Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill — In Committee 
Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:668;Page:15099] 
Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill 
In Committee 
Debate resumed from 27 October. 
Part 5 Rugby World Cup liquor licences ( 
continued 
)  
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
:  
Part 5 of the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill deals with Rugby World Cup liquor licences. I will ask the Minister in the chair the Hon Dr Wayne Mapp to address a couple of issues. 
The first point I make is to agree that there was a need to make some changes to liquor licence laws. One reason was the decision from some branch of the liquor licensing authorities stating that where an event is to be held outside of the normal terms and conditions of liquor licences—a situation that is the subject of a special licence application at the moment—and where the grounds for that application are to replay or play contemporaneously in another venue televised coverage of a match that is on elsewhere it is not within the jurisdiction of the authority to grant the application. That may well be a fair rule normally but the view of the Government—and the Opposition agrees—is that in respect of the Rugby World Cup when there will be a lot of people in town who for some matches will not be able to get a ticket and who will want to go along and watch the game somewhere else those people should be able to do that on licensed premises. Those licensed premises should be able to get a variation of their licence to enable that to happen and this bill enables it to happen. 
The other question I would like the Minister to answer is whether he is willing to express an opinion based on the experiences that we had at Eden Park over the weekend about whether we need to take a bit of care here. People getting too tanked up booing during the Australian national anthem and throwing bottles on to Eden Park is not a good look. I am sure that none of us in this Chamber want to see that repeated in the Rugby World Cup. Given that the authorities said that the rugby league match on the weekend was a bit of a dress rehearsal for what will happen at the Rugby World Cup there might be a need to look at some of those licensing conditions as they apply to Eden Park. 
Personally I have always thought that it is a nonsense that in New Zealand we can buy cans and bottles at such venues. They cannot in America. Why not? Because personal injury cases were taken in America and won when the relevant counsel took out of a paper bag the simple solution of a paper or plastic cup which of course avoids injury to people. It is pretty hard to throw a paper cup very far—the liquid falls out—compared with a full bottle which can hurt someone. I hope that consideration is given to moving to that sort of a regime in New Zealand where we consider at least—and I am not sure what the right answer is—whether under liquor licensing conditions we can protect the public from injury by making sure that liquor is served in a vessel that cannot be thrown. It is a pretty simple advance that seems to have been made in other Western democracies including the United States and I hope that through this legislation we can achieve something similar. 
I ask the Minister in the chair whether the provisions of Part 5 on Rugby World Cup liquor licences can be used to impose reasonable conditions that are better for members of the public. It would also mean that someone cannot walk back with a dozen secreted around different parts of his or her body because it is pretty hard to carry a dozen open vessels of beer. I ask that the Minister in the chair address that issue which arose out of the experience that we had in Eden Park over the weekend. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
:  
Following on from David Parker’s speech I think the question of liquor licences and the containers used for liquor is very important. I was present at the rugby league test between New Zealand and Australia on Saturday night so I had a very good on-the-spot experience of what went on. Thankfully I bought a $5 programme prior to the event which I could put over my head to protect myself from any falling missiles. 
I read that for the Rugby World Cup itself Heineken will be one of the official sponsors and Heineken is demanding that there be cans of beer for sale no doubt because it wants to advertise its products. What is happening is that we are being driven by multinational sponsors to sell the beer in cans. The sponsors demand that in return for their sponsorship and the millions of dollars or whatever the amount may be that they are paying for it even though the cans will potentially injure people at those games. We are losing control over the situation. It is a bit like the old  
Hobbit 
 furore when we were driven by Warner Bros; now we are being driven by Heineken. The cans will no doubt be even more dangerous than the plastic bottles were last Saturday night particularly if the cans still have a bit of beer left in them. 
That is one of the problems with the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill as a whole and with this particular part. The power given to the Minister for the Rugby World Cup is a bit like the power given to John Key to negotiate with Warner Bros. The decision will come out on the side of the stronger party which will be the multinational company backed up by the International Rugby Board and all of its official sponsors. We will have to have cans even if there is a risk of injury. I agree totally with what David Parker said when he asked why we cannot serve the liquor in paper cups or whatever. We will never overcome completely the problem of drunkenness. When I was walking to the game on Saturday night every bar in the Mount Eden area was packed to the gunnels with people tanking themselves up prior to the game. We cannot really control the fact that there will be drunken people at the games so we will have to handle the situation in the best way that we can. 
