Twyford Phil: Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill — In Committee 
Twyford Phil: Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:668;Page:14831] 
PHIL TWYFORD (Labour) 
: 
 I think my colleagues in the Chamber will know well by now that Labour would be supporting the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill if the Government was willing to entertain the amendment that the Hon Trevor Mallard has placed on the Table. It would prune back the urgency powers that this legislation would give to the Hon Murray McCully which are a worry to everybody on this side of the Chamber. If anybody should not be given the kinds of urgency powers that this bill extends— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: We are on Part 1. 
PHIL TWYFORD 
: Yes and I will talk generally about Part 1. Thank you for your advice about that Mr Chairperson. My colleague Trevor Mallard pointed out that clause 3(2)(c)(ii) “empowers the Minister subject to a recommendation of the Authority to grant urgent approvals for activities and facilities in circumstances of urgency that for good reason were not foreseen;”. That is a very interesting phrase right there—this bill “empowers the Minister subject to a recommendation of the Authority”. Well as we will find out as we go into more detail in this debate the Minister’s powers are not subject to a recommendation of the Rugby World Cup Authority. This bill explicitly gives him the power to override to ignore the recommendations and the advice of the authority that is set up by this bill. That is the objection we have and if it were not for that issue we would support this bill. 
In spite of the problems that my Green colleague David Clendon has set out with regard to this legislation Labour is of the view that this legislation is needed. The risks and the benefits of this mega-event for New Zealand are such that we cannot afford to put it at risk. The scale of the event is so big that the influx of visitors will be reliant on a great deal of temporary infrastructure and it is necessary for the regulatory framework to allow for expeditious processing not only of consents—resource consents building consents—but also in the area of liquor licensing. We will come back to that later in this debate and spend a great deal of time talking about the “Murray McCully provisions” as they will undoubtedly become known. 
In the meantime let us look at the general purpose. In clause 3 “Purpose and overview” the purpose is “to enable applications to be determined expeditiously for activities or facilities reasonably necessary for the proper conduct of the Rugby World Cup”. Colleagues who have spoken before me have pointed out that there was a lot of discussion at the Government Administration Committee. That is reflected in the interpretation clause clause 4. The definition of “ancillary events” is a needed distinction to say that events like live public screenings like those that will be taking place down on Queen’s Wharf under the Cloud will be considered to be Rugby World Cup events and will be subject to all the same kinds of provisions that this bill extends to the big games. So the bill applies not just to the games themselves—the sporting events—but also to all the other associated times and places where people get together to celebrate the event or to watch the games on a big screen. 
We have also heard some discussion about the limits to the application of the Building Act. In Auckland particularly the influx of visitors will mean that multi-storeyed high-rise apartment buildings will be pressed into service to house many of the I think between 65000 and 85000 visitors who are expected to flood into the country for this event. They will need to be housed and it is very likely that high-rise apartment buildings will be used.