Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill

Clause 1 refers to the title of the bill and, as we all know, the title offered up by the Government is the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill. On the surface, that seems perfectly sensible. The title refers to the period of time during and around the Rugby World Cup 2011. It empowers the Rugby World Cup Authority, which is created by the bill, the Government, of course, and a Minister—we are not quite sure which Minister; it might be the Minister for the Rugby World Cup or another Minister—to do more or less what the Minister likes. In those terms, one might think the title is fairly appropriate, because the bill vests an enormous amount of power in one individual Minister. It empowers that Minister to do more or less what the Minister pleases.

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

It is nice that the Minister in the chair, Jonathan Coleman, could amble his way down to the chair to join us for this debate. We are on clause 1, the title of the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill, which, before the dinner break, I was saying seems superficially like a fairly reasonable title for the bill. I note that the Government steered away from using in the title the word “enabling” instead of “empowering”. Enabling bills were, of course, favoured amongst some of the 20th century’s better dictators and the word “enabling” might have alluded to some of the dictatorial powers included in Part 4 of this bill, so it was probably wise to steer away from it, although it would have been a sensible word to have included rather than “empowering”; “enabling” might have been a bit more appropriate.

The “Rugby World Cup 2011 (Elected Dictatorship) Bill” would have been quite good, because essentially Part 4 offers a Minister of the Crown absolute, complete, total authority over what goes on around the Rugby World Cup, and all the provisions within the bill and the authority that has been set up are just about completely meaningless because of the elected dictatorship that is established in Part 4.

Another title could be the “Rugby World Cup 2011 (Vesting Total Authority in One Minister) Bill”, which is essentially what this legislation does. It could be the “Rugby World Cup 2011 (Establishing an Impotent Authority) Bill”, because the vast majority of the bill—Parts 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6—deals with establishing an authority to deal with a range of aspects of the Rugby World Cup from liquor licensing through to venue establishment through to events that occur around the Rugby World Cup. This legislation establishes an authority that is supposed to have control over those events, grant liquor licences, give people authority to hold those events, and run test events in the lead-up to the Rugby World Cup, but, in fact, all of that authority is completely undermined by Part 4. The bill establishes a completely impotent authority. In the case that the Minister disagrees with the authority’s position, he can just come straight in and overrule anything that the authority does. Although the bulk of the bill—many, many clauses and many, many pages—is turned over to establishing this authority, the real crux of the bill is Part 4, which says that even though we have an authority, it is completely impotent and completely useless in the event that the Minister disagrees with what the authority says.

Given the nature of the debate thus far from the Government benchers, few and far between as it has been, Government members have not looked to engage in the debate as much as all that, but they have tried to say that Labour members hate rugby, that we do not want to have a good event, and that we do not want to run a good event. I would say that that would make this the “Rugby World Cup 2011 (Short-term Memory Loss) Bill”. They forget about the previous Labour Government and Helen Clark, who, as we all well know now, flew to Korea via Ireland. Who does that, I do not know, but it showed how keen she was and how much she had vested in being part of the delegation to the Rugby World Cup to make sure that New Zealand got the Rugby World Cup in 2011. The Government has conveniently forgotten all of that effort put in by Labour and all of the support that Labour would continue to offer for this bill if the Government could just make some tiny amendments to Part 4. We wanted to build a consensus and be able to have a bilateral approach to this, but the Government refused to take that up.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I have a question. Prior to the dinner break when we were voting on various parts—4, 5, and 6, I think—Labour gave split votes, which is absolutely fine, of course. But I bring your attention to Standing Order 139(2), which states: “If a party casts a split-party vote the member casting the vote must deliver to the Clerk at the Table, immediately after the vote, a list showing the names of the members of that party voting in the various categories.” I recall that there were votes for, votes agin, and abstentions from the party opposite. I ask whether those names have been tabled yet, and whether they are available to the Committee.

I am happy to respond that the proxies have been taken from Labour and will be provided to the Clerk in due course. We are just locating those in the handover between whips at this time. I am sure that the Government will be patient with us while we locate the relevant names, but we have it in hand.

Are we to expect those names forthwith? I notice that it has been 2 hours since the first split vote, that I am aware of, from the other side. That seems ample opportunity. What would be a normal time frame? When should we expect that?

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): I do not know what an ample time frame would be. “Immediately” sounds like it will be pretty prompt. The Chair of the Committee cannot force people to do things. We have an assurance from the whips that the names will be produced, and that the paperwork is being resolved. I expect that the whips for Labour will produce the paperwork very quickly. I have that assurance and I accept the whips’ assurance.