The other thing that David Parker mentioned was the booing that went on. I put the prime responsibility for that—and I have been along to watch Warriors games at Mount Smart Stadium—on the organisers of those contests. The thing I notice at rugby league games as compared with some other codes is the great partisanship on the part of the person on the loudspeaker the MC who rarks people up to support the Warriors and in effect encourages people to boo the team playing the Warriors. That behaviour carries over to the tests. Responsibility is not on “rugby league louts”; the responsibility is on the people who organise the loudspeaker system at Mount Smart Stadium. 
Really what happened on Saturday night was more of an issue of crowd behaviour. The first Mexican wave went round and a few people threw plastic bottles in the air. Then the more that it went round the more people understood that that was the thing to do and threw things up in the air wrongly failing to take into account the danger to people. The situation should not be seen completely out of proportion. Crowd behaviour can be controlled with proper control of the loudspeaker system and that was lacking in the first two or three Mexican waves last Saturday night as well. If the people who were running the show had intervened on the loudspeaker to tell people to calm down and that Mexican waves were all right but that people should not throw their stuff into the air that could have controlled the crowd’s behaviour as it was controlled at a later point by interventions on the loudspeakers. 
It is important not to give the powers available under this legislation to Ministers and particularly not to give them to the Minister concerned because the Rugby World Cup will be driven by multinational sponsors at the expense of the safety of the people who are participating. Thanks. 
JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) 
:  
I rise to speak to Part 5 of the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill. I note that when the international media covers images of football fans rioting in the streets of a city somewhere in the UK the international community takes a very strong view of it. It certainly does not reflect well on that particular country. Although it might be a very isolated event in France and other parts of Europe those things happen and those of us who are watching from New Zealand think it is a pretty bad thing to happen. We wonder whether we really want to go there. We do not want that sort of occurrence happening in New Zealand. 
I think this bill addresses the concerns that I have expressed and that have been expressed by other members in the Chamber. I do not know whether I necessarily agree with the contribution of the previous speaker Keith Locke; I am not sure that the commentator at the park has as much influence as that in inflaming or controlling a crowd. But certainly the Rugby World Cup liquor licensing regime aims to do that. It is certainly not the only aspect that will maintain good crowd-control and I acknowledge that the person on the end of the loudspeaker might have a slight effect. 
I think we need to take note of what happened at Eden Park in the rugby league game last week and do whatever it takes to make sure that kind of behaviour is not repeated at the Rugby World Cup next year and that we do not have those images broadcast around the globe on which people may base their decisions on whether New Zealand is a good place to come to. Obviously one of the good side effects of the Rugby World Cup will be the promotion of New Zealand as a desirable destination. 
I will address the issues of liquor licensing. This bill does not change the criteria of liquor licensing; in other words it certainly does not make it any easier to get a liquor licence just because we have a large sporting event and want to provide some hospitality to New Zealanders and visitors. What it does is speed up the process for getting liquor licences and ensures that the significant volume of applications that we expect will be processed in time. 
I do not think it would be true to say that this bill goes soft on liquor licences. In fact the bill provides for some additional requirements which traverse things like providing food and having free drinking water available. It also gives police more powers to remove licences if conditions are breached. If members turn to clause 59 they will see that the suspension of a Sale of Liquor Act licence will continue for the duration of the Rugby World Cup. So if a Rugby World Cup liquor licence has been suspended for non-compliance the operator cannot then turn to the licence provisions under the Sale of Liquor Act and continue to trade. I would have thought that was a strong incentive to maintain good host responsibility and compliance. 
It is disappointing that we have had events at Eden Park such as those on Saturday night. We simply cannot tolerate— 
Paul Quinn 
: Rugby league. 
JACQUI DEAN 
: Whatever—it was a game of sport. We simply cannot tolerate that kind of behaviour. The stakes are too high for us in New Zealand. Next year’s Rugby World Cup needs to be different. The management needs to be stricter and there needs to be more proactive alcohol management planning. I note that in Wellington when people go to the Sevens as I have on several occasions the rules on— 
Grant Robertson 
: How did you dress? 
JACQUI DEAN 
: I was stunning. In fact I will give you a rundown. I was a potted plant one year and another year—well never mind. I particularly enjoyed the occasion but was not able to buy bottles of liquor. The liquor licensing requirements are already tight for some events in New Zealand. Many many people flock to Wellington for the whole Sevens weekend and the event is run successfully. I hope that kind of liquor licensing regime will prevail throughout New Zealand for the Rugby World Cup. 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North) 
: 
 I would like to pick up from where the previous speaker Jacqui Dean left off on the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill. She brought up the Rugby Sevens— 
Jacqui Dean 
: The potted plant was it? 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY 
: —and potted plants as well. 
