Lees-Galloway Iain: Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Lees-Galloway Iain: Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:668;Page:14899] 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North) 
: 
 Before I address subpart 6 which is the part of Part 3 that I intend to talk about I need to just discuss the misrepresentation of my position made by Nikki Kaye in her previous address. She stated that I was opposed to the entire bill. She obviously has not been listening very carefully either to my arguments or to those of all the Labour members in the Chamber tonight because we are being quite clear that we are opposed to only one part of this bill. We will get to that part shortly I have no doubt. The problem with that part is that it overrides so many of the other good aspects of this legislation. I just needed to clarify that. 
Ms Kaye also brought up hobbits; I was pleased that she brought up hobbits and expanded the debate a little in that area. Clearly National is trying tonight as it has done in the last few weeks to sow division. It is trying to tell New Zealand that Labour hates rugby that it is opposed to the Rugby World Cup and that we do not want to get the job done. Actually this is complex legislation. Part 3 is particularly complex legislation. It deals with applications paperwork and processes that a number of people in New Zealand will have to go through and it is important that we as a Parliament make sure that it gets the scrutiny that it deserves so that when it is finally enacted it is usable and it makes sense. There is a lot of red tape in here; it is funny that the ACT Party has not actually taken any calls on it. The requests that are made of territorial authorities in Part 2 are again areas that I thought the ACT Party would make a contribution on but it did not. 
National in its contributions this evening has been clear that it wants to drive a wedge between New Zealand as a whole and the Labour Party in its position tonight; it is quite similar to the way it has dealt with  
The Hobbit 
. We can contrast that with the way Helen Clark dealt with securing the Rugby World Cup 2011 for New Zealand. She built relationships. She built consensus. She brought all the parties together. There was even a sense of bipartisanship within the House. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Don Brash’s photo was in the bid document. 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY 
: There you go. That is how much consensus Helen Clark sought to build around putting this bid together—indeed she was successful in securing the bid. We can contrast that with the divisive approach that John Key has taken to  
The Hobbit 
 and the fact that he has now bent New Zealand over in the face of Warner Bros a corporation. We are a sovereign nation yet a corporation is coming to this country and telling us that we have to change our laws. Do members know what? We will bend right over for them. 
Phil Twyford 
: How much? 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY 
: And indeed we say “How much?”. All that money is going directly to— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Some of the members who have now got into a regular barracking will desist. 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY 
: Thank you very much Mr Chairperson. I appreciate the assistance; I did not really feel as though I needed it but I appreciate it. I think it is reasonable given some of the debate that we have heard from National to contrast that approach— 
Jacqui Dean 
: There’s only one thing New Zealanders care about. 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY 
: Yes. Again they are misrepresenting. I think it is Jacqui Dean; it is hard to tell. Jacqui Dean is trying to misrepresent Labour’s position. Of course Labour is in support of having  
The Hobbit  
in New Zealand. Again the Labour Government built relationships and worked very closely with Warner Bros New Line Cinema and Peter Jackson. We got consensus and were able to put  
The Lord of the Rings 
 on in New Zealand without bending over in front of an American corporation. That is what John Key has done: he has bent this country over. 
I come back to subpart 6 of Part 3 of the bill. It refers to appeal rights. Clause 43 states: “A person or body that applied for an approval a declaration a test approval or declaration or a change to the conditions of an approval a declaration or a test approval or declaration and is dissatisfied with the determination of the Authority under section 22(1) … may appeal to the High Court”—they may appeal to the High Court—“but only on a question of law.” Clause 43 is very tight and very specific about what grounds an applicant may appeal on and the process through which they may appeal. But you know what? We may as well not even bother having that clause in the legislation because we have Part 4. A savvy applicant who was not happy with the decision of the authority if they had the right connections—perhaps if they were a member of the National Party—would simply appeal to Murray McCully. That is all they would have to do. They would have to get the Minister on side. It does not matter how out of order their application was it does not matter where it went wrong and it does not matter whether it was destroying a historic building or whether it was outside the scope of the Rugby World Cup—all the Minister would have to do is with one stroke of the pen say that it was approved. 
We may as well just take clause 43 out of the legislation altogether. Although it is a very practical and sensible appeal process it is completely undermined by Part 4—completely undermined by Part 4. Indeed the right of appeal to the High Court may be made only on a question of law against a determination of the Authority made under clauses 30 31 39 or 40(4). So it is a very very tight method by which and area on which an applicant can appeal. Again that definition—that narrowing of the areas in which an applicant can appeal—may as well not be in the bill at all because we have Part 4. It is interesting that the National members have gone awfully quiet. That is why we need to have the kind of scrutiny that we are putting on this bill. We have to question whether there are superfluous aspects of the bill and whether we might be able to make it more efficient by simply trimming out some of the contradictions that lie within it. 
