Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill — Second Reading 
Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:667;Page:14581] 
Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill 
Second Reading 
Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP (Minister of Defence) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister for the Rugby World Cup 
: I move  
That the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill be now read a second time 
. I begin by thanking members of the Government Administration Committee and its chair the Hon David Parker for dealing with this bill so swiftly and efficiently. They have undertaken a very thorough examination of this bill and have given careful consideration to the matters raised by submitters. I approve of the amendments proposed in the select committee’s report and am confident that the bill will help to ensure that New Zealand is able to deliver an exceptional Rugby World Cup tournament next year. 
The bill is temporary legislation intended to enable the consent and regulatory approvals necessary for the smooth running of activities related to the Rugby World Cup and the facilities that will support the event. It will help to ensure that New Zealand can meet its hospitality and hosting requirements and can take full advantage of the opportunities that hosting this event will provide. The bill establishes a Rugby World Cup Authority to consider and determine applications for temporary approvals for activities and facilities related to the Rugby World Cup as well as declarations of permitted activities. It will be supported by territorial authorities throughout New Zealand which will act as the administrative secretariat to the Rugby World Cup Authority. 
The bill includes provisions to enable the Minister for the Rugby World Cup after receiving advice from the authority and after consulting relevant Ministers to grant approvals in circumstances of unforeseen urgency. It enables declarations of permitted activities to be made urgently by Order in Council. Finally the bill establishes a Rugby World Cup liquor licensing regime that will ensure that the extraordinary hospitality requirements in relation to the Rugby World Cup are able to be met. 
The select committee has obviously given thorough consideration to the issues that have been raised by submitters and has recommended some practical amendments to the bill. In response to concern from the territorial authorities the select committee has recommended the clarification of the roles and functions of territorial authorities that will be responsible for supporting the Rugby World Cup Authority to be established under the bill. The revised bill also provides greater clarity on the authority’s processes particularly where the application is for a temporary activity or facility and an accompanying Rugby World Cup liquor licence. The bill now requires the involvement of the New Zealand Fire Service in considerations of applications to the authority. This will ensure that fire safety is properly taken into account in any approvals granted. As was noted by Mrs Jacqui Dean that is part and parcel of the safety considerations dealt with by the select committee. 
The committee also recommended other additions to the bill that will enhance New Zealand’s ability to deliver a successful tournament. For instance the bill provides an exemption from the usual change of use provisions in the Building Act to enable apartment buildings to be used for temporary Rugby World Cup accommodation. That will help address pressure on the availability of accommodation especially in Auckland during the final and semi-final stages of the tournament. It also provides that the Rugby World Cup activities and events that occur near the water will be able to be declared major maritime events under the Maritime Transport Act 1994. That will enable the police to create an exclusion zone in designated areas where venues or fan zones are located near water such as Queen’s Wharf. 
The liquor licensing provisions in Part 5 of the bill were a particular focus of the submissions made to the select committee. The committee weighed up all the submissions and has recommended some useful amendments to liquor licensing provisions. They include allowing holders of current owner licences to apply to have their licensing hours extended to coincide with live screenings of Rugby World Cup matches and to allow cruise ships the holders of pub licences under the Sale of Liquor Act and chartered clubs to apply for Rugby World Cup liquor licences. I note that I imagine however they may rarely be used as the matches will be held largely in normal hours—but what needs to be done will be done. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: People need to be able to drink afterwards as well. 
Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: That is a fair point made by Mr Mallard. On the other hand the committee has been very clear in its recommendation that Rugby World Cup liquor licences granted under the bill should not extend the hours during which liquor licensees can operate gambling machines. 
Jacqui Dean 
: That’s right. 
Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: I thank the member. The bill also requires that the provision of food and free drinking-water is mandatory for all Rugby World Cup liquor licences. These are additional requirements not provided for under current liquor laws. The bill also gives police greater enforcement powers to control the consumption of liquor during the tournament. Where licensees have breached conditions of their licences or disorderly behaviour occurs on the premises the authority can suspend or cancel the licence without giving notice to the licensee. 
I thank the select committee the officials the Parliamentary Counsel Office all submitters and those people who have had a part in crafting the bill to date. The Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill will give the mechanism to ensure that all necessary approvals for Rugby World Cup activities and facilities are considered and determined expeditiously. I note at this point that I was exceptionally impressed by how quickly Eden Park was prepared a whole year in front of the event. I think that is a great testament to and an indication of the success of the tournament next year. 
The bill provides that unforeseen emergencies that might affect New Zealand’s ability to host the tournament next year can be dealt with. It is further evidence that the Government—and I believe it is supported by Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition—continues to deliver its commitment to maximise the benefits and the opportunities that our country’s staging of the Rugby World Cup will present to our country. I commend this bill to the House. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I think that speech finished in a rather optimistic way because if Minister Mapp had been at all well-briefed he would have known that the Opposition is not supporting the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill. We are certainly supporting the Government to make this Rugby World Cup the best Rugby World Cup that we can have but there is an outstanding issue that goes to the emergency powers that the Government is giving the Minister. In our opinion that is undemocratic and it is wrong. I will get into more detail on that. Unless there is an undertaking to reverse it this bill—parts of it will be supported—will be opposed at the second reading and those— 
Nikki Kaye 
: Why did you support the Canterbury bill? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: The discussion around the Canterbury issues has highlighted the emergency powers. It is fair to say that we have more time to consider this bill. We have more time to consider it and as a result of that we will not be supporting it. 
But I do say that my thanks go also to the officials. It is fair to say that we had a very good group of officials including parliamentary counsel working on this bill. It is also fair to say that with the leadership of the chair of the Government Administration Committee being my colleague David Parker but also with the active cooperation of members of the Government and the Opposition on this legislation with the exception of the one issue we have worked through the bill and come to compromises although it is also worth pointing out to the Government as I have done to the acting Leader of the House that this bill includes a number of conscience provisions and there are some issues that need to be dealt with there. 
Before I get on to the main issue I should signal the inconsistency of the arrangements that have been made in this bill between the liquor and the gaming areas. I will use cruise ships as an example. The fact that cruise ships will be required to apply for this type of licence if they want to serve liquor but they will not be allowed to have gaming licences and the fact that hotels will be allowed to extend their hours for liquor but not for gaming is an indication of the inconsistency in this legislation—an inconsistency that I think is subject to a conscience vote. I am a slightly simple person and I have a lot of friends who are involved in Sky City but I think the efforts of the Sky City people in their lobbying and in their restrictions against anyone else but them being able to gamble during the night hours and the fact that people on the large number of cruise ships that will be parked the thousands— 
Hon Dr Wayne Mapp 
: That’s the situation now. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: The member is absolutely right but we are extending drinking hours but not extending gambling hours in the same institutions that will be open for drinking. So now people can gamble for the same hours in which they can drink. We are extending the drinking hours but not the gambling hours. We are giving cruise ships for example the opportunity to apply for these special licences but not to apply for gambling licences. So there are inconsistencies. As I have indicated in a slightly cynical way I think we saw the lobbying powers of people who are involved in the gambling industry. 