Craig Foss 
: What did you go as? 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY 
: I have never actually been to the Sevens sadly enough. It is something I would like to fix. 
Paul Quinn 
: As a Bucket Head! 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY 
: I have never been to a Turbos match as a Bucket Head either. Moving on the question was raised about the Sevens and I think that was a really good point. At the Sevens the entertainment that goes on around the rugby is often really more of the event than the rugby itself. Whereas I hope that people who are heading along to the Rugby World Cup would want to make the rugby on the field itself the centre of entertainment. Perhaps the alcohol is more of a side issue. It is something that goes with the rugby rather than the other way around with the rugby going alongside the alcohol. The Associate Minister Turia is making some interjections; maybe she will take a call and we can hear her views on this. 
But the point I am getting at is a point I was talking about a couple of weeks ago on this bill when we were debating about what sorts of vessels we should have the beer and whatever else in. I am absolutely of the view that a paper cup would be absolutely fine. People are not there to focus on the drinking and they are not there to brand Heineken; they are there to watch the rugby. Maybe just for a couple of hours they could put up with drinking out of a probably inappropriately sized paper cup while they watch the rugby and then we could overcome some of the issues we saw at the weekend. 
Mr Quinn suggested those issues were because it was rugby league crowd. I am not quite so divisive; I am a bit more inclusive. I think it does not really matter what sport one is watching that sort of mixture of alcohol and crowd mentality can make good people do things that the next day they wake up and think they probably should not have done and do not feel too flash about. But in that environment cans whether or not they brand Heineken or bottles can turn into missiles and they can do a lot of damage. What the Government is saying by saying no to paper cups is basically that corporate sponsorship comes ahead of public health and safety. That is really the sum total of that message. 
I think that is something that would be good given the incident over the weekend which occurred in the middle of the reading of this bill for the Minister for the Rugby World Cup to get up and talk about. It would be good for him to talk about how those sorts of situations will be mitigated and minimised by the bill or any of the amendments that the Minister might want to put up to the bill at this stage. That leads me to the amendment in my name. It is an amendment to clause 72(1)(a) in subpart 3 that would require the signage in a licensed venue to carry information about the transportation options available nearby the premise for patrons which would encourage them to choose safe transportation. 
I was listening to the radio this morning and I heard a Mount Albert resident someone who lives close to Eden Park complaining not only about what happened in Eden Park but what happened when everybody poured out across their lawn and did things on their lawn that probably were more appropriate for a public toilet. That upset that resident who felt that things should be put in place to ensure that that does not happen. If we have information in public venues about transportation options that are available then people might not be walking blind drunk along the streets annoying the local residents getting into trouble and perhaps doing something they will not be so proud of the next morning. They can get themselves into a cab they can get dial-a-driver they can get on to a shuttle and whatever options are available they can take that option— 
Jacqui Dean 
: The train. 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY 
: The member opposite mentioned the train—a good option. I would be very pleased if more people took the train in Auckland getting from Eden Park back to their homes or back to the central business district—that would be fantastic. My amendment suggests that that information should be a requirement for venues to have available for their patrons. All the other stuff is there. The free water is a requirement under this bill which is a fantastic measure and food and low-alcoholic drinks are available. Those things are right there in front of those patrons and they can see the options that are available to them. Transportation is not right in front of them. It is not an option that is immediately obvious and available to them. So we should take the opportunity seeing as a sign has to be there anyway to add this information to the sign in order to improve public health and safety. Seeing as we have parked health and safety for Heineken when it comes to the vessels inside the park when we are outside maybe we could bring this little measure in to improve public health and safety. 
DAVID SHEARER (Labour—Mt Albert) 
: 
 I want to mention that for the last couple of days I have been speaking to a number of constituents in my electorate of Mt Albert who have been very very concerned about what has happened in and around the Sandringham area. Obviously that concern is largely due as other speakers have said to the excessive presence of alcohol. So I have real concerns about Part 5 of the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill which in many ways speeds up the process of opening new outlets and makes alcohol much more available and easier to get. This legislation will increase the number of outlets and that will make alcohol more available. 
What I do not like about Part 5 is that the time in which one can protest or object to an outlet being opened is a matter of only 5 days. The process is very ad hoc and moves very quickly. Yes the legislation does keep in place the same rules and regulations that would apply under any other system but the fact that the process is to be sped up I believe is probably not necessary. The period of the Rugby World Cup is really from 9 September through to 31 October. If we cannot plan for the number of liquor outlets that we think we will need before that time then it really is hard for me to understand why we will suddenly come up with the idea that we need to have an ad hoc liquor outlet here or there or a licence here or there for other purposes. 
