Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill

In speaking to Part 6, I just reflect that we are now through the major provisions of the bill, and I come now to the part that deals with regulations, the serving of documents, and those sorts of things. It is interesting, is it not, that even this late in the passage of this bill, which will enable the smooth running of the Rugby World Cup 2011, the Labour Opposition members are all at sea. They neither support it nor not support it; they are not quite sure how they really feel about this Rugby World Cup event that we are having next year. I think that is a shame, because the rest of the New Zealand community is gearing up for this Rugby World Cup—

💬 Craig Foss: They must have had an interesting caucus.

Well, I would say they always have an interesting caucus. Some do not know how they feel about this event, because they have abstained from voting, and I think that that is a shame. I think that is a shame for all of the New Zealanders all around New Zealand who are gearing up to make this the world-beating event that it should be. The provisions of this bill, which will make those processes smoother and easier, are relatively non-controversial and simple, but cannot be supported by the Labour members in this House. I think that is a shame and I say that for the record of the House.

Part 6 deals with regulations and is very much a procedural part. It deals with the method of calculating deposits for people who wish to make applications to the authority that determines liquor licences and other provisions. It covers the recovery of costs, the charging of costs, and the methods by which documents can be served. So it is very much getting down to the nuts and bolts of things.

I want to finish my short contribution by reflecting that for most of us in this Parliament this bill reminds us of the exciting opportunity we have in New Zealand. The National Government supports rugby. It supports all of New Zealand getting behind the Rugby World Cup. All the members of the National Government are vitally interested and do hope that the Rugby World Cup will be the marvellous event it promises to be. I am just sorry that that desire is not shared by the Opposition.

What a vacuous load of nonsense we just heard from Jacqui Dean. The suggestion that the Labour Opposition not supporting the giving of absolute power to Murray McCully means that Labour is somehow opposed to rugby is extrapolating things just a little bit too far. I can assure the Committee and anybody listening or watching on television that the Labour Opposition is 100 percent behind the Rugby World Cup 2011. We are 100 percent behind the Rugby World Cup and we are very much looking forward to seeing it successfully hosted in this country.

Let us not forget how we ended up with the hosting rights to the Rugby World Cup in the first place. Helen Clark flew with the Kiwi crew all the way to Dublin in order to secure the hosting rights. The Labour Government was behind it—

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): We are debating Part 6.

—and the Labour Party remains behind it. I turn now to Part 6 of the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill, which Jacqui Dean was just speaking to. Part 6 deals with the remaining technical aspects of the legislation, including the regulation-making power of the Governor-General by Order in Council on the recommendation of the Minister for the Rugby World Cup. Now, of course, we come back to the concerns raised by the Labour Opposition in terms of the regulation-making powers that the Minister will have, effectively, to overturn recommendations given by the Rugby World Cup Authority. The Minister will not have to follow the recommendations of the Rugby World Cup Authority. The regulation-making powers that this part gives to the Governor-General—because the Governor-General will be acting on the advice of the responsible Minister; in this case Murray McCully—effectively mean that the Minister will have absolute power to do whatever he likes. He will not have to be guided in any way by the decisions of the Rugby World Cup Authority, and that is the reason the Labour Opposition is voting against the remaining stages of this bill.

It is not, as Jacqui Dean suggested, because we do not support the Rugby World Cup; we do. We are 100 percent behind the Rugby World Cup, but we on this side of the Chamber support democracy. We believe that the provisions of this bill could easily have been remedied if Murray McCully had agreed to support the amendments put forward by Trevor Mallard. This issue could have been resolved and this bill could have been passed with much broader cross-party support than has been the case. But Murray McCully rejected the approach by the Labour Party and that is why we continue to oppose it.

Finally, I want to talk to some of the clauses in this part listed on page 83 of the reprinted bill as tabled in the House. They concern the service of notice and documents. I am not a lawyer and I do not usually pay much attention to these types of matters, but I think it is important that when we are talking about the service of notice and documents, and about ensuring that processes operate fairly, transparently, and so on, there is real clarity around what will be deemed to be a service of notice or a document. Can it be done electronically, or by fax, and so on? Clause 89, as set out on page 83, makes it very clear when a notice will be deemed to have been issued or served. I think that it is really important that the Committee is very clear on that. Clause 89(4) states “If a notice or document is to be served on a Minister of the Crown, service on the chief executive of the appropriate department of the State is service on the Minister.” This comes back to this ultimate power that Murray McCully will have under this legislation. He can be sending off missives to departmental chief executives, serving notices on all of his ministerial colleagues. That is just a further example of the ultimate power that Murray McCully is being given in this legislation, which is why the Labour Opposition is opposed to it.