Chris Hipkins 
: They’re not watching the rugby. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Well one could also say that when the rugby has finished everything should close automatically at that time. I do not think that anyone has made that argument. That would destroy quite a few good parties but the member will learn more about that as he gets a bit older and reaches the age where he is allowed to go to hotels. 
I will focus on an issue that the Opposition takes very very seriously. I say to everyone who is watching this debate and who is looking to the Opposition response that this bill—notwithstanding what I said before about drinking gambling and other things that will lead to this bill taking quite a long time to go through from the Opposition’s perspective—would go through very quickly if one clause were sorted out. That clause relates to the ability of the Minister to override the authority that is set up under this bill in the later stages before the Rugby World Cup. I might say that an ability of a Minister to override an authority to grant a consent is something that I would not get too upset about but in this particular case the Government has determined that the Minister will have the authority to override a decision of the Rugby World Cup Authority which is headed by a judge with a deputy who must be a lawyer of at least 7 years’ experience. The Minister can approve an application that has been turned down by the Rugby World Cup Authority. My view is that that is just wrong. If we have a quasi-judicial process that has been set up and that authority conducts hearings of opponents for and against an application and makes a planning decision the idea that a Minister can override the decision is wrong. For example the Minister could say that a historic home could be demolished. The Minister has the right to do that. The Rugby World Cup Authority can say no but the— 
Jacqui Dean 
: That’s just so lame. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: The member says that it would not happen. 
Jacqui Dean 
: I said: “That’s just so lame.” 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: The member says: “No way!”. Why then is there a power given for that to happen? More important can we have one example from the next Government speaker just one of an emergency situation where a Minister’s use of this power would be appropriate? I ask for one example where a judge and the rest of the authority have decided that it is inappropriate to use this emergency power yet the Minister Mr McCully can say yes. I have asked that question on a number of occasions and no one has been able to give me one example of where it is appropriate to do this sort of override of process. Let us remember there are a lot of Acts involved. The example I keep on using relates to a historic house that might be near to a fan zone or in a fan zone and the ability of the owner to demolish in circumstances when that would not otherwise be the case. But there could be— 
Nikki Kaye 
: What about a road closure? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: As far as a road closure is concerned the Rugby World Cup Authority is still required to have a hearing of all the evidence. The authority headed by a judge and a deputy who is a lawyer with 7 years’ experience will hear evidence from town planning experts and roading experts. The authority will consider all the evidence and the authority might say no. So how can it be that the Minister has more knowledge than them? How can it be that Murray McCully knows more about roads than people with roading experience people with planning experience the judge and the lawyer with 7 years’ experience? I think Nikki Kaye has to think of another example that she could bring up to say why Mr McCully should be trusted with the ability to demolish houses all over Auckland—with no appeal no right to go to court no right of review and no right to a hearing before a court. Mr McCully can make a declaration at 12 o’clock and at 5 past 12 the bulldozers could move in and do that job. That declaration would be over the recommendation of a judge and a properly formed authority. 
That power given to the Minister forms a tiny part of this bill but I am one of very few MPs left in the House who can remember Muldoon’s emergency powers legislation and his use of those emergency powers to control wages and do things that were wrong. I have explained to the people who are in charge of the Rugby World Cup why Labour is taking this approach. They understand it; they know that as soon as the Government gets the provision right we will flag the bill through. 
JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) 
: 
 Unfortunately the previous speaker Mr Mallard has been looking for bogeymen under the bed and I am afraid he has found a very small and lame bogeyman. His argument I am afraid is clearly not working in the House however much as he might try. It is worth noting that the Government Administration Committee worked very cooperatively on this bill and it was at the eleventh hour that Mr Mallard chose to come in and look for something to criticise in this bill. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Rubbish! I heard the first few submissions. 
JACQUI DEAN 
: I want to raise a couple of points in rebuttal. The first is the scope— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: The member should have turned up to the committee. 
JACQUI DEAN 
: What did that member say? 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: The member should have turned up and listened. 
JACQUI DEAN 
: So this member should have turned up and listened? 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: At the first meeting. 
Paul Quinn 
: Point of order— 
JACQUI DEAN 
: Are you raising a point of order? 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: No he’s asleep. 
JACQUI DEAN 
: OK. I continue by saying that Mr Mallard has been the one member who has not worked cooperatively on this bill. I think he is trying to make the point that perhaps the legislation gives the Minister unfettered power. Clearly that does not exist in this legislation; it exists only in the member’s imagination and the argument will not fly in this House. 
I also refer to the issue of cruise ships which under this legislation will be regarded as floating accommodation. There will be no open access on to cruise ships while they are docked in Auckland Harbour or in other places around New Zealand. Cruise ships will be allowed to serve liquor but will not be allowed to provide gaming. The select committee looked at this issue very carefully but was unwilling to go against the spirit of the Gambling Act. Indeed the committee considered the issue of the extension of gaming to be outside the scope of this bill. So contrary to what Mr Mallard would have us believe the committee considered—when we were having constructive discussions—it to be outside the scope of this bill. This is a good bill and the select committee worked proactively on it. 
A successful Rugby World Cup is vitally important for New Zealand’s global brand and for our economy. Finally I put in a plug for the North Otago Rugby Football Union which has really seized the day with the opportunities that will be presented by this Rugby World Cup opportunity. The union is hosting the World Golden Oldies Rugby Festival during the course of the Rugby World Cup. It is that kind of regional initiative which I hope will be replicated all around New Zealand that will make this tournament such a success and will be expedited by the very good work contained in this bill. Thank you. 
CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) 
: 
 I am very happy to take a call on the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill. Like all New Zealanders I am excited about the Rugby World Cup and am looking forward to the event which is coming up around the corner next year. It will be the largest event that New Zealand has ever staged. As a result there are good reasons for many of the rather extraordinary powers that the Minister for the Rugby World Cup is being given in this bill and for why it should be passed through this House to deal with unforeseen circumstances to ensure that things can all be ready and to make the event successful for New Zealand. We are looking at a television audience of close to 4 billion people and 70000 international visitors to New Zealand over that 6-week period. This will be a very big event for New Zealand. 
