation is a concern that we need to get the nuts and bolts right. That is why we need to actually go through this legislation with some serious scrutiny to make sure every single little clause is absolutely spot on. National has absolutely rightly said that this will be a wonderful event. It will showcase New Zealand and it will put us on the world stage. If one of these things goes horrifically wrong because we have not paid enough attention to it now, we will look worse on the world stage than we do right now, bent over in front of Warner Bros. So we need to make sure that we get these things right, and it is absolutely appropriate that we pay close attention.

💬 Aaron Gilmore: Oh, that’s disgusting.

The member Aaron Gilmore is absolutely correct; the situation that we find ourselves in tonight is disgusting, courtesy of the acquiescence of the Prime Minister.

💬 Hon Tau Henare: Ha! Courtesy—

💬 Hon Member: Another big word.

Now Mr Henare is concerned that I am using big words. This is not the first time that National has been upset about big words—

💬 Jacqui Dean: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. It is about a phrase that the member used a little while ago. I have to say I was a little bit taken aback by it.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Tell me what it is so that I can rule on it.

💬 Jacqui Dean: Well, “bending over for Warner Brothers”, I think it was, and I do not believe that that is a parliamentary term.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): I have been thinking about that phrase, and it could mean bowing, or it could mean something else. My mind is on higher things. I think the member should not transgress the laws of debate in a way that makes me think of lesser things.

💬 Jacqui Dean: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. For a party that prides itself on its inclusiveness, I really think a phrase like that is offensive and—

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): No, I have ruled on it.

I will simply come to the end of my—

💬 Jacqui Dean: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. The problem that I have is that I found that phrase offensive, and I have taken offence to it.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): I have ruled on it, and I have listened very carefully to the debate all night. The issue is whether an offence has been created. I have to say that the member was probably skirting around an area where there could be an offending interpretation, but he has not crossed that line.

💬 Jacqui Dean: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): No, I have ruled on it.

💬 Jacqui Dean: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Is this a separate point of order, because I have ruled on that matter.

💬 Jacqui Dean: Mr Chairperson, I have taken offence.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): And I have ruled that there is no offence.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): I am not sure that this will be helpful, but I will hear the point of order.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I am actually speechless. I do not think I have ever heard such blatant prejudice from the Chairperson before.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): I am sorry; I apologise.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: Mr Chairperson, I think the tradition in this Chamber is that if a member takes offence then you have to rule on it. Just saying that you are not offended is not enough. The Chairperson can say that something is not an offensive comment, but I think the way you put that member down was a bit unfair.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): I am sorry, I did not mean to. There is a ruling that says that the test is in whether the Committee itself is offended. That, in essence, is what the Speaker’s ruling says. You see, someone could say, for example, that someone’s cat is overweight, and someone else could take offence at that. So the test is really whether the Committee itself is affronted, and that is what the Speaker’s ruling says. I am sorry if people have been offended by the way I have put that, but I have ruled that the member is skirting close, and I have warned him not to cross that line.

I have no intention of crossing the line, or crossing you, Mr Chairperson. I have no intention of doing that, whatsoever. In summary, a test event, as I said, was something for which I was appreciative of the clarification contained in the bill, which, under clause 17(5)(b), is “an event, whether or not a sporting event, that is not organised and held as part of the tournament, but for which an approval or a declaration may be sought under this section to enable the testing of a particular activity or facility that is, or is likely to be, required for the tournament.”

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): I just want to quote for the members Speaker’s Ruling 55/7—there have been additions, and things moved chronologically back. A word is judged to be appropriate based on whether a word will bring disorder, as well as an affront, to the House.

Mr Chairperson, I begin my remarks on the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill by complimenting you. It is quite moving to see a person of your monumental physique in the Chair. I would warrant a guess that you yourself are a fan of the golden game of rugby, and I would warrant further that you have played the odd game or two, and, what is more, in the position of lock. As a former lock, I count it a privilege to rise to speak on this bill. In fact, as a former lock, I find it a privilege to rise to speak on any subject at all, because we all know that locks do not get much of a say, buried as they are at the bottom of the scrum. But on this occasion, joined with you by an invisible bond of lockhood, I rise to take a call.

My main reason for taking this call today, constrained though I am by my former position on the team, is that I wish to say this: Labour loves rugby. Labour loves rugby! It is the national game. It is the game where if our national team does not win we want to know why. It is a great thing when the All Blacks win, and it is even greater when they win under a National administration, because National needs all the help it can get. Labour loves rugby. Labour loves rugby, and Labour dearly wants to support this bill, because we love the Rugby World Cup tournament. It would not be coming to New Zealand if it were not for the former Labour Prime Minister, Helen Clark, who flew all the way to Dublin, on her way to South-east Asia, to procure this monumental event for future generations of New Zealanders—and it was not due just to the fact that one of our former colleagues was making the travel bookings! Helen Clark made sure New Zealand got to host Rugby World Cup 2011, and it behoves members all around the Chamber to be in a position to support this bill. Were it not for another part, which the Committee will shortly be debating, Labour members would be absolutely unanimous and unequivocal in our support for the bill, and it would be heartfelt too. So one can imagine the pain it brings upon Her Majesty’s loyal Labour Opposition to be somewhat conflicted in our support for this bill. We are at one in spirit with the rest of the Committee in wanting to see this grand tournament proceed, but we are somewhat hamstrung by the fact that Part 4 conveys extraordinary powers, potentially, on a Minister.