As we debate clause 1, which is the name of the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill, we obviously know that we are talking about the Rugby World Cup and that it will be held in 2011. But whether it is an empowering bill—empowering for the Rugby World Cup Authority—is the point that we want to make. It is a moot point, because the Rugby World Cup Authority set up under Part 2 is eclipsed by the powers given to the Minister for the Rugby World Cup under Part 4. So a possible name for this bill could be the “Part 2 is a Waste of Time Bill”, because the bill goes through the whole description of setting up the Rugby World Cup Authority and then in Part 4 totally ignores it by giving the Minister unfettered power to do what he wants.

Let us remember that the Rugby World Cup Authority is an authority in which a retired judge or a lawyer of at least 7 years’ standing has to be appointed as the chairperson, and another member who is a lawyer of at least 7 years’ standing has to be the deputy chairperson. The Minister must ensure that the authority has available to it sufficient members with the knowledge, skill, and experience relevant to the authority’s function. I think it is really good that the authority should have that, but then the Minister who does not necessarily have the knowledge, skill, and experience can come and override the decisions that the Rugby World Cup Authority makes. So this bill could also be called the “Put Murray McCully on a Pedestal Bill”, because that is really what is happening. He is being put up there with this unfettered power to override any decisions that the Rugby World Cup Authority makes.

We on this side of the Chamber have said that that is not right, and that the Rugby World Cup Authority, made up of these experts—lawyers and judges—with the knowledge necessary to make decisions around the Rugby World Cup, should have the unbridled power. That group should be able to make those decisions and those decisions should stand. Labour does not agree that the Minister should have the power to override the authority. This bill could be called the “Clayton’s Empowerment Bill”—with all due respect to our colleague Clayton Cosgrove—because it is the empowering bill one has when one does not actually have an empowering bill, since the only person being empowered is the Minister. Again, as I said, Labour disagrees with that.

There is also the whole issue of forgetting that it was Labour that made sure that New Zealand won the right to host the Rugby World Cup. That issue has been continuously downplayed and overlooked. It was Labour that got the Rugby World Cup to come to New Zealand. So perhaps it could be called the “Acknowledge the Great Work Done by the Previous Labour Government Bill”, as Labour made sure that the Rugby World Cup came to New Zealand. We could go through this bill and give it any number of names. They pop into our minds quite easily because of the unfettered, overriding power that the Minister is given in Part 4. We could call it the “Take Part 4 Out of this Bill Bill”, because, as I said, it is not right that the Minister has all this authority to override any decision of the Rugby World Cup Authority. That is not good lawmaking and it is not good democracy. I guess we could call this the “Labour Party Really Does Support Democracy Bill”, because we are talking about setting up this authority to represent people and make sure that the unfettered and unchallenged power that the Minister has will not be misplaced or abused.

Again, I say that we need to make sure everyone realises that it was the previous Labour Government that got this event here through the great work of our previous Prime Minister. Labour still disagrees with Part 4. The Minister should not have this power to absolutely override anything that has been decided by the Rugby World Cup Authority, if he so decides.

I rise to speak on the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill, to discuss the title. As all of my colleagues on this side of the Chamber would understand, I am Murray McCully’s greatest fan. In almost every situation I would totally agree with everything he said, but on this occasion I wonder whether the Minister for the Rugby World Cup has the correct title for the bill. I wonder whether it should be called the “Labour in Chaos Bill”. It occurs to me that the title of this bill may be being used by competing factions in the Labour Party to begin to run a coup against Mr Goff. We had a split vote on the bill just before tea, and the Labour Party is unable to name the people who abstained from voting on it.

Is it that we have the Mallard faction? Is it that we have the Goff faction? Is it that we have the Shane Jones faction? Is it that we have the Mr Cunliffe faction? Clearly, there are four people on the other side of the Chamber who have voted, or at least abstained from voting, in a way that does not support their leader. This is a very surprising development.

It may also be that this bill could be called the “Mallard (Sour Grapes) Bill”. I suspect that if Mr Mallard were the Minister for the Rugby World Cup today, he would be entirely supportive of the empowering of the Minister to make sure that the Rugby World Cup event is absolutely successful, because its success is really important for New Zealand’s global brand and for our economy.