I want to pick up on some of the issues that were raised during the select committee process. I am absolutely amazed at the comments made by the previous speaker Jacqui Dean. I do not think she could have been at the same select committee meetings that I was at if she is claiming that the Labour Party raised its concern “at the eleventh hour” about the unfettered power this bill gives the Minister Murray McCully. In fact I think we raised that concern at the very first meeting— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: At the first reading. 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: Yes at the first reading of the bill and at the very first meeting of the Government Administration Committee when we went through the briefing with officials. We asked exactly why it was necessary to give Murray McCully this extraordinary power that is not offered Ministers in almost any other legislation that we could find. We could not find any examples of why it would be necessary. I am quite concerned about that and I am absolutely staggered that Jacqui Dean claimed that we raised that as a concern at the eleventh hour because we raised that concern all the way through. 
Let us be very clear about what this bill does. It gives Murray McCully the ability to overturn decisions made by the judge heading the Rugby World Cup Authority the experienced lawyer on the authority who must have 7 years’ experience and all of the relevant experts. Murray McCully can overturn their decisions. He can say for example that we will demolish a historic building or close a road. He can overturn recommendations that the authority has made and Labour does not think that is right. I guess we would be willing to accept that he could have the power to turn down a recommendation or to put a stop to something. But to proactively approve something that the commission has not recommended— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: He could go with the status quo. 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: —he should go with the status quo I should say. He should have the power to overturn recommendations and stick with the status quo but to proactively approve something that has otherwise been declined is not a power that we think the Minister should have. This is not urgent legislation in the sense that we are not dealing with something that has happened; we are dealing with something that may happen in the future so we have the time to work through this and get it right. 
We went through the legislation at the select committee we heard evidence on it at the select committee and we received a lot of advice at the select committee yet there was no advice or evidence put forward to suggest that the Minister should have this power. Let us be really clear about what this is. It is about Murray McCully wanting to have the power to meddle in things and to control things. We are not talking about a Minister who has not got into trouble before for meddling in things; we are talking about a Minister who has a track record in meddling in operational issues in the departments and agencies that he is responsible for. I have no confidence that giving Murray McCully the power that this bill does will lead to responsible use of that power. That is one of the reasons why I think it is very important that in the Committee stage of this debate we pass the amendment being put forward by Trevor Mallard to ensure that the Minister cannot abuse the powers provided under this legislation. 
I will talk a little about the different treatment given to alcohol and gambling because that is something that Trevor Mallard raised in his first reading speech. It would be fair to say that Trevor Mallard and I do not necessarily agree eye to eye on this particular issue. We have a moratorium on new gambling venues in this country. We are bringing in cruise ships to act as temporary hotel accommodation. We want to make sure that they can operate effectively as temporary hotel accommodation when they are parked up at the wharves so that they can provide food alcohol and so forth. But why should they have an exemption that allows them to run gambling facilities when we would not allow that on land? In fact they would be prevented by law from opening a gambling facility without a legislative change to the Gambling Act in Parliament. It is a conscience issue and I think that that should apply to any cruise ships brought in to provide temporary accommodation. Alcohol is a different issue. People can apply for licences for alcohol; they cannot apply— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I think we can debate it for 3 or 4 hours in the Committee stage. 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: I am looking forward to an extensive debate with Trevor Mallard about this during the Committee stage—for hours in fact—of this legislation. If Murray McCully is so determined to force through these additional powers that we do not think he should be able to have then we will make sure that this bill is debated line by line and clause by clause all the way through the Committee stage. This will include the provisions on gambling and alcohol where we have some disagreement amongst the members of the Opposition. 
The second part of this legislation to do with gambling is on pokie machines in pubs. I am happy for pubs to be able to extend their liquor licensing hours to work around the Rugby World Cup schedule to make sure that people can enjoy the Rugby World Cup. I do not see how sitting at a pokie machine in any way contributes to the Rugby World Cup experience that we want to offer New Zealanders and those visiting this country. I see no justification for saying that we should extend the hours that the pokie parlours attached to pubs are open in order to facilitate a successful Rugby World Cup event. This bill does not allow those venues operating pokie machines to use their special Rugby World Cup liquor licences to extend the hours that they can have pokie machines operating. If their hours are extended through their special licences they will have to close off the pokie machines for those hours that they would not otherwise be open. 
If they would already be open for the period of time that the matches are taking place and so on then they will be able to have the pokie machines operating. If there is a special licence applying during that period of time then they would have to shut down the pokie machines. That is something that I totally agree with. It is about ensuring that people can enjoy the Rugby World Cup; it is not about extending the opportunities for people to gamble. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: He’s afraid of the booze because it’s his vice. 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: I am quite comfortable with people being able to have an extra drink. It is perfectly all right for people to grab a pint to stand there watching the big screen to watch the game and to enjoy the Rugby World Cup experience that we want people to have. I do not see that gambling is necessarily part of that. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: What about gambling on the next try? What about the TAB? 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: This bill does not impact on the TAB at all. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: What about the TAB at the pub? 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: No it does not impact on the TAB in the pub but maybe that is something we should clarify during the Committee stage. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: With half a dozen amendments. 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: Yes I think that we might look at some amendments on that during the Committee stage. Hopefully the Minister will take some calls on that during the Committee stage of the bill so that we can clarify whether the amendments we made at the select committee will impact on the ability of the TAB operating in the pubs to take bets during that period of time. I am pretty sure that we have restricted only class 4 gambling in pubs but we should double-check and debate it thoroughly to make sure that if there has been an unintended change to the ability of the TAB to operate in pubs we deal with that during the Committee stage. There may be some further amendments. 
Overall the intention of this bill is good. It is to make sure that the Rugby World Cup a big event for New Zealand is successful. The majority of the bill is supported by the Opposition. There is one point that we are sticking on and that is whether the Minister should have these extraordinary powers that no other Minister has and no other law appears to offer. Frankly I do not trust that the Minister would exercise those powers responsibly. We are putting forward an amendment that would stop the Minister having that power. If the Government agrees to support that amendment then the Opposition will support the bill progressing through its remaining stages. We will not vote for it on its second reading because the Government has indicated that it will not support the amendment being brought forward; therefore we are uncomfortable with the powers that the Minister is being offered. 
Whether this bill goes through with wide party support across Parliament is a matter for the Government to determine. It can support the amendment that Trevor Mallard has put forward and get wide-ranging support through Parliament or it can insist that Murray McCully has these extraordinary powers conferred upon him and it will not be supported by the Opposition. The choice is now over to the Government. 
