Ardern Jacinda: Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Ardern Jacinda: Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:668;Page:14883] 
JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) 
: 
 It is my absolute pleasure to set the record straight because very unfortunately several members of the Government have tried to mislead those who might be watching this debate on the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill. I am happy to restate that Labour absolutely supports the elements of Part 2—in particular the establishment of the Rugby World Cup Authority. A robust process has been set out there. But I must restate for the benefit of those who may be watching that we do oppose the notion that carte blanche powers should be given to a Minister—powers that are unnecessary. To somehow translate that objection as Labour being against rugby—in fact I heard the statement that Labour is against New Zealand—is I find a stretch. 
We are trying to make good law. That is our obligation in this Committee. It is our job to make sure that we do that well. We absolutely support the Rugby World Cup which is why we want to make sure that robust procedures are in place to make sure it happens. In my mind I am much more comfortable with the way that the authority has been established the membership of the authority the procedure of the authority and the decision-making role that it will play than I am with decisions being deferred or taken out of that authority’s hands at the whim of the Minister which is essentially what this bill allows. I am against that and Labour is against that. 
But I will go over some questions I have for the Minister in the chair the Hon Anne Tolley who is obviously acting on behalf of the Minister who has responsibility for this bill. My first question is about liability. We are dealing with a circumventing of process and procedure for which the authority has been given powers as set out in this legislation. If for instance a Minister takes the ability to make a decision outside the hands of the authority where does the liability for that decision lie? Does it then lie directly with the Crown or does it then fall to the authority which may have made a counter decision to that of the Minister? That is one of my questions on the issue of liability because we are dealing with quite contentious issues. 
The Rugby World Cup is an event that has the potential to have significant health and safety issues attached to it and that could potentially become litigious. I note in Part 2 clause 12 that the ability to question the chairperson’s exercise of his or her discretion before the courts is removed. I imagine that holds for all of the authority’s decisions. In terms of litigation the power to pursue that via the court is removed; does that power then exist if a decision is made by the Minister? That is a question I put to the Ministers themselves in relation to the issue of liability. It would be useful to have that clarified. 
Otherwise I think this bill sets out quite clearly the criteria by which the authority must consider various decisions that are within its ambit and I think those criteria are very very robust. I see that the select committee made one change in particular highlighting the importance of ensuring that “public health and safety are protected as far as it is reasonably practicable during the period of the Rugby World Cup 2011.” It then also sets out a range of other criteria. I wonder whether the Minister could point out whether it is intended that the Minister would use the same criteria given to him or her if the Minister exercises the power given to him or her in Part 4. Will any of those requirements that we are asking the authority to take into account—to which the select committee has given a lot of consideration—be taken into account by the Minister as well to fulfil that set of obligations or does the Minister have different criteria altogether? 
I also thought it was useful that in clause 9(2)(e) of that part it is pointed out that one of the criteria is “the desirability of maximising the benefit to be derived during or after the tournament from things done in preparation for and in support of the tournament.” I have another question for the Minister there. Because the select committee has split it out—instead of referring to the Rugby World Cup as a whole the provision refers just to the tournament—does that criterion not apply for the ancillary events that I notice the select committee has split out? Does that mean that the authority does not need to take into account the desirability of maximising the benefit derived when we are talking about ancillary events? Is there a separate set of criteria for those?