We do not have anything that we are really opposed to in Part 6. Part 6 is a pretty technical, non-controversial part of this legislation. It is primarily Part 4 that we have our concerns about, but I think Part 6 gives further examples and further elaborates why it is that the Opposition has expressed so many reservations and how easily that could be resolved if the Government was willing to take a more democratic approach to this legislation.

I reinforce what my colleague Chris Hipkins just said about Part 6, which is largely an administrative, miscellaneous part of the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill. Nevertheless, clause 88 states: “The Governor-General may, by Order in Council made on the recommendation of the Minister, make regulations that prescribe—”, and it goes through those prescriptions. That comes back to the point that we raised before about the Minister, which cuts to the chase of what we were talking about in Part 4.

Why do we have that problem? One of the issues that has come up in the last few days with regard to the debacle that happened on Saturday at Eden Park is that the trustees at the Eden Park Trust Board were all replaced by Minister McCully. Minister McCully changed the trustees, who then went on to change the management team. The management team has not yet been in contact with the local residents. Certainly, Mr David Kennedy, the chief executive officer, has not yet made contact with the local residents, who were the people who bore the brunt of what happened on Saturday. That is a direct consequence of a lot of the changes being made by the Minister.

Part 4, as I said before, gives the Minister the ability to override and take an enormous amount of licence—

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): We are on Part 6.

I beg your pardon, Mr Chairperson. Part 4 gives the Minister a lot of licence and that is reinforced at the beginning of Part 6, as I just quoted.

I come to clause 88(i) in Part 6, which states: “the form, contents, colour, and size of print of a Rugby World Cup liquor licence, including the form and other matters required for licences issued in respect of a group of applications:”. That relates back to what we were just arguing in the debate on Part 5. That, again, is about the speeding up of liquor licences, which have to be advertised as per clause 88(i). The process can be sped up. A lot more liquor licences can be given out in a very short space of time, giving people who object only 5 days’ notice in which to do so. Around this area—and around Eden Park, in particular, which is the area I am specifically concerned about—we will have the capacity to have more outlets and more drinking in an area that has copious numbers of drink outlets already.

Coming back to Part 6, clause 88(i) goes to the issue of liquor licences. It is something I have a real concern about. I do not think that we need to be promoting rugby on the basis of whether we can drink copiously or have an enormous number of drink outlets for this occasion to be a real success.

I point out, as my colleague has done, that we oppose this legislation on the basis of what it allows the Minister to do—on the basis of what it allows the Minister to do. We are completely supportive of the opportunities that the Rugby World Cup gives to New Zealand. I am certainly supportive of what this world cup gives to the people in the area that I represent, around Eden Park. Businesses there will be booming. Obviously, they will have to be in compliance with Part 6, clause 88(i), and I remind people about that.

Once again, I say that it is a mistake to give the Minister more or less carte blanche to make decisions that override the authority, which will then be set up and in place, and that override many of the decisions that have been made through good procedures and regulations. It is something that members on this side of the Chamber oppose.

Part 6 is largely miscellaneous. It is regulations, but, nevertheless, it still speaks to and supports the other parts of the bill that we are not very happy with.

I move, That the question be now put.

I know that we are talking about Part 6, but I have to get this off my chest—it comes down to what Jacqui Dean said about Labour not supporting rugby. What she said is ridiculous. I bet anything that Jacqui Dean is one of those chardonnay supporters who are there just for the moment. I bet you anything that Jacqui Dean did not get up at 3 o’clock in the morning on Saturday to watch New Zealand versus England. I bet you she has not cried herself to sleep.

💬 Craig Foss: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I am just interested that the member is trying to wager bets with you as Chair. He kept saying: “I bet you that x, y, z.” I do not think that is appropriate.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Thank you. I am a betting man, and I took it in good faith.

I will bet anybody that Jacqui Dean has not cried herself to sleep every night since 27 October 1991, the day that we lost our world champion title to Australia in Dublin. To say that Labour does not support rugby and does not support the Rugby World Cup is an absolute joke. I bet anybody in this Chamber, anybody in this country, that we know more about any form of rugby or any sort of situation around rugby than that member. A true supporter knows stuff about rugby that nobody else does. I ask that member to name the All Black lock who in 1979 scored the only try for the All Blacks at Twickenham.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): We are on Part 6.

Yes, Mr Chair; I just had to get that off my chest, because as a rugby fanatic I do not think there is anybody in National who cares about rugby more than I do.

I come to Part 6. As Chris Hipkins said, the Governor-General may, by Order in Council and on the recommendation of the Minister, make regulations. That is the part of this bill that we are upset about. It is the unfettered power of the Minister that we are concerned about. To say we do not support rugby because we are challenging this part of the bill is absolutely ridiculous. The Labour Party has had great discussions and has allowed some members to vote one way and some members to vote the other way, and that is democracy in action—something, of course, that that party on the other side of the Chamber would not have a clue about.