DAVID CLENDON (Green) 
: 
 Kia ora koutou. We in the Greens share with everyone else in the House—and indeed most of the general public—a wish for next year’s Rugby World Cup to be a successful event and to fulfil its potential. It has considerable potential economic value it has resonance in our communities and in our culture and we hope it goes ahead and is successful. 
We opposed the first reading of the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill on the basis that it went many steps too far in terms of overturning processes—well-tried and proven processes for achieving the outcomes we are seeking. We saw no point no real justification for the level of powers and changes in the original drafting of the bill. The granting of the right to host the cup was given in 2005—a 6-year window of opportunity to get it right and we have considerably more faith it seems in the ability of New Zealanders to organise a good event to allow for contingencies and to anticipate what may happen than have the drafters of this bill who seem to believe that there will be numerous occasions for urgency for unforeseen occurrences and for emergency situations. Frankly we do not see that that is realistic. It is unlikely to arise; some good project management and forward planning should facilitate a good event on the day. 
This bill is undoubtedly a better bill for having been through the select committee process. It contains more clarity particularly around matters relating to health and safety. I am quite sure that nobody on the Government Administration Committee or indeed in the House was willing to accommodate any compromises in terms of the health and safety of New Zealanders of our visitors and of anyone else. 
There were some issues around the provision of housing: for example the construction of temporary structures at venues and the like. The Fire Service made a particularly good submission to the committee which was taken on board and I am quite confident that it is possible to ensure people’s health and safety and that all the steps have been put in place to make that work. 
The bill as it is currently drafted still leaves room for some disappointment—staying with the issue of short-term accommodation. There was some concern about the safety and well-being of people with disabilities who might be moving into effectively private apartments that would not normally be used for rental accommodation but that under this bill would be allowed to be. Clearly the health and safety issues have been dealt with but we still feel that there is a considerable likelihood that people with disabilities may in good faith book accommodation assuming that it will be appropriate to their needs and that their needs will be met and those people could be disappointed. 
Access tourism—that is tourism for people with disabilities or who are over the age of 65—is an area of opportunity for New Zealand tourism that is currently not being exploited. We are very slow to come to that party and realise that access tourism is actually a very very valuable niche market worth billions of dollars internationally. If people with disabilities are caught out by the very weak provision in this bill that suggests that councils and property owners be encouraged to make clear that their particular accommodation is not appropriate for people with disabilities then we will do ourselves a disservice in the longer term. Clearly we want to leverage every ounce of benefit out of this event and it would be unfortunate and to our cost in the long run if for the want of some stronger provision making it very clear accommodation unsuitable for people with disabilities is not flagged as such. 
This bill has some very strange things to say about adverse effects. It suggests that in the situations where there are likely to be adverse effects from particular activities the authority when making its decisions must disregard the adverse effect of an activity or a facility that relates solely to the site or location of the facility. I struggled with the logic of suggesting that an adverse effect is OK if it impacts only on the site of the activity—that somehow the adverse effect must flow over into some other site place or activity before the authority may have regard to it. That simply makes no sense to me. The logic of it escapes me completely. 
There is also a suggestion that adverse effects must be disregarded if they are of a temporary nature. But anyone with any knowledge or experience of resource management decisions knows that temporary effects can in fact have some quite long-term and unexpected consequences. It seems to me that inserting these rather clumsy clauses is a fairly clumsy and strange mechanism for overriding genuine and well-grounded objections on the grounds of adverse effect. 
The issue of the ministerial power that is being given by this bill has already been raised. It is worth stepping back one pace and thinking about what is being proposed here. We have in place substantial legislation: the Sale of Liquor Act the Resource Management Act and the Building Act. This bill is designed to sidestep the processes contained within that legislation which contain agencies and process and are tried and true ways of delivering good outcomes to New Zealanders and our visitors. 
It is proposed that this legislation be able to substantially override the Sale of Liquor Act the Resource Management Act and other legislation. We already know of examples where hotels have applied for extensions to existing licensing hours and have been turned down on very good grounds. They will come back for another bite and in all likelihood they will be approved under the so-called empowering bill. We have good substantial legislation in place. Now we are putting in place legislation that can override that tried and true legislation. To add insult to injury almost we are told that there will be a ministerial veto—that is the ability for the Minister to override not only the substantial legislation but also legislation that exempts that standard practice. That is just many steps too far. 
We have recently seen—and indeed the Greens supported it—legislation giving significant and almost unprecedented ministerial powers to cope with the effects of the Canterbury quake. That was an extraordinary event. Thousands of people were made homeless there was many millions of dollars worth of property damage and there was significant social and environmental disruption. We supported that legislation. But for equivalent override powers—the ability to override not one or two but numerous pieces of legislation and all the protections and public processes involved and engaged in them—to be at the fiat of the Minister effectively is simply unacceptable and ought not to be countenanced by this House. We will continue to oppose this bill. Thank you. 
RAHUI KATENE (Maori Party—Te Tai Tonga) 
: 
 I am really pleased to stand and speak on the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill because I really enjoy watching a great game of rugby. I especially enjoy watching the All Blacks do the haka and then go on to beat the Aussies the Boks the Lions and especially France. In my own humble estimation Maori have not only excelled at this sport but also have been contributing to our top-class international reputation for over a century. 
This year on 18 June there was a wonderful launch of Te Ao Hou the new dawn which was the unveiling of a distinctive new rugby jersey to mark 100 years of Maori rugby since the first game in 1910 in Rotorua. We in the Maori Party celebrate the contribution that Maori have made ever since 1888 to rugby in this country. Indeed Maori continue to make a unique impression on the status and reputation of rugby at home and across the world. 
There are more than 500 living former Maori All Blacks. Many of this elite group have also played for the All Blacks and some—like Tane Norton Buck Shelford and Taine Randell—have had the privilege of captaining both teams. There is also widespread Maori support of rugby and of course a particular highlight this year for us was the event hosted by Minister Sharples in Parliament on Thursday 18 March on the celebration of 100 years of Maori rugby. 
So when we came to the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill we were under the distinct impression that this legislation was about empowering rugby: rugby players rugby fans rugby spectators rugby historians and the like. Instead one might be forgiven for thinking that empowering liquor outlets and gambling venues is the dominant feature of the bill. 