I was appalled like many other people to watch the scenes on television during the test match. The point has been made that it was a rugby league test. I have been to many many rugby league test matches at Mt Smart Stadium etc. and I have never seen anything like that so I really hope that it is a one-off incident. The overwhelming conclusion was not only that what happened inside the stadium was bad enough—people throwing things and people have talked about glasses and softer containers for beer—but also that what happened outside the stadium was of concern to my constituents: bottles thrown all over the road fighting and loutish behaviour. 
Those people live in an area where they know there is a stadium. They bought property in the area knowing that Eden Park was there. Most of them did not know that Eden Park would be expanded to the extent that it has been. I do think that although the Rugby World Cup is incredibly important to us and is very important to the surrounding businesses in the area the rights of the residents need to be protected. I am not sure whether this part of the legislation does anything to give those residents comfort that they will be better served by having more outlets than they already have and by having a process that speeds up the granting of liquor licences. 
I have some concerns about this part. I have looked at the comments made by the police. The police at first voiced some concern about this part. They then relooked at it and decided not to protest against it. Certainly the St John Ambulance service said it did not support this part. In fact it believed that it would be to the detriment of the game and certainly to the image of New Zealanders if people needed to drink in order to watch sport. I want to see a Rugby World Cup where everybody enjoys themselves and where people can have a drink—and I certainly will be drinking—but I do not think we want to see a repeat of what we saw at the test match the other night. I have some concerns about this part of the legislation. In particular my concern is that there will be an increased number of liquor outlets in an area that already has a huge number of outlets and that the process of approving new outlets is likely to be sped up so that they are pushed through. Thank you Mr Chairperson. 
KELVIN DAVIS (Labour) 
: 
 I agree with the member Jacqui Dean that the stakes are high here in terms of alcohol and the Rugby World Cup. We need to strike the right balance to make sure that our image as a country that can go to sports games and not get carried away with alcohol is intact. But we cannot be prudes because alcohol like it or not is a big part of the whole tourism deal. A lot of rugby supporters will be coming here next year for the Rugby World Cup and drinking will be part of that. We have to find the right balance between having a great time and getting carried away with the drinking. 
I suggest that amongst all the hysteria of what happened at Eden Park on Saturday there was a bit of a perfect storm in terms of the conditions. One of those conditions was the lack of policing of people who brought alcohol to the park. We saw the news reports of people carrying boxes of bottles of beer and preloading on the way in. I suggest that the phenomenon of preloading that we see now whereby people drink cheap alcohol before going to events could possibly have occurred because of the cost of the alcohol being sold at Eden Park. I have also heard—and I do not know whether this is true—that because of the queues people had to buy a minimum of four containers of alcohol at one time. I have been told that we could not afford to have one person buying one bottle of beer so people had to buy a minimum of four containers of alcohol to take back for their mates to reduce the queuing time. 
I go back to the perfect storm. Two games were being played which will not happen at the Rugby World Cup. To be honest most people would not have been going to Eden Park to watch the first game which was the curtain-raiser between Papua New Guinea and England. They would not have cared about the result; they knew that England would give Papua New Guinea a hiding. They would have been sitting there drinking and enjoying the occasion—again to excess filling up before the main game. Then of course with the main game everyone was hyped up and ready for a great contest and quite frankly it was a dud. The Kiwis were shocking. The frustration in the crowd built so they were drinking and getting amped up. When crowds are frustrated and bored they start the Mexican wave which was part of the condition when we saw plastic beer bottles chips and the like being thrown. It was a bit of a perfect storm and that storm will not occur at the Rugby World Cup. There will be one game at a time a venue and as a colleague has already mentioned people will be there for the rugby and not for the drinking per se. 
I want to touch on the fact that Heineken wants its product to be sold in cans. I think that is ridiculous and it brings me to clause 62. Clause 62(1)(b) states: “(ii) any conditions that he or she considers should be imposed on the licence.” Also clause 62(1) states that when: “… the persons referred to in section 60(6) receive an application from the administrative secretariat each must—(a) inquire into the application; and (b) report to the Authority in the form and manner prescribed by regulations”—just moving on quickly—“…(i) whether there is any matter on which he or she opposes the application: (ii) any conditions that he or she considers should be imposed on the licence.” I think that if conditions are imposed on the licence such as that alcohol should not be served in cans it is important that the Minister for the Rugby World Cup does not have the right to override that. We have been arguing from the start of the consideration of this bill that it gives the Minister unfettered powers to override decisions of the Rugby World Cup Authority. If a company came in and insisted that its product be sold in a certain way and the authority believes that that is inappropriate this bill should not give the Minister the right to override that decision. 