💬 Jacqui Dean: Which way did you vote?

I voted for it; in support, OK?

💬 Jacqui Dean: Who was against?

Look, it does not really matter who was for and who was against. What matters is that we are concerned that the Minister has unfettered powers—[Interruption]

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): We do not want that dialogue—it is not relevant to Part 6.

Thank you, Mr Chair. We have a concern that the Minister has unfettered powers to override the Rugby World Cup Authority. The Labour Party supports rugby and supports the Rugby World Cup. In our party we are allowed to have robust debate and discussion, and on this issue we voted as we saw it. Some supported it, some were against, and some abstained. The Labour Party is right behind the Rugby World Cup. We have given it a lot of thought and consideration.

As someone mentioned earlier, Helen Clark flew over to Dublin—the city where the All Blacks lost in 1991—and because of her contribution and her support for Tana Umaga and the rest of the Kiwi contingent, this wonderful event will happen in New Zealand next year. It will be a great thing for New Zealand. It will put us on the world stage. But we do have to be concerned about this issue, and it is right that Labour as a party has challenged parts throughout this bill to make sure that everything goes right during the Rugby World Cup.

I finish my contribution by challenging Jacqui Dean and the National Government to come up with any evidence that they support rugby and the Rugby World Cup more than the Labour Party. Members of the Labour Party are true fanatics and true supporters of our national game, not chardonnay supporters such as Jacqui Dean.

I move, That the question be now put.

We are in the dying minutes of the Committee stage of the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill, and it is fitting that we should finish by responding to the excruciating speech made by Jacqui Deans. We are finishing as we started—

💬 Jacqui Dean: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I would be grateful if the member addressed me by my correct name, which is Jacqui Dean.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I am sure the member has taken that on board.

I apologise. I should have said we were responding to an excruciating speech from the member Jacqui Dean. She is the member who cannot understand why Labour voted against the odious Part 4, which gives the Minister—

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): We are on Part 6.

I am getting to that, Mr Chair. She cannot understand why Labour voted against Part 4. She cannot understand why we would take a conscience vote or a personal vote on the alcohol provisions in this bill. The members on this side of the Chamber, unlike the member Jacqui Dean, have not put their brain into neutral while they have been debating this bill. The best argument that she could come up was that we do not like rugby—woo hoo!

Part 6 is interesting, because it reflects just how well thought through much of this bill is. The detail and thought that have gone into Part 6 are extraordinary. I draw the Committee’s attention to subclause 5A of clause 89, where no detail has been overlooked. Subclause 5A states: “A notice or document is deemed to have been received as follows: (a) if sent electronically, when acknowledged by the recipient, or when an automated delivery receipt … is received by the sender:”. Subclause 5B states: “If a notice or document is required to be served or delivered on or by a particular working day,—(a) it must be served or delivered by 4.00 pm on that day;”. If a notice or document arrives after 4 p.m., it is deemed to have been received on the following day. That is extraordinary.

No detail has been overlooked in Part 6, yet Part 4 hands over to Murray McCully, the Minister for the Rugby World Cup, extraordinary powers to override the recommendations of the eminent appointed members of the Rugby World Cup Authority. All of the detail, all of the thought, that have gone into this bill could count for nothing, because Murray McCully, the Minister for the Rugby World Cup, can completely disregard all of the thought that has gone into setting up the systems, structures, and procedures for the Rugby World Cup Authority.

That is why the Labour members of Parliament will ultimately vote against this bill. We will not do that because, as Jacqui Dean thinks, we do not like rugby, are unpatriotic, or do not care about the success of the Rugby World Cup. We do. We have made it abundantly clear that we support the Rugby World Cup. We want it to be a fantastic success for New Zealand. We want it to be an unforgettable moment for all New Zealanders to savour the beautiful game. But we will not countenance the bad law or bad systems that are being put in place by this Government to completely disregard the normal conventions of accountable Government, and to hand over to Murray McCully the unfettered power to disregard the members and the advice of the Rugby World Cup Authority. The sublime, elegant detail contained in Part 6 provides that if a notice is received after 4 p.m., it is deemed to have been received on the following day. But in spite of the beauty, elegance, and simplicity of Part 6, Labour will vote against this bill.

We have not given up hope that the Government may see sense, finally, before this bill is passed.

💬 David Shearer: I don’t know about that.

Some of my colleagues have given up hope. I have not; I have an open mind and a good heart. I live in hope that the members on the other side of the Chamber will reignite and reawaken their commitment to the conventions of accountable Government, and will not give Murray McCully the extraordinary powers that are contained in Part 4.

I move, That the question be now put.

Motion agreed to.