The Government Administration Committee made a determination around the hours for gambling by inserting a new clause that ensures that operating hours for pokie machines are determined by the Sale of Liquor Act rather than the Rugby World Cup license. This bill provides more power for the Rugby World Cup Authority. During the select committee consideration it was clarified that basically the intention is to amend clause 16(1) to ensure that statutory planning instruments—the by-laws and plans—are captured under this law. Essentially it means that the authority is not constrained by by-laws. 
I think this is where the hub of our concerns starts to play out. Of course like every other party in this House we have a commitment to ensure that this bill will support the smooth and expedient administration of Rugby World Cup activities. But we cannot ignore the wise advice of the Law Commission to the select committee that “placing liquor licensing decision-making in the hands of a body that does not have ongoing experience in these types of decisions may not be conducive to expeditious decision-making.” 
Even more graphic illustration of these concerns was provided to the committee by Dr Tony Farrell from Mount Medical Centre who was a powerful witness to the effects of alcohol harm. He told the committee: “I believe the only people benefiting from the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill (RWCEB) will be the vendors of alcohol and the companies who make and supply alcohol. … I firmly oppose any aspect of this legislation that increases availability of alcohol without due control so the police should have significant discretionary powers to revoke and to suspend the sale of alcohol should problems arise.” 
The Alcohol Advisory Council gave particularly effective advice to the committee on this matter. In their view “While existing legislation expressly sets out to control the sale of liquor and contribute to the reduction of harm the proposed legislation does not … Ensuring health and safety and the minimization of harm is not as proactive as contributing to the reduction of harm.” 
I want to just summarise where we are up to. This bill has its origin in seeking to establish a Rugby World Cup Authority to enable applications for activities or facilities necessary for the proper conduct of the forthcoming Rugby World Cup to be determined efficiently. That is an honourable and sensible development. The Rugby World Cup will bring the eyes of the world into our nation and we must ensure all aspects of the administration of the activities associated are carried out with professionalism and efficiency. Our concern is whether we have the balance right. 
As we have mentioned the bill establishes a temporary process for licensing the sale and supply of liquor to the public during the period of the Rugby World Cup 2011 as an alternative to the process under the Sale of Liquor Act 1989. The bill defines the nature of a premise or area related to alcohol licences. It also determines that a licensee commits an offence and is liable to a fine not exceeding $5000 if he or she fails without reasonable excuse to appoint a manager for the purposes of the Sale of Liquor Act 1989. 
The problem is that the bill does nothing about our alcohol binge-drinking culture. In fact it seems to me that it is encouraging tourists—those who are coming in to enjoy the Rugby World Cup—to buy into our binge-drinking culture and this is something that I think we should not be exporting to the rest of the world. We should be looking at other things. For example the bill does not mention the whole concept of access tourism. The message from Rugby World Cup advocates is that the provisions in the bill are simply about providing hospitality for the tens of thousands of visitors who arrive. I am not sure how hospitable it is to have drunk people everywhere because that is what they seem to be saying. 
Hospitality could also extend towards ensuring we are truly prepared for the influx of overseas visitors through such specific and tangible provisions as ensuring the Rugby World Cup website is accessible. By that I mean being able to quickly navigate the Tourism New Zealand website to find out information about accommodation airports transport and parking which will ensure disabled visitors the elderly and others seeking to even gain access to the venues will be supported. 
We could be creating a common brand. “Be Accessible Aotearoa” would welcome all people of the world to the 2010 Rugby World Cup and we could do all this tomorrow by auditing the main tourist accommodation venues to ensure we have a set of standards around what venues have to have in order to cater for all. This is a massive area of work that is not being adequately addressed and we would like to see that improved. 
To conclude I note that the bill increases liquor supply puts the final say on Rugby World Cup activities in the hands of a group that has no guaranteed Maori representation and gives the Minister for the Rugby World Cup too much power. All of that worries us. But there are two important provisos that we cannot ignore. The first is that iwi do not seem to be at all focused on profiting from the sale of alcohol. They are focusing on other opportunities and we would be extremely loath to do anything that closes that down. The second issue is around the potential of the Minister for the Rugby World Cup to override decisions removing public participation from the process. To this effect we have certainly been interested in the amendments which Trevor Mallard has been promoting that place checks and balances upon the powers of the Minister. 
We will support this bill at its second reading but I hope that if my comments achieve anything they will serve as a prompt that if we are to be truly successful in the Rugby World Cup we must be able to cater to all—not just the boozers the booze barons and associated businesses or the gamblers and their enablers. 
JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa) 
: 
 Thank you for the opportunity to speak on the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill this afternoon. It is a very important bill because it will underpin the fact that next year New Zealand will be on show throughout 2011. 
I am quite astonished that the previous speaker Rahui Katene made no submissions in the select committee process. In fact I do not recall a member of the Maori Party coming to our select committee at any point or making any representations along the lines that are being made here in the House this afternoon. 
We are dealing with an event that will involve something like 85000 visitors coming to New Zealand. This bill is critically important to the promotion of Brand New Zealand—who we are—and it is also important for economic reasons. As I recall about 4 billion people will be watching New Zealand on TV. This will be the opportunity to showcase New Zealand to the world and to demonstrate that it is a great place to live in a great place to do business in and a great provider of food. The Rugby World Cup 2011 will be the largest event New Zealand has ever hosted and we are turning the whole country into a stadium of 4.5 million people with 48 games spread over 13 venues. 
Inevitably an event of this size and importance presents significant challenges. Anybody in this community who has actually tried to do something will realise there are rules that kill initiatives. Mr Mallard has sought an example of a reason why we need to have the particular provision to give the Minister for the Rugby World Cup an overriding power in this process. I would like to give an example from my electorate particularly from the southern end through the South Wairarapa District Council. 
New Zealand’s next newest and most major music event will hopefully take place in Martinborough at the Alana Estate on 31 December this year as the kick-off to the Rugby World Cup. By July this year negotiations had taken place between the concert organisers and the South Wairarapa District Council. Whether there was a miscommunication I am not in a position to judge but I can say to this Parliament that something like 12500 tickets were sold at an average price of $350 each for the concert. Then the whole event was ankle-tapped by the South Wairarapa District Council which said: “No no this concert cannot proceed; it needs a resource consent.” As I said whether there was a miscommunication I do not know but the consequences of this decision—and it was all spelt out about a month ago in the  
Dominion Post 
—was that an employee of the South Wairarapa District Council publicly said: “I’m going to try and stop this process from happening.” rather than: “How can I help this economic activity to happen?”. The council was absolutely negative in its approach and the consequences for the concert organisers is that they now have to fork out $50000 for consultants to put in a resource consent application and it is still not clear 2 months from the event whether the concert will be able to proceed because there is no permission in place. This situation absolutely highlights why we cannot organise something that involves 48 games in 13 venues right throughout this country trying to do something on the world stage when we have the nanny State imposing regulations and closing down activities. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: What happened to the rule of law in New Zealand? 
