Hipkins Chris: Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Hipkins Chris: Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:668;Page:14888] 
CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) 
: 
 I am happy to take a call on Part 3 of the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill. This part deals with approvals and declarations. First I want to set out what the scope of this particular part is. It sets out the scope of the applications that may be made and how they are to be lodged. The applications may seek approvals declarations or a change of conditions of an approval or declaration or of existing approvals granted under other enactments. In addition there is a provision for applications relating to events that are not connected with the Rugby World Cup 2011 but for which event organisers wish to test whether a proposed activity—for example traffic management—is likely to be adequate for the same purpose in relation to the Rugby World Cup 2011. 
I want to talk about that in particular because here in Wellington earlier this year at the Westpac Stadium we had an event that was designed specifically to test whether the stadium the security facilities and all those who were going to be involved in hosting the Rugby World Cup events in Wellington were adequately prepared and ready. For example Westpac Stadium wanted to put in place some changes around how traffic management worked. I think it is important that if it had required additional authority for for example road closures and those kinds of things it would have needed a provision for that to happen as there is under this legislation. Even though the Wellington event—I think it was an All Blacks test match—was not directly connected with the Rugby World Cup it was important that it could be used as a tester to make sure that the systems being put in place for the Rugby World Cup were going to work. 
This bill allows the authorities to determine that events not directly connected with the Rugby World Cup can be deemed to be like Rugby World Cup events for the purpose of testing things and making sure they will work. In order for that to happen an applicant needs to establish that measures have been undertaken to obtain the necessary approval or declaration through the normal processes but that it is unlikely that it could be obtained in time. That is an important principle that runs through this legislation and it is something we talked about a lot at the Government Administration Committee. It is really important that this bill is not seen simply as a short cut for sloppy management or bad practice. 
Things will come up in the course of organising the Rugby World Cup that are unforeseen that cannot be dealt with through normal processes and that will therefore need a truncated or a shortened process. But that is not an excuse for people to simply put everything on hold and say: “We know that the authority is being established and that the Minister will have extra powers so we just won’t worry about it yet. We’ll worry about it further down the track.” That is not the message we want to send to anybody who is involved with Rugby World Cup activities. 
The message we want to send is: “Do it now if you can use the regular processes and don’t wait but if you need to then obviously these powers will be available.” So unless the enactment that would normally apply to an application makes no provision for public notice to be given all applications must be publicly notified by the authority. I think it is important to stress that at this point. 
We want to respect existing democratic processes and ensure that this legislation is not used in such a way as to curtail the rights of New Zealand citizens to have a say in quite significant approvals processes. Any submission must be made no later than 10 working days after the date on which public notice of an application is given. Ten working days is a reasonably truncated time frame so it will be important that those who have an interest in these issues are keeping a close eye on what is going on. 
If the authority considers it necessary or if a person with a right to be heard requests to be heard a hearing will be heard no later than 10 working days after the closing date for submissions. By the time we have a 10-day notification period and potentially a 10-day process for submissions to be heard we are already up to 20 working days potentially for something that will be considered under this part. Any appeal must be brought not later than 5 working days after the authority has notified its determination so we are now looking at a period of 25 days potentially for decisions to be made. 
Although this part provides for some truncation of the process it does not unnecessarily restrict the ability of people to make submissions and to be heard. There was some discussion at the Government Administration Committee about the notification provisions and whether given the shortened periods notification in the daily papers was required. For example if we are talking about a 10-day time period for notification depending on the timing of dealing with newspaper classified advertising deadlines it might not necessarily be practical to advertise something in the way it would normally be advertised by using the newspapers. The question then became whether it was possible for advertising to be done on a website and so forth. 
This part sets out the methods of making any application that is to be considered under it. It is important. It sets out that applications must be made in writing and in a form and manner prescribed by regulations or as approved by the authority. I think it is important that applications are in written form. People will not be able to ring up the authority say they have a great idea and ask for approval. There have to be robust processes for doing that. Making sure that an application is in writing is important. It has to be lodged for registration with the administrative secretariat and accompanied by any information the case may require and any deposit that the administrative secretariat may require. 
The previous part Part 2 which we have dealt with allows the administrative secretariat to put in place provisions for the deposit and a bond in some cases. That can all be part of the written application process that the secretariat and the authority may put in place. There were some significant changes to the way this section of the bill was structured by the select committee. The changes were mostly technical so I will not go into those in great detail. 
There is quite a significant clause—clause 19—that deals with the information that needs to be supplied with applications for approvals and declarations. So the House in passing this legislation is giving some quite detailed instructions to the authority on the process that we want it to be engaging in. I think it is really important that when we are truncating a democratic process which we are doing in this case—by removing the power from existing decision-making bodies and giving it to the authority—we still have a very robust process in place for the authority that will be making those decisions and dealing with that. 
I note just to give an example some of the things that clause 19 talks about in terms of the information that must be supplied. It refers to “all the information required under the enactment that would but for this Act apply;”. So if people are applying for a licence permit or whatever they will still need to supply all the same information that they would need to supply under the existing Act were it not for this truncated process. That is a very important provision. 
Clause 21A talks about the procedure in the event of overlapping applications to the statutory person or body or authority for the same activity and I will not go into those in any great detail. Subpart 2 talks about jurisdiction public notification and the making of submissions. I think that is really important. Again it is quite prescriptive in terms of the process for the notification and submissions to be determined and also for the determination of an affected person’s status. All these things would be regularly covered by established systems and processes were the normal processes to apply. Here we are talking about a truncated process—establishing something that will be operating for a very short period of time in potentially quite a pressured environment given the time constraints on it. 
I think it is really important given that the authority will not have time to establish its own processes systems and body of precedent or case law or whatever we want to call it that the House be quite prescriptive about how we expect it to operate and function. That is what this part does. It sets out in great detail the provisions relating to notification submissions and consultation. For example clause 25 specifies what the contents of a public notice must be and it includes things like the nature of the application including “the activity facility or test activity or facility for which approval is sought …” and so forth.