Robertson Grant: Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill — In Committee 
Robertson Grant: Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:668;Page:15105] 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) 
: 
 I want to pick up where my colleague Kelvin Davis left off. On this side of the Chamber we have been making the point throughout this debate on the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill that we are greatly concerned about the ability of the Minister for the Rugby World Cup Murray McCully in consultation with Gerry Brownlee and Nick Smith to override the decisions of the Rugby World Cup Authority. 
On this side of the Chamber we have been quite comfortable with the idea of the authority existing and being there for urgent approvals but setting up a process whereby the authority’s decisions can be ignored by the Minister is one that we believe is dangerous in particular in relation to Part 5. As my colleague Kelvin Davis has just mentioned clause 77 refers to “Variation suspension or cancellation of licence”. All of those things fall into the authority’s ability to look after and therefore in turn put in place a situation where the Minister could undermine a decision of the authority in relation to a liquor licence. I think that is a great example of why we are concerned about the undermining of the Rugby World Cup Authority’s powers by effectively giving the Minister the right of veto. Clause 77 is quite interesting because it allows an inspector or police constable to at any time apply to the authority for an order to vary or revoke a condition of a Rugby World Cup licence or impose a new condition. Obviously that is something someone would do only if he or she were seriously concerned about a licence yet the authority’s power to consider that is automatically undermined by giving the Minister the ability to veto what it says. On this side of the Chamber we think that Part 5 includes a number of examples of where the clause that was unfortunately passed in Part 4 allowing the Minister to veto things is wrong. 
I say to the Government Administration Committee that I think it made some good changes in Part 5 relating to liquor licences. There has been some clarification to ensure for instance that we now know these licences are very much limited to the time of the Rugby World Cup and that is important. That change also puts in place the ability to clarify that the suspension of a Sale of Liquor Act licence will be just for the duration of a Rugby World Cup licence. A new clause 60A has been inserted to provide the authority the ability to grant licences concurrently so that we know that all of the venues will be operating under similar arrangements. That is important. I draw the distinction here between the Rugby World Cup arrangements and what happened on Saturday night at Eden Park. The Rugby World Cup is a bigger and greater event. It will be one where people will be moving from ground to ground. Visitors from overseas will be getting used to consistent conditions and I think it is unlikely that we will see a repeat of what happened at Eden Park. But that does not mean that we should not set in place cautious measures because we need to do that to protect our reputation. 
I return to the question of whether a legacy investment from the Rugby World Cup in the form of wet-pour facilities at Eden Park is justifiable. We saw on Saturday night the dangers in a situation where alcohol is being sold in bottles or cans. We know from papers that have been previously discussed during this debate that the police recommended that wet-pour facilities be provided at Eden Park and we know that Rugby World Cup Ltd and the Government have opposed that. The police are reflecting the health and safety concerns that we saw at Eden Park on Saturday. Having wet-pour facilities means that beer is provided in cups. It reduces the danger of the kinds of missiles and projectiles that bottles can become. 
Wet-pour facilities are quite slow. Kelvin Davis has just mentioned that if people have to go up and take cups of beer away that is much slower than carrying bottles and cans but that has to be balanced against the safety concerns that the police have been raising. We have heard from a number of residents around Eden Park and from people who attended the game that serious consideration should be given to the installation of wet-pour facilities at Eden Park. Gerry Brownlee dismissed those things when the police came to him three times to ask him to reconsider that and I think the Government now needs to seriously reconsider whether a legacy investment is possible for Eden Park. It is a facility that no doubt will be used in the future for major events and it needs to provide a safe environment for everybody who goes there. Although I think that some things in Part 5 are good and useful the Government needs to consider its options for Eden Park and how it serves alcohol in future.