It is quite interesting to look at the scrambling that is going on on the other side of the Chamber and work out who is in what faction, because clearly there is a lot of disharmony on the other side. Four people have moved from the main reason that the Labour Party was voting, and they are abstaining, presumably because they do not agree with Mr Goff, or Mr Mallard, or Mr Jones, or Mr Cunliffe. I invite the whip on that side of the Chamber to put us out of our misery, or at least tell us what is going on.

I come back to the point of this empowering bill. I am quite sure that if Mr Mallard were the Minister concerned, with 85,000 people coming from overseas and millions of people watching on television, he would not allow New Zealand to be showcased in a way that was not appropriate. The point of this bill is that it does not change the criteria for issuing liquor licences. It will allow the temporary streamlining of Government regulatory processes to ensure the tournament and the many activities that support it can be organised as effectively as possible. When discussing this issue earlier in the House I have drawn attention to what has happened in the Wairarapa with the La De Da concert, which was scheduled to take place in Martinborough on New Year’s Eve. We do not want the circumstances affecting the Martinborough concert to happen with the Rugby World Cup.

In the Martinborough case, a council initially told the organisers of this concert that they would not need resource consent, as would have been the case if this event had been run in Masterton, but now the council has suddenly discovered that it can ankle tap this concert. It will ankle tap the 12,000 people who have paid more than $100, and up to $350, for a ticket and it will say that resource consent costing $50,000 is needed.

We cannot afford this situation to arise with an event as important as the Rugby World Cup, which is why we must empower the Minister to break through the bureaucratic nonsense, nanny State-ism, and red tape that could potentially stand in the way of this event, which is vital for the New Zealand economy. I particularly want to say that we are not going soft on the liquor process; in fact, the bill provides additional requirements for that. Thank you.

It is a pleasure to take a call in the debate on the title of the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill. The title is simply not generous enough to the Government. I think it needs to really capture John Hayes’ passion for this issue. Possibly that member could call it the “Rugby World Cup 2011 (Let’s Forget About Health and Safety) Bill”. Mr Hayes has just been telling us all about things being nanny State, but those things on Saturday were bottles flying in the air and landing on people. That image of New Zealand, which Mr Hayes seems so concerned about, will be projected around the world.

Mr Hayes was also concerned about Labour’s voting. On this side of the Chamber, we are always worried about whether Mr Hayes is confused. He is frequently confused, and we are always worried when he is confused. To clarify for that member, I say that when it comes to debating and voting on issues to do with liquor, Labour has a proud tradition of conscience voting. Occasionally in the past National has had a proud tradition of letting its MPs follow their consciences, but now members on that side of the Chamber have only one conscience.

We have noticed this because we on this side of the Chamber know that on another issue relating to liquor—that of the drink-driving rules—there are members of the National caucus who want to back a change to the drink-driving laws.

💬 Craig Foss: Jumping the shark.

I know that Craig Foss wants to back a change. He is looking for stricter drink-driving laws. He is looking for the blood-alcohol limit to be lowered from 0.08 to 0.05. That is right, is it not? I ask Mr Foss whether that is correct. I ask Mr Foss whether it is true that he wants to lower it. He wants to lower it, but he is not allowed a conscience vote. On this side of the Chamber, we are proud of the fact that Labour allows people to express their consciences on one part of this bill.

Mr Foss may not have noticed, but on every other part of this bill and on the final vote on this bill Labour is unified in saying that we are not prepared to back a bill that gives Murray McCully carte blanche to make whatever decisions he likes in the run-up to the Rugby World Cup. The Government has set up an authority to do what it likes, the authority comes forward, and then Gerry Brownlee, Murray McCully, and Nick Smith can override it all. Mr Foss can rest assured that Labour is unified in opposing this bill, but we are very clear that on issues involving liquor, we allow our MPs to have a conscience vote.

The shame in this Chamber is that MPs on that side are no longer able to express their consciences. They are not able to express their consciences on the drink-driving limit, and they are not able to express their consciences on this change to liquor laws. We on this side of the Chamber stand proud of the fact that we give our MPs the ability to speak freely on matters of liquor law change.

Mr Hayes might be confused, but we know that passing this bill in its current form is not right. Iain Lees-Galloway has already stated that with a simple amendment this bill could have been supported by Labour, and Murray McCully would not have a veto right over the Rugby World Cup Authority. National failed to take up that amendment, and that means Labour will be voting against this bill, having given its members the right to have a conscience vote on alcohol issues.

Clause 1 agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Murray McCully to clause 2 be agreed to:

to insert in subclause (1) “Sections 1 and 2 and” before “Parts”.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 2 as amended agreed to.

Progress reported.

Report adopted.