Again we need to make sure that we are not prudes. We do not want people to come here and say that there are too many restrictions on the drinking of alcohol but we have to strike a balance so we do not have people getting carried away. 
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. 
PHIL TWYFORD (Labour) 
: 
 I was one of those who began this debate with some real concern about whether the provisions in this bill relating to liquor licensing would open the door to a liberalisation of the availability of liquor at the very time our community is showing great concern about the drinking culture in this country and is discussing debating and coming to grips with the recommendations of the Law Commission on alcohol in our society. I expressed some of those concerns in the first reading debate. Since then they have been part of many of the discussions at the Government Administration Committee and I have to say that I have changed my view on this issue. 
I am generally of the view now that the provisions in this bill for liquor licensing for the Rugby World Cup are reasonable comprehensive and appropriate and I support them. Other speakers have pointed out that the provisions in this bill are largely lifted from the Sale of Liquor Act that they are primarily designed to expedite the granting of licences and that the fundamentals of the regulatory framework for liquor licensing are reproduced in this bill and in fact there are one or two improvements. Whether these provisions amount to a liberalisation is an interesting question. I guess one could make the case that the intent of this legislation is to allow a faster licensing process and arguably a much greater volume of liquor outlets being licensed for this very defined period of time. 
My colleague Trevor Mallard makes the argument that not one extra person will get a drink because of this legislation because there will be plenty of liquor outlets anyway. I am not sure that I entirely go along with that. I think that with 70000 visitors to Auckland during the Rugby World Cup and with many New Zealanders flooding into the city for the big games the sheer volume of people in Auckland going to the big games many of whom will want to have a drink before and after the games will mean a pretty dramatic expansion in the number of liquor outlets and the number of drinks being sold. 
The question is whether if we accept that that amounts to a liberalisation it is reasonable in the context of the fact that we are putting on this event and whether it is reasonable when we balance it against the huge benefits that we hope New Zealand and our communities will get from hosting the Rugby World Cup. Given what I said before about the fact that this legislation has been carefully thought through with regard to liquor licensing and the fact that there are a number of controls and safeguards in place my view is that a reasonable balance is being struck and I do not think we have too much to be concerned about. 
I am pleased for instance that outlets with a Rugby World Cup liquor licence are required to provide water free of cost for the punters. A number of conditions are set out in clause 73 that will give members of the authority the tools to require tailored licensing for particular times and places and I think that is a good thing. Some of those conditions relate to the hours and the days that liquor can be sold the supply of low-alcohol beverages the provision of food and the maximum number of patrons. Those are all useful provisions. Under this bill the police will have extra enforcement powers that are not available to them under the Sale of Liquor Act. That is useful. 
In finishing I will echo Grant Robertson’s comments. Again members on this side of the Chamber are concerned about the urgency powers. 
CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) 
: 
 I intend to vote in favour of this particular part Part 5 of the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill although I still have reservations about the bill overall consistent with the concerns that Labour members have raised during earlier stages of this debate. I followed the debate over the weekend’s events at Eden Park with some interest. It would be fair to say that I have mixed views on these matters because although there are clearly some issues with our current laws on the sale and supply of alcohol I believe that a great amount of personal responsibility is involved. Although a small minority made a mess caused disruption and so on the vast majority of people who go to these events and have a few drinks there behave very responsibly. We should not punish the vast majority who behave very responsibly because of the actions of a small minority. I think that Parliament has always faced this dilemma when it is dealing with issues like the sale and supply of alcohol. That is the perspective I bring overall to the question of whether the new powers in this bill are appropriate for the sale and supply of liquor during the Rugby World Cup. 
One thing we need to be very clear on is that these provisions do not apply just to stadia; they actually apply across the board to any liquor licences associated with Rugby World Cup events. It is not just stadia we are talking about and that is an important distinction to make. The provisions can apply to pubs and they can apply to temporary venues that are established specifically for the Rugby World Cup and so on. They will all be covered by these licensing requirements. One change however that the select committee made which I think is important to understand is that all stadia will be required to have Rugby World Cup liquor licences even if they already have an existing liquor licence. The select committee wanted to ensure that there was consistency in the licensing at stadia throughout the country and that police had access to those extra powers they have under a Rugby World Cup liquor licence. Basically we have effectively said that if there is a liquor licence already in existence for a stadium and that stadium is hosting a Rugby World Cup match a Rugby World Cup liquor licence will still be needed. I think that is really important. It will allow the Rugby World Cup Authority to impose a standard set of conditions for example around the drinking vessels to be used such as plastic cups. 
