Robertson Grant: Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill — In Committee 
Robertson Grant: Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:668;Page:14840] 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) 
: 
 I will talk about Part 2 of the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill and in particular the establishment of the Rugby World Cup Authority. As other speakers on this side of the Chamber have said Labour is happy with the notion of an authority and is confident that the Government Administration Committee has been through Part 2 and has made some minor changes to the way that the authority will work particularly in relation to its secretariat. I think that those changes are useful. As my colleague David Shearer was working through it is important to get the right people on to this body. I tell Mr Shearer that I am sure he will get another 5 minutes too; I am sure that the Chair would happily hear more from Mr Shearer. I think that the functions of the authority as laid out in clause 9 are the ones that are necessary: in terms of going back to the purpose clause what is reasonably necessary to be dealt with expeditiously as opposed to expediently as Jacqui Dean said earlier on. I think that within Part 2 we have a clause that in general Labour can support. 
But Part 2 highlights some of the concerns that we have been raising about the extent to which the Minister has certain powers. In particular clause 9(1)(c) states that one of the functions of the authority is “to determine applications made under Part 5 for Rugby World Cup liquor licences;”. I want to pick up where my colleague Brendon Burns left off at the start of the debate on this particular part. He was talking then about the material that he had got under the Official Information Act from the police. He was going through their exchange with Minister Brownlee about whether it would be possible for there to be wet-pour services at Eden Park as opposed to bottles cans and so on in terms of how alcohol would be provided. 
The police put through a series of briefings in December last year and through February and into March this year arguing with the Minister the point that from a health and safety point of view wet-pour facilities were needed. Deputy Police Commissioner Rob Pope listed in a briefing to Mr Brownlee in December last year that a wet-pour service is a safer option because it limits the number of servings that can be carried by a patron and it reduces the risk of injury—cans or plastic bottles present a particular risk given the way that intoxicated fans use them. The police went on to talk about how this service would allow them to further control the amount of alcohol sold. As Mr Burns said wet-pour facilities have been available at cricket matches at Eden Park yet Mr Brownlee said he did not think this could be done. He said it could not be provided for in terms of the investment. 
That is our concern about Part 2 of the bill. The authority is all well and good; it is a useful body. But if Ministers like Mr Brownlee whom Mr McCully is to consult with are not prepared to listen to the police’s very legitimate safety concerns about the selling of alcohol how can we then have any confidence in giving such sweeping powers to those Ministers to override the authority that is established in Part 2 of this bill? 
John Hayes 
: They’ve got the people’s mandate. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: Well I tell Mr Hayes that the police are here trying to look after the health and safety of New Zealanders. They went to the Minister three times—I have three briefings here in my hands—and they said we needed to put in place wet-pour facilities in order to protect the people who will go to Eden Park. Mr Hayes says that is all right because Ministers have the mandate of the people. 
House resumed. 
The Chairperson reported the Governor-General Bill with amendment and progress on the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill. 
Report adopted.