Hipkins Chris: Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill — Third Reading 
Hipkins Chris: Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:668;Page:15332] 
CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) 
: 
 I am happy to take a call on the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill and like my colleague Trevor Mallard I rise more in sadness than in anger to say the Labour Party will oppose this legislation. Although I speak against the bill most of my comments will be in favour of its provisions because overall it is a good bill. The Government Administration Committee has done a very good job of working its way through a reasonably complex although at the same time straightforward bill. The Committee of the whole House debated quite extensively the provisions of the bill and did so quite constructively for the most part as well. The reason that I oppose the bill boils down to one issue: the extent to which the Minister for the Rugby World Cup the Hon Murray McCully would be given unbridled power to overturn decisions of the Rugby World Cup Authority and not only to overturn a decision in a negative fashion—in other words to retain the status quo—but also to overturn a decision in order to approve something that the authority has deemed would be inappropriate. 
Nathan Guy the junior Minister spoke earlier on behalf of the senior Minister. On that note I say that if that was his audition speech he should not be clearing his diary for the Cabinet meeting on Monday. He talked about unelected officials and said decisions should not be left to unelected officials but should be given to elected officials. I think that is totally the wrong approach. Where does he draw the line on that? I ask him that because a heck of a lot of decisions are currently taken by courts judges and various unelected panels on matters very very similar to those addressed by this bill. If the Government’s new rule of operation says all of these decisions should be taken by elected officials it opens a whole can of worms. At some future date the Government may regret going down that road if this sets a precedent for how it approaches future legislation. It would be very concerning if the Government said controversial decisions should now be taken by elected officials rather than there being the independence of decision making by the judiciary or by an independent panel. 
Trevor Mallard pointed out that New Zealand is one of the least corrupt countries in the world. We constantly rank very well in our level of transparency our openness and in the quality of the decision making of our central government agencies. 
John Hayes 
: Except under Labour. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Pansy Wong? 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: One could ask Pansy Wong. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Hayes is talking about Pansy. 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: That is right. One of the reasons is that in most cases there is a very clear arm’s-length relationship between Ministers and the bureaucracy that administers things. In this case that arm’s-length relationship is being seriously compromised by this legislation. All New Zealanders should be concerned about that because it is a trend that we are increasingly seeing from this Government. 
All parties in the House were criticised for the Canterbury Earthquake Response and Recovery Act. The Labour Party voted in favour of that legislation but this bill goes further than that Act. Orders in Council made under the Canterbury earthquake legislation go to the Regulations Review Committee and there is a provision for those orders to be overturned in this House. There is no such provision in this bill for decisions that the Minister makes so there are fewer safeguards. A similar power is being given to a Minister as was given in the case of the Canterbury earthquake legislation but without the safeguard that we put into the Canterbury earthquake legislation. 
John Hayes 
: Yes but it has to go to more than one Minister. 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: It does but the Minister does not need to follow the advice of those other Ministers. The Minister has the ultimate power. The Minister gets a recommendation from the Rugby World Cup Authority and has to consult other Ministers but then he can do whatever he likes. Murray McCully can still do whatever he likes and this is not a Minister who when it comes to meddling in administrative matters has a particularly clear track record. We need only to go back to the last time he was in Government and look at the Tourism Board fiasco to find that he has a history of dabbling in things that he should not dabble in. So I have been very concerned about that provision. 
John Hayes 
: He’s learnt by his mistakes. 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: One can hope he has learnt from his mistakes. 
The Rugby World Cup represents a really exciting opportunity for New Zealand and it is disappointing to be an Opposition member who is speaking against this legislation because I am very excited about the event coming to New Zealand next year. Right from the very beginning Labour has endeavoured—as Trevor Mallard pointed out making a bid to host the Rugby World Cup was first mooted under the tenure of the previous Labour Government—to take a bipartisan approach or a cross-party approach involving all of the parties to ensure that there was a “New Zealand Incorporated” approach to the hosting of the Rugby World Cup. We have worked very constructively I think with the new National Government since it was elected 2 years ago to make sure that this event will be successful for New Zealand. This will be the largest event that we have ever hosted and it is important that we get it right. As Nathan Guy said in his speech— 
Paul Quinn 
: Is it the largest event we have ever hosted? 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: This will be the largest event that we have ever hosted in New Zealand. Nathan Guy said there is no opportunity for there to be a second chance. There is no such opportunity which is one of the reasons that it is important to get the process aspects of this legislation right and we have not done that. 
I will put that issue aside for a moment and concentrate on why it is important that we get the hosting of the Rugby World Cup right. Potentially 4 billion people around the world will be watching the event on television and 70000-odd visitors will be coming to New Zealand to take part in Rugby World Cup - related events. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Some of those visitors will travel from Australia twice. 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: That is quite true. It will be a significant boost to the New Zealand economy and will generate $1.2 billion worth of economic activity. It will be on a scale that we have never seen here before so it is really exciting for New Zealand. I know that the 4 million New Zealanders who live here will be 100 percent behind the event and will do everything they can to make sure it is an absolute success. The Government of course will do well out of it: an estimated $112 million - odd in extra tax revenue will be generated out of Rugby World Cup - related activities. So it is important that we get it right and that is why this legislation is important notwithstanding the reservations that I have just raised. We will be under tight time frames to make sure everything is in place. We will need to make sure that the Government can move quickly to remedy any issues that arise as we move closer to the Rugby World Cup. 
Overall the provisions in this legislation are pretty sound. I will briefly canvass them. The liquor licensing provisions are very sensible; I have no problems with them. The point that Jacqui Dean made is one that I raised in the Committee stage. In my view the legislation does not extend any of the powers of liquor licensing beyond those that would already be available. It simply truncates the process and speeds the decisions up a bit. That is one of the reasons why I have no qualms about supporting that. I am pleased about the provisions regarding gambling that the select committee agreed on. They will ensure that the opportunities for gambling are not extended under this legislation because that was not the intention. 
I am pleased that we have worked through quite carefully the issues around how the Rugby World Cup Authority should be supported administratively. Having local authorities support the Rugby World Cup Authority administratively makes sense first of all because it does not create a temporary bureaucracy that would be established and then disbanded after a short period of time but also because it means the authority will have available to it all of the necessary expertise. In dealing with consenting issues and other local authority - related issues having access to that quality of information that expertise and that knowledge of local areas will be really important for the Rugby World Cup Authority. So overall the provisions put in place for the administrative secretariat are the right things to do. 
I am very pleased with most of what this bill contains. I am very pleased that the Rugby World Cup will be hosted in New Zealand. I do not think I can afford to go to any of the matches myself but like the other 4 million Kiwis I will certainly be watching on television and cheering the All Blacks along. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: You can get a $35 ticket for Palmerston North. 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: I am not sure whether I want to go to Palmerston North even for the rugby.