Twyford Phil: Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill — In Committee 
Twyford Phil: Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:668;Page:14839] 
PHIL TWYFORD (Labour) 
: 
 I thank the member for Waitaki Jacqui Dean for giving us one of the most enjoyable moments of the day in the Chamber as she paused between self-flattery and boosterism to reveal that expediency is the underlying principle of the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill particularly in its application of the McCully principle which we come to in Part 4. Perhaps there is a typographical error in this bill that the drafters might like to consider. “Expeditiously” appears throughout the document and probably a find and replace should be done to replace it with “expediently” if Jacqui Dean is right—and I am guessing she is. 
I want to comment on clause 11 in Part 2 which deals with the membership of the authority. I say right up front that Labour is satisfied with the provisions that have been put in place around the structure and membership of the Rugby World Cup Authority. The Minister for the Rugby World Cup will appoint persons to the authority after consulting with three other Ministers: the Minister of Justice the Minister for Economic Development and the Minister for the Environment. He must appoint a member of the authority who is a current former or retired judge—that makes eminent sense—or a lawyer of at least 7 years’ standing to the chair of the authority. I have no doubt that we will end up with someone chairing the authority who is suitably qualified and has the weight of experience and has the expertise to bring to the role. A second member of the authority will also be a lawyer of at least 7 years’ standing to act as the deputy chairperson. So there is no doubt that we will have plenty of legal expertise in the leadership of the authority. 
There is also a requirement under clause 11(3) that “the Minister must ensure that the Authority has available to it sufficient members with the knowledge skill and experience relevant to the Authority’s functions …”. So we have to assume that there will be people with the appropriate town planning experience and liquor licensing experience. We will have an authority made up of eminent people in their fields to lead and oversee the entire process of running the authority deciding on applications and so on. Given that this authority will be well-endowed with the kinds of skills experience and judgement we are looking for why does the Government insist on going ahead with the Murray McCully provisions in this bill which will allow the Minister to decide on so-called urgent applications and conceivably make decisions that will go against the advice and recommendations of this eminent authority? That is the question Government members have so far completely failed to address. They have not been able to give us one scenario that justifies these urgency powers that will be given to the Hon Murray McCully. 
The chairperson will be appointing panels. That is how the work of the authority will be done—by panels appointed to consider applications and make determinations. A member of the authority who is a lawyer of at least seven years’ standing will be a member of each of these panels and that is how the work will be done. It will be supported by an administrative secretariat which has I think comprehensive terms of reference here. Its functions are laid out in clause (15)(4). Again it underlines the question in our minds which is why these excessive urgency powers are needed when we have a fully staffed authority with properly constituted panels backed up by an administrative secretariat. Why does the Minister need the urgency powers?