I am a regular attendee at the Westpac Stadium in Wellington and it already has a policy of having only plastic cups. Bottles cannot be taken into the stadium and I think that works fine. I see no reason why it cannot work at other stadia around the country. We have to recognise that cans and glass bottles and even heavy plastic bottles can be really dangerous if they are hurled through the air and they hit somebody on the head. Plastic cups can cause a limited amount of damage—at most people will get a bit wet if somebody decides to start throwing around plastic cups full of alcohol. But we are limiting the risk of innocent people who are behaving responsibly having what would otherwise be a perfectly enjoyable event spoiled by a very small minority who behave irresponsibly at these events. I come back to the comment I made at the beginning. The vast majority of people who want to watch a Rugby World Cup match will behave responsibly and we should not punish them because of the irresponsible actions of a small minority. 
One of the other provisions in this bill that differs from the Sale of Liquor Act is that anyone holding a Rugby World Cup liquor licence will be required to have water freely available for people who are drinking at those venues. I think that is a huge advance. Parliament may well have the opportunity to consider this when we look further down the track at wider amendments to the laws pertaining to the sale and supply of liquor. At the moment there is no obligation on those selling liquor in a pub or a bar to supply water free of charge and there are some extreme examples of establishments going out of their way to prevent people from getting water out of taps so that they can extract a significant amount of money out of the sale of bottled water. Maybe it should be a requirement overall for pubs to have a free and ready supply of water. That is something that Parliament may have the chance to consider further down the track. 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North) 
: 
 This will be my last call on Part 5. In my first call I suggested that I was looking around for arguments to decide where I would come down on this part so let me state for the record that I am in favour of this part. 
Chris Hipkins 
: Was it my speech that clinched it? 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY 
: Well I think it was Mr Hipkins’ speech that clinched it to be fair. But there were a number of excellent contributions from a number of members that I listened to closely. 
I would like to advance the debate a little towards clause 79 “Suspension of licence for public health or fire precaution requirements”. The reason I draw the Committee’s attention to this clause and its various subclauses is that this is a fundamental part of the health and safety regulations. If a venue is deemed to be unsafe in terms of public health especially with regard to fire precautions then the medical officer of health or a member of the New Zealand Fire Service has to apply to the authority for immediate suspension or cancellation of the licence or immediate variation of the conditions of the licence. This is of course the authority that is established by this bill but which Part 4 states may as well not exist because the Minister can override every single decision made by that authority. 
This is a particularly dangerous little part of the bill. If in the opinion of the medical officer of health or a member of the Fire Service a venue needs to be shut down but that is contrary to the Minister’s opinion and the Minister decides to step in and halt that process we have a potential disaster zone. A venue that is unsafe could be allowed to remain open because of the power that is vested in the individual Minister who may be lobbied or may be contacted through processes other than the authority—people who choose to circumvent the process of the authority and go directly to the Minister. He—and I say “he” advisedly as I suspect we know who it will be—may not have the information available to him that the medical officer of health or the New Zealand Fire Service may have available to them. 
Clause 79A refers to the suspension or cancellation of a manager’s certificate. In this case an inspector or constable may at any time apply to the authority for an order to suspend or cancel a manager’s certificate. The grounds on which this may be sought are where a manager has failed to manage the premises or area subject to a Rugby World Cup liquor licence in a proper manner in accordance with the provisions of Part 5 and the conditions of the licence. Again this is where the authority must use its processes. It is required to make a decision within 24 hours. It is required to cross-examine witnesses and time must be given to the inspector the constable or the manager or if appropriate to the licensee and I have no doubt to any witness or anybody who is available to give evidence. But the entire process that the authority is allowed to undertake could again be completely undermined thanks to Part 4. 
It is Part 4 that the Labour Opposition has problems with and we have been pointing this out throughout this bill. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: We are on Part 5. 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY 
: Part 4 affects Part 5 because these provisions in Part 5 are completely undermined by Part 4. Although I suspect there will be a personal vote on Part 5 as far as the Opposition is concerned I personally am in support of Part 5. I cannot agree with the bill as a whole as long as Part 4 stays there. Although Part 5 has some excellent clauses places some excellent requirements on the authority and sets up a fantastic process for the authority to maintain public order public safety and public health they are completely undermined by the provisions included in Part 4. 