Another area of absolute specificity that is dealt with within Part 3 is the area of test events. I have to agree with my colleague the Hon Trevor Mallard. When I first read it because I was not on the select committee and I have not been involved with this bill up to this point I was a little confused. I thought it was referring to test matches which of course there will be several of during the Rugby World Cup. So it took a couple of goes to read it. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Well all the matches will be test matches. 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY 
: Indeed. That is quite correct although we might not think that some of them rate as test matches. On that matter I have to say I am looking forward to having the test matches involving Georgia the Ukraine and I believe Argentina—and one other team; we are waiting with bated breath to see who it is—played in Palmerston North. I am certainly looking forward to those games occurring in my city and I know the city is gearing up for it. Running a bit of a test event or testing out how we deal with traffic problems and all that sort of thing in the lead-up to the World Cup shows that built in to the legislation is a concern that we need to get the nuts and bolts right. That is why we need to actually go through this legislation with some serious scrutiny to make sure every single little clause is absolutely spot on. National has absolutely rightly said that this will be a wonderful event. It will showcase New Zealand and it will put us on the world stage. If one of these things goes horrifically wrong because we have not paid enough attention to it now we will look worse on the world stage than we do right now bent over in front of Warner Bros. So we need to make sure that we get these things right and it is absolutely appropriate that we pay close attention. 
Aaron Gilmore 
: Oh that’s disgusting. 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY 
: The member Aaron Gilmore is absolutely correct; the situation that we find ourselves in tonight is disgusting courtesy of the acquiescence of the Prime Minister. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Ha! Courtesy— 
Hon Member 
: Another big word. 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY 
: Now Mr Henare is concerned that I am using big words. This is not the first time that National has been upset about big words— 
Jacqui Dean 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. It is about a phrase that the member used a little while ago. I have to say I was a little bit taken aback by it. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Tell me what it is so that I can rule on it. 
Jacqui Dean 
: Well “bending over for Warner Brothers” I think it was and I do not believe that that is a parliamentary term. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I have been thinking about that phrase and it could mean bowing or it could mean something else. My mind is on higher things. I think the member should not transgress the laws of debate in a way that makes me think of lesser things. 
Jacqui Dean 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. For a party that prides itself on its inclusiveness I really think a phrase like that is offensive and— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: No I have ruled on it. 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY 
: I will simply come to the end of my— 
Jacqui Dean 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. The problem that I have is that I found that phrase offensive and I have taken offence to it. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I have ruled on it and I have listened very carefully to the debate all night. The issue is whether an offence has been created. I have to say that the member was probably skirting around an area where there could be an offending interpretation but he has not crossed that line. 
Jacqui Dean 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: No I have ruled on it. 
Jacqui Dean 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Is this a separate point of order because I have ruled on that matter. 
Jacqui Dean 
: Mr Chairperson I have taken offence. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: And I have ruled that there is no offence. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I am not sure that this will be helpful but I will hear the point of order. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I am actually speechless. I do not think I have ever heard such blatant prejudice from the Chairperson before. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I am sorry; I apologise. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Mr Chairperson I think the tradition in this Chamber is that if a member takes offence then you have to rule on it. Just saying that you are not offended is not enough. The Chairperson can say that something is not an offensive comment but I think the way you put that member down was a bit unfair. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I am sorry I did not mean to. There is a ruling that says that the test is in whether the Committee itself is offended. That in essence is what the Speaker’s ruling says. You see someone could say for example that someone’s cat is overweight and someone else could take offence at that. So the test is really whether the Committee itself is affronted and that is what the Speaker’s ruling says. I am sorry if people have been offended by the way I have put that but I have ruled that the member is skirting close and I have warned him not to cross that line. 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY 
: I have no intention of crossing the line or crossing you Mr Chairperson. I have no intention of doing that whatsoever. In summary a test event as I said was something for which I was appreciative of the clarification contained in the bill which under clause 17(5)(b) is “an event whether or not a sporting event that is not organised and held as part of the tournament but for which an approval or a declaration may be sought under this section to enable the testing of a particular activity or facility that is or is likely to be required for the tournament.” 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I just want to quote for the members Speaker’s Ruling 55/7—there have been additions and things moved chronologically back. A word is judged to be appropriate based on whether a word will bring disorder as well as an affront to the House.