JOHN HAYES 
: Our select committee recognised this—and Mr Mallard was at our committee—and it came up with some significant recommendations. I acknowledge that Mr Mallard raised concerns about Part 4 the part that will allow the Minister to grant an approval in circumstances where the authority has recommended against that. Mr Mallard argued that power to grant urgent approvals should rest with the authority rather than with the Minister. He raised similar concerns in the media. The power of the Minister to grant urgent approval under Part 4 requires a recommendation from the authority. Although the Minister is not required to act in accordance with the recommendation before granting approval the Minister must also consult with the Minister for Economic Development— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Gerry Brownlee. 
JOHN HAYES 
: —yes Mr Brownlee—and he must also consult with the Minister with the relevant portfolio responsibility. For example it might be that the Minister for the Environment would need to be consulted on matters that would ordinarily require consent under the Resource Management Act. It may be that the Minister has to consult with the Minister of Police or another Minister. 
It is hoped that no need arises for the powers in Part 4 to be used but it is necessary to have available an urgent and flexible approval process to deal with approvals that may be necessary in the event that some unforeseen situation—as we have in Martinborough—occurs that could impact on the delivery of the tournament. It is considered that the provisions in Part 4 will ensure that appropriate decisions will be made in such circumstances. It is also appropriate given the extraordinary nature of the power to grant urgent approvals that that power is given to the Minister of the Crown who is publicly accountable rather than to an unelected body. With those comments I say that I support this bill wholeheartedly. 
PHIL TWYFORD (Labour) 
: 
 Labour does not need convincing that there is a great deal at stake for New Zealand in the Rugby World Cup 2011. We do not need persuading that there will be a television audience of close to 4 billion people or that this is important for Brand New Zealand as the previous speaker put it. Labour would be supporting the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill at its second reading if the Government had seen fit and seen sense and had removed the provisions that we shall perhaps call the “Murray McCully Provisions” in this bill. Part 4 is the sticking point here; it is the part we object to. We do not believe that the Government has made the case that the Minister should be given unfettered power to override the recommendations of the Rugby World Cup Authority. 
At least when John Hayes was speaking he acknowledged that there is a substantive issue here. I was horrified to hear Jacqui Dean earlier deny that there was even a provision in this bill that gives the Minister power under the urgency provisions to grant an urgent approval or to decline an application against the recommendations of the authority. In case Jacqui Dean is listening to or watching this debate I want to point out that Part 4 of the bill goes for page after page setting out the process and criteria that should be used by the authority in considering urgent applications. At the end of that part after nearly six pages of process and detailed prescription about how the authority should go about considering these issues it states: “A decision of the Minister under this section is final.” Just a few lines before it states: “The Minister may grant an application for an urgent approval in full or in part or decline the application.” potentially in complete disregard of the work that has been done by what will undoubtedly be a highly qualified panel that constitutes the authority. As my colleagues have pointed out it will include either a retired judge or a lawyer of at least 7 years’ standing. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Two of them. 
PHIL TWYFORD 
: Two of them. Undoubtedly they will be people who are experienced in town planning and other relevant disciplines. 
There is a reason why this is important. There are good reasons why in our system of Government Ministers do not exercise unfettered power. They are bound by the  
Cabinet Manual 
 and they are bound by convention their relationship with public servants their reliance on the advice of officials and their obligation under law to make decisions in a reasonable way. These are all important checks on executive power. This Minister Murray McCully perhaps more than anybody in this Parliament has demonstrated why we have those rules and conventions. They are there for a good reason and it is called accountable Government. In 1999 we had a Minister of Tourism who was the subject of an investigation by the Audit Office. There were allegations that members of the Tourism Board had resigned in protest at ministerial intervention and at the suggestion that the Minister had sought to gain control of the promotional activities of that Tourism Board in order— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Who was the Minister? 
PHIL TWYFORD 
: Well the then Minister of Tourism was the Hon Murray McCully. It was alleged that he had subverted the activities of the Tourism Board so that he could “build a feel-good factor for the election.” Three members of that board resigned in protest and $900000 was paid out to those three people. 
The Audit Office found that there had been politicisation and unwarranted political interference in the activities of that board. I quote Victoria Main from the  
Dominion Post  
on 3 May 1999 when she said: “The Audit Office report raises questions about two highly unorthodox units the Office of Tourism and Sport and the Tourism and Sport Ministerial Advisory Board that the bureaucrat-hating Mr McCully set up as sources of independent advice.” Well if there was an example of why Ministers should be bound by the conventions of accountable Government and be required to justify their decisions against the impartial advice of public servants this is one such case study— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Judges in this case—even more important. 
PHIL TWYFORD 
: —that is right—and this is one such Minister. 
There are plenty of other examples and examples that have happened much more recently. We have a Minister of Foreign Affairs who regularly disregards the advice of officials in the administration of our taxpayer-funded overseas aid programmes of half a billion dollars and who repeatedly rejects their advice until he gets the advice he wants. 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: He bullies them. 
PHIL TWYFORD 
: He bullies them and he micro-manages the details of a half-billion-dollar Government programme. We saw recently the awarding of a $78000 contract to the former National MP Mark Blumsky. The awarding of that contract by the Minister of Foreign Affairs was without a tender. That is highly unorthodox; it is highly unusual. Almost every significant contract let in the overseas aid programme is tendered yet this one which went to a political crony of the Minister was not tendered. That raises serious questions I think about the commitment of this Minister and this Government to the basic conventions of accountable Government. 
I can give members four or five examples that we have seen over the last 18 months of the cutting of multi-year funding commitments to aid projects in the Pacific with no policy rationale and on the basis of there being no written advice from officials. We saw the cutting of nearly a million dollars a year from the Council for International Development the peak body of the country’s international development non-governmental organisations. A similar amount of money was committed in a multi-year contract to the Global Focus development education programme based here in Wellington. More recently there has been the cutting of a major commitment to the Foundation of the Peoples of the South Pacific International for doing disaster risk reduction work in the Pacific but no written advice justified that. It is a classic example of meddling and micro-management and of a total lack of accountable Government. 
It is precisely the kind of behaviour that should give this House pause for thought before the Government pushes through these urgency provisions. So far Government members have failed to come up with one compelling scenario that would justify why these extreme powers are being given to the Minister in this case. This is the Minister who only a few months ago did his utmost to bowl the heritage sheds on Queen’s Wharf in Auckland and it was only a knock-’em-down drag-’em-out fight led by Mike Lee and the Auckland Regional Council that convinced the Minister that he should listen to public opinion and negotiate an acceptable compromise. 