In my previous contribution I was interjected upon by Minister Tariana Turia. I do not want to misrepresent her but I believe she said that alcohol should not be part of rugby fixtures whatsoever. I would be interested if she could rise and make a contribution on this part because if that is a misrepresentation then she needs to clarify it. If it is not a misrepresentation and that opinion is held by a Minister of the Government when we consider what is in this bill I think it would be quite important if the Minister could rise and give a contribution on Part 5 because it is all about making sure that liquor is safely and appropriately available during Rugby World Cup matches. If the Minister holds a contrary point of view then I think it would be important if she could rise and make a contribution. 
This is all about balance. It is not about taking the fun out of the games. 
JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 92 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 23 (Ardern Beaumont Chadwick Cunliffe Curran Davis Fenton Goff Hawkins Hipkins Hodgson Horomia Hughes Huo King Lees-Galloway Mackey Mallard Nash Parker Prasad Robertson G Twyford); ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 21 
New Zealand Labour 11 (Chauvel Choudhary Dalziel Dyson Mahuta O’Connor Ririnui Robertson R Sio Shearer Street); Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Abstentions 4 
New Zealand Labour 4 (Burns Cosgrove Moroney Sepuloni). 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Iain Lees-Galloway to clause 72 be agreed to: 
to add the following subparagraph to subclause (1)(a): 
(iii)must display details of various transportation options available nearby the premises for patrons to encourage them to choose safe transportation. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 53 
New Zealand Labour 38; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 5 be agreed to. 
Ayes 92 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 23 (Ardern Beaumont Chadwick Cunliffe Curran Davis Fenton Goff Hawkins Hipkins Hodgson Horomia Hughes Huo King Lees-Galloway Mackey Mallard Nash Parker Prasad Robertson G Twyford); ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 21 
New Zealand Labour 11 (Chauvel Choudhary Dalziel Dyson Mahuta O’Connor Ririnui Robertson R Sio Shearer Street); Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Abstentions 4 
New Zealand Labour 4 (Burns Cosgrove Moroney Sepuloni). 
Part 5 agreed to. 
Part 6 Miscellaneous 
JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) 
: 
 In speaking to Part 6 I just reflect that we are now through the major provisions of the bill and I come now to the part that deals with regulations the serving of documents and those sorts of things. It is interesting is it not that even this late in the passage of this bill which will enable the smooth running of the Rugby World Cup 2011 the Labour Opposition members are all at sea. They neither support it nor not support it; they are not quite sure how they really feel about this Rugby World Cup event that we are having next year. I think that is a shame because the rest of the New Zealand community is gearing up for this Rugby World Cup— 
Craig Foss 
: They must have had an interesting caucus. 
JACQUI DEAN 
: Well I would say they always have an interesting caucus. Some do not know how they feel about this event because they have abstained from voting and I think that that is a shame. I think that is a shame for all of the New Zealanders all around New Zealand who are gearing up to make this the world-beating event that it should be. The provisions of this bill which will make those processes smoother and easier are relatively non-controversial and simple but cannot be supported by the Labour members in this House. I think that is a shame and I say that for the record of the House. 
Part 6 deals with regulations and is very much a procedural part. It deals with the method of calculating deposits for people who wish to make applications to the authority that determines liquor licences and other provisions. It covers the recovery of costs the charging of costs and the methods by which documents can be served. So it is very much getting down to the nuts and bolts of things. 
I want to finish my short contribution by reflecting that for most of us in this Parliament this bill reminds us of the exciting opportunity we have in New Zealand. The National Government supports rugby. It supports all of New Zealand getting behind the Rugby World Cup. All the members of the National Government are vitally interested and do hope that the Rugby World Cup will be the marvellous event it promises to be. I am just sorry that that desire is not shared by the Opposition. 
CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) 
: 
 What a vacuous load of nonsense we just heard from Jacqui Dean. The suggestion that the Labour Opposition not supporting the giving of absolute power to Murray McCully means that Labour is somehow opposed to rugby is extrapolating things just a little bit too far. I can assure the Committee and anybody listening or watching on television that the Labour Opposition is 100 percent behind the Rugby World Cup 2011. We are 100 percent behind the Rugby World Cup and we are very much looking forward to seeing it successfully hosted in this country. 
Let us not forget how we ended up with the hosting rights to the Rugby World Cup in the first place. Helen Clark flew with the Kiwi crew all the way to Dublin in order to secure the hosting rights. The Labour Government was behind it— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: We are debating Part 6. 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: —and the Labour Party remains behind it. I turn now to Part 6 of the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill which Jacqui Dean was just speaking to. Part 6 deals with the remaining technical aspects of the legislation including the regulation-making power of the Governor-General by Order in Council on the recommendation of the Minister for the Rugby World Cup. Now of course we come back to the concerns raised by the Labour Opposition in terms of the regulation-making powers that the Minister will have effectively to overturn recommendations given by the Rugby World Cup Authority. The Minister will not have to follow the recommendations of the Rugby World Cup Authority. The regulation-making powers that this part gives to the Governor-General—because the Governor-General will be acting on the advice of the responsible Minister; in this case Murray McCully—effectively mean that the Minister will have absolute power to do whatever he likes. He will not have to be guided in any way by the decisions of the Rugby World Cup Authority and that is the reason the Labour Opposition is voting against the remaining stages of this bill. 
It is not as Jacqui Dean suggested because we do not support the Rugby World Cup; we do. We are 100 percent behind the Rugby World Cup but we on this side of the Chamber support democracy. We believe that the provisions of this bill could easily have been remedied if Murray McCully had agreed to support the amendments put forward by Trevor Mallard. This issue could have been resolved and this bill could have been passed with much broader cross-party support than has been the case. But Murray McCully rejected the approach by the Labour Party and that is why we continue to oppose it. 
Finally I want to talk to some of the clauses in this part listed on page 83 of the reprinted bill as tabled in the House. They concern the service of notice and documents. I am not a lawyer and I do not usually pay much attention to these types of matters but I think it is important that when we are talking about the service of notice and documents and about ensuring that processes operate fairly transparently and so on there is real clarity around what will be deemed to be a service of notice or a document. Can it be done electronically or by fax and so on? Clause 89 as set out on page 83 makes it very clear when a notice will be deemed to have been issued or served. I think that it is really important that the Committee is very clear on that. Clause 89(4) states “If a notice or document is to be served on a Minister of the Crown service on the chief executive of the appropriate department of the State is service on the Minister.” This comes back to this ultimate power that Murray McCully will have under this legislation. He can be sending off missives to departmental chief executives serving notices on all of his ministerial colleagues. That is just a further example of the ultimate power that Murray McCully is being given in this legislation which is why the Labour Opposition is opposed to it. 
We do not have anything that we are really opposed to in Part 6. Part 6 is a pretty technical non-controversial part of this legislation. It is primarily Part 4 that we have our concerns about but I think Part 6 gives further examples and further elaborates why it is that the Opposition has expressed so many reservations and how easily that could be resolved if the Government was willing to take a more democratic approach to this legislation. 
DAVID SHEARER (Labour—Mt Albert) 
: 
 I reinforce what my colleague Chris Hipkins just said about Part 6 which is largely an administrative miscellaneous part of the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill. Nevertheless clause 88 states: “The Governor-General may by Order in Council made on the recommendation of the Minister make regulations that prescribe—” and it goes through those prescriptions. That comes back to the point that we raised before about the Minister which cuts to the chase of what we were talking about in Part 4. 
Why do we have that problem? One of the issues that has come up in the last few days with regard to the debacle that happened on Saturday at Eden Park is that the trustees at the Eden Park Trust Board were all replaced by Minister McCully. Minister McCully changed the trustees who then went on to change the management team. The management team has not yet been in contact with the local residents. Certainly Mr David Kennedy the chief executive officer has not yet made contact with the local residents who were the people who bore the brunt of what happened on Saturday. That is a direct consequence of a lot of the changes being made by the Minister. 
Part 4 as I said before gives the Minister the ability to override and take an enormous amount of licence— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: We are on Part 6. 
DAVID SHEARER 
: I beg your pardon Mr Chairperson. Part 4 gives the Minister a lot of licence and that is reinforced at the beginning of Part 6 as I just quoted. 
I come to clause 88(i) in Part 6 which states: “the form contents colour and size of print of a Rugby World Cup liquor licence including the form and other matters required for licences issued in respect of a group of applications:”. That relates back to what we were just arguing in the debate on Part 5. That again is about the speeding up of liquor licences which have to be advertised as per clause 88(i). The process can be sped up. A lot more liquor licences can be given out in a very short space of time giving people who object only 5 days’ notice in which to do so. Around this area—and around Eden Park in particular which is the area I am specifically concerned about—we will have the capacity to have more outlets and