Mallard Trevor: Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Mallard Trevor: Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:668;Page:14897] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 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. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I am sorry. I think that “screwed over” is OK. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: No it is not. Do not go there. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: He has been done. We will work our way through the analogies but what has happened is that the failure to have the $140000 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. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: No it is not funny. 
Jacqui Dean 
: Struggling. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: 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! 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: 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. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: 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. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: 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.