Under the powers in this bill he could override the advice from a highly qualified and eminent panel of commissioners on the authority. He could go ahead and demolish a heritage structure on his own whim without any official advice to justify it. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
PHIL TWYFORD 
: I just want to summarise the concerns I was speaking about before the dinner break. Labour would be voting for this bill at its second reading if the Government was to see sense and remove the extraordinary power that it intends to put in the hands of the Minister for the Rugby World Cup the Hon Murray McCully. He has demonstrated more than almost anyone I could imagine in this Parliament that Ministers should not be given unfettered executive power and that they need to be held accountable. Trevor Mallard has put an amendment on the table. If the Government sees fit to support it we will vote for the bill. 
KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National) 
: 
 I stand to support the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill. The aim of the bill is to attain the consent and the regulatory approval essential for the smooth running of the activities related to the Rugby World Cup and of the facilities that will support that event. It is extremely important for New Zealand to host this event successfully and to take all opportunities offered for such a large-scale event which will in turn bring prosperity and opportunities to businesses and chances to show the world that New Zealand can capably hold such successful events. 
Hosting an event on such a scale which will see 85000 overseas visitors and tens of thousands of New Zealanders attending games in the Rugby World Cup in different zones brings a lot of challenges. Therefore it is crucial that we have special legislation set up to enable the event to be a success and to make sure we make the most out of all the opportunities the event brings. This bill is very important because the existing regulatory approval process will not be able to process the extraordinary requirements of the tournament. This bill will be able to provide the urgent approval that may be needed to resolve unforeseeable circumstances immediately before and during the tournament. 
The Government Administration Committee considered this bill and recommended a few changes which are non-controversial. Some of the recommendations of the select committee include a change of use of the provisions in the Building Act to enable apartment buildings to be used for temporary Rugby World Cup accommodation without seeking building consents. It is also recommended that Rugby World Cup activities and events occurring on or near water be declared maritime events under the Maritime Transport Act 1994 which will allow the police to create an exclusion zone in designated areas such as Queen’s Wharf. 
The select committee also recommended allowing cruise ships and chartered clubs and holders of Sale of Liquor Act licences to apply for Rugby World Cup liquor licences. It is worth mentioning that the granting of a Rugby World Cup liquor licence will not extend the hours during which existing gambling machines can be operated and it will also prevent an installation of such machines in newly licensed areas. 
Appointments to the Rugby World Cup Authority are to be made by the Minister for the Rugby World Cup following consultation with the Minister for the Environment the Minister of Justice and the Minister for Economic Development and the authority will operate on a cost-recovery basis by passing costs on to applicants. The administrative and secretarial support to the Rugby World Cup Authority will be provided by the territorial authorities of each district in which an application is made. The ability to grant approvals by the Rugby World Cup Authority will expire on 31 October 2011. All approvals under this bill will be temporary and will expire no later than 31 December 2011. 
I support this bill. I recognise the huge opportunities that the Rugby World Cup will bring to our country. 
KELVIN DAVIS (Labour) 
: 
 Kia ora Mr Assistant Speaker. He mihi hoki tenei ki a koutou o Ngati Manawa me Ngati Whare. Tena ra koutou. 
[ 
Greetings to you Mr Assistant Speaker. This salutation is to you as well Ngati Manawa and Ngati Whare. Welcome 
.] 
The Rugby World Cup is the third-largest sporting event in the world third only to the Olympics and the FIFA World Cup. This comes from a diehard rugby fanatic: everybody in this House and everybody watching this debate needs to realise that the on-field results of the Rugby World Cup are not what is most important for New Zealand. Now do not get me wrong I really want it to be Richie McCaw who this time next year lifts the Webb Ellis trophy above his head. I do not know whether I can take another 4 years with a thick cloud of despair hanging over my head and I really hope it is Richie McCaw who lifts that trophy next year. 
But it is not about the rugby. What is most important about the Rugby World Cup next year are the 3000 media people who will arrive on our shores; media people with their pens poised to write stories about New Zealand and their cameras poised to take photographs and hours and hours of footage of New Zealand. Those people will be travelling from north to south east to west and all around New Zealand experiencing our landscapes our people and our unique Maori culture and heritage. They will be visiting our art galleries our museums and our vineyards. They will be participating in activities all around New Zealand and in between that they will even get to watch a bit of rugby. Those 3000 media people will be portraying New Zealand to an audience of 4 billion people and if we can get just 1 percent of those 4 billion people to say New Zealand is a place they really want to visit and if 1 percent of them come to New Zealand in the next 10 years then the Rugby World Cup will have been a real success for New Zealand. 
Aside from those 3000 media people 70000 to 80000 visitors will land on our shores and do exactly the same thing: they will travel north to south and east to west. They will go to the museums vineyards and art galleries and they will sit in our cafes. They will participate in all the activities that will be organised around the Rugby World Cup. They will meet our people and experience Maori culture. When they go back we want them to tell a dozen of their mates that they missed out on the experience of a lifetime and that they need to come down to New Zealand. If we can achieve that if they tell their friends and families to come down to New Zealand then the Rugby World Cup will have been a success for New Zealand. 
What we cannot afford are any “Delhi moments” or people visiting or watching saying “Crikey! New Zealand was disorganised it was chaotic and it was not prepared for us.” That is why the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill is good legislation bar one point. We want to work with the Government to make sure that the Rugby World Cup is a success. We want to make sure that everybody who comes here goes back and tells the rest of the world what a great place New Zealand was to visit how highly organised it was that everything shone and was polished and that everything worked really well. 
But as my colleagues have explained we have one issue with this bill and we would like that issue to be ironed out. We believe that we need to remove the ability the Minister for the Rugby World Cup has under this legislation to override any decision of the Rugby World Cup Authority. We have asked what possible credibility the Minister could have over and above that of the Rugby World Cup Authority which is made up of a judge lawyers and other experts and people with experience in their particular fields. We would expect the Minister to defer to those people and their wisdom and experience and follow their recommendations on any particular issue. The Government has not been able to describe a situation yet where unfettered power is necessary but it still insists that the power remain. As clause 51(4) says in Part 4 “A decision of the Minster under this section is final”. That means it does not matter how rational and reasonable an argument may be or how good it is if the Minister does not like that argument then he can say no to it. There is no right of appeal; there is no right to any come-back. We believe that unfettered power is unnecessary. We believe that there is an inherent danger in one Minister having unfettered power. I guarantee that if we swapped sides and there was a Labour Government over there and a National Opposition over here and we were debating the same issue National would also be raising it with us. The only difference is that we would listen to National. 