As one looks through the report one is struck by the fact that the drafters and, indeed, the Government Administration Committee have left no stone unturned to bring to New Zealand an extraordinary event. My personal favourite, although strictly outside the part under debate, is on page 5 of the commentary, where we learn, to our relief, that pain has been taken to separate advisory from administrative staff on the administrative secretariat. There can be few matters more troubling to Aucklanders and, I am sure, all New Zealanders than to think there could be some co-mingling of administrative and advisory staff in carrying out the functions of the secretariat for the Rugby World Cup.

💬 Charles Chauvel: God forbid!

God forbid that that should be the case, and it is a matter of relief to us that it is the usual decision maker who may comment upon applications.

Ambush marketing has been a great concern. We hope the ambush will occur every time a foreign lock forward is treading the wing towards our try line.

💬 Hon Tau Henare: Where’s Phil Twyford?

He is sitting right behind me. He is another great fan of the great game, I tell Mr Henare, and we are all looking forward to his contribution. But I deign to say that I convey the heartfelt greetings of all my colleagues on the Labour side in wishing the Chairperson, Mr Roy, and the Rugby World Cup the very best of luck.

It is timely that we should be debating this bill tonight of all nights, because we have heard today that New Zealand has secured yet another extraordinary event: not one but two Hobbit films shall be made upon our shores, and for $15 million—a mere trifle, it would seem, upon the exchequer. We would warrant that were it not for the extraordinary contortions of the current Government—and of the Prime Minister in particular—that sum might have been somewhat greater. The Government might have had to exchange a somewhat larger fiscal offering had it not been prepared to sacrifice workers’ rights on the altar of Warner Bros.

💬 Hon Dr Wayne Mapp: Helen Kelly’s to blame and you know it.

While the member opposite is mentioning the name of the esteemed president of the Council of Trade Unions, we might reflect on the fact that that self-same president found herself in the role of peacemaker in this dispute. We offer shared congratulations to Gerry Brownlee, who upon the advice of the self-same president reached an accommodation, we understand, with Sir Peter Jackson, the actors’ union, and all other parties some 2 weeks ago. We can only ask what happened. As I hear tell, it is possible—indeed, it was the case—that the supposed worldwide boycott of this movie had already been lifted, only for certain demonstrations to spring up around the country after the fact.

Could it be that the party opposite was trying to position Her Majesty’s Labour Opposition in this matter as somehow unpatriotic, in the same way that it tries to position the Labour Party as opposed to the Rugby World Cup? We will have none of it. I have not yet revealed to the Committee my other life. My other life is as the patron of the Suburbs Rugby Football Club in west Auckland. As the patron of the Suburbs Rugby Football Club, I would like to commend all members of this Chamber to ask Mr McCully to make one or two slight amendments to Part 4 so that we could all join together in unison to get behind our team, get behind this bill, and make sure that the Rugby World Cup is executed flawlessly in this wonderful country of Godzone.

💬 Chris Tremain: Part 3, buddy. He doesn’t even know what it’s about, but never mind.

Well, it is a little hard to tell by a cursory glance at the commentary. That member did not sit on the select committee—a member who, I am sure, had one or two good rucks in his day.

💬 Phil Twyford: One too many, I think.

That could be, but we could not possibly speculate on that.

💬 Jacqui Dean: Read the bill.

Yes. I take exception to the fact that certain members opposite have tried to impugn the honour of our party in respect of the country’s great game. I am sure that this game is as dear to those members as it is to us. Perhaps the one thing about Part 4, when we come to it, that will be of some interest to the Committee and the public is the selection process for precisely which Minister will find gainful employment as the Minister for the Rugby World Cup. My personal bet is that it will be Gerry Brownlee, practised as he is in suspending the rule of law, having done so for Canterbury, admittedly for good reason.

💬 Aaron Gilmore: You all voted for it.

Yes, indeed, Mr Gilmore, because, as I said, it was for good reason, in extraordinary circumstances and on the basis of good-faith consultation, which usually but not always happens, I observe.

💬 Aaron Gilmore: It’s going very well.

Yes, the earthquake reconstruction is going very well; that is right. My personal bet is that Mr Brownlee, experienced as he is in such matters, will swoop to the rescue and play the same role for the Government in respect of the Rugby World Cup.

💬 Jacqui Dean: Shame about Labour.

It is a shame about Labour winning the 2011 election. As it is likely to occur before the Rugby World Cup, Prime Minister Phil Goff will be there to receive the winning team, which will be, of course, the All Blacks. My earnest word in conclusion to the Committee and to the public is that they back the All Blacks and they back Phil Goff to be Prime Minister on the day that the Rugby World Cup is bestowed upon our national team. We should get behind rugby and we should get behind this bill, but we cannot get behind the bill until Part 4 is amended to reduce and remove the extraordinary suspension of liberties that New Zealanders have fought and died for over many generations.

I move, That the question be now put.