The argument of John Hayes that the Minister’s involvement will hasten the process is flawed. He claims that after the authority has made a decision on any application the Minister can consult with various Ministers perhaps the Minister for Economic Development or the Minister of Police. Well it will not streamline the process if the Minister listens to a recommendation and then goes off to consult with three four or five—or however many—other Ministers. This simply adds steps to the process and in no way streamlines or speeds the process up. Therefore the notion that granting the Minister unfettered powers will make a decision quicker is nonsense. 
When Mr Hayes’ argument ran out of steam and puff he just flung that good old Tory endearment at us that Labour was being a nanny State. I do not quite understand that. Here we are arguing for an organisation’s decision to have standing and mana and he was arguing for the Minister to have unfettered power and to override the decision of the authority—and he is calling us nanny State. 
At the Committee stage of this bill Labour in the name of the Hon Trevor Mallard intends to introduce an amendment that will provide that the Minister may not grant an urgent approval that has not been recommended by the authority. This will introduce greater democratic oversight to the urgent approval process. 
It is important that the Rugby World Cup is highly organised. It is important that we put on our best show for the rest of the world. It is important that we do not have any “Delhi moments” where we are disorganised and chaotic and things are not organised properly. But we can make sure that all that organisation happens under this legislation without the one part that we disagree with which is the part that gives the Minister unfettered power to overrule any decision of the authority. Unless we have ironed that out the Labour Party will not support this bill. I think National needs to seriously consider that small part of the bill. Kia ora. 
NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central) 
: 
 I acknowledge the presence of Ngati Whare and Ngati Manawa in the gallery: tena koutou. 
I am pleased to speak on the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill. I will speak on three things this evening. Firstly I will set out the scale of the tournament to outline how important this legislation is to New Zealand. Secondly I will briefly highlight where we are at in terms of infrastructure and delivery for the cup and thirdly I will touch on two key issues that have been raised by the Opposition—provisions for urgent consents and issues regarding gambling—during the submissions process. 
A major reason we need this legislation is that we are stepping up to hold what will be the third-largest sporting event in the world. It will also be the largest sporting event this country has ever held. In terms of people we are expecting 85000 international visitors over the 6-week period of the tournament. On top of that tens of thousands of Kiwis will need to travel and be accommodated around the country to attend games and be part of the fan zones. 
The tournament is not just about Auckland and our main centres; we will need to be able to accommodate domestic travel and infrastructure throughout New Zealand. We have made a deliberate decision to spread the tournament throughout the country and into the heart of provincial and rural New Zealand so that this tournament can be about a stadium of 4 million people with 48 matches in 13 venues across New Zealand. In short we are spreading the love all over the country so that all New Zealanders can experience the cup. This is the right thing to do given that we have so many people in this country who are passionate about rugby but it is also the right thing to do because this is not just about rugby as Kelvin Davis acknowledged. It is about the extraordinary opportunity for economic development from the country’s exposure and from tourism from the cup. 
That moves me to the fact that we are on track in terms of infrastructure and services for the Rugby World Cup. I was recently with the Minister for the Rugby World Cup and the Prime Minister at the re-opening of Eden Park. The redevelopment is superb. We have all stadium projects on track. The new Otago stadium will be delivered next year but the rest will be delivered this year. We have confirmed team bases and logistics and we have tested a variety of match-day processes. We have launched a drive to recruit 5000 volunteers and our ticket sales are on track with over 500000 having been sold in phase one. We will deliver in terms of the infrastructure and services that are required to hold this wonderful sporting event for New Zealand. 
If we focus the mind then to when 4 billion people will be watching New Zealand hold the largest sporting event this country has ever seen and 2000 media will be here to report what happens it is the view of members on this side of the House that just having the people and the infrastructure in place may not be enough. We have to have systems in place to deal with the difficult issues and situations that may arise. So it is pleasing that Opposition members have stated that they agree with the Government that the hosting requirements of an event of this scale present significant challenges. In principle the Opposition also agrees that the bill will provide temporary legislation to enable the timely granting of consents. 
But we are left with contention on two issues. I would like to correct the previous speaker Kelvin Davis. One of the issues that he has not mentioned is an issue raised by Trevor Mallard in terms of the gambling provisions. This is a situation where we have members on this side of the House agreeing on the gambling provisions and we also have all of the members on the other side of the House agreeing—except for one member Trevor Mallard. He is the true “Lone Ranger” of this House. Trevor Mallard has said—and there are splits within Labour on this issue—that he disagrees with the gambling provisions. National has said that the reality with these cruise ships is that they are effectively floating hotels. But we will not allow them to be exempt from the gambling provisions because they are floating hotels and they will have to be subject to New Zealand law. We think that that is the right decision as do the majority of Labour members except for Trevor Mallard. 
The second issue of contention is the issue about urgent consents. Let me be very clear: firstly it is really hoped that we will never ever need to use these provisions within Part 4. Secondly let me be also very clear that this is not some unfettered secret process as has been made out by the Opposition. This is about contingency planning and risk management for what will be the largest sporting event in New Zealand’s history so let us also be very clear about what the specific process is. Before granting the approval the Minister must consult with the Minister for Economic Development and also with Ministers responsible for other relevant portfolios. The Government believes that this is necessary in order to have an urgent and flexible approval process to deal with approvals that may be necessary in the event of an unforeseen situation. 
I know members opposite have asked us to come up with what may be an unforeseen event but I ask them to reflect on the contradiction of that. We actually do believe that there could be some unforeseen events. We have given some examples such as road closures whereby—let us be clear again—the Rugby World Cup Authority will go through the process of considering the situation and making a recommendation to the Minister but it might be that the Minister for Economic Development and another Minister such as the Minister of Transport will decide that they need to overturn that decision. We think that that is a natural check and balance on the system. It is also our view that given the extraordinary nature of the power to grant approvals it is best that a Minister of the Crown has the ultimate public accountability rather than an unelected body as members opposite would have us believe. 
Members on this side of the House support legislation that will enable us to minimise the risk to New Zealand when 4 billion people and 2000 media will be watching us. We are united on this side of the House; we are not split and we are delighted that we will be able to deliver not only the infrastructure but also the legislation and the people to ensure that when the eyes of the world are on New Zealand we will play our best game. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 51 
New Zealand Labour 41; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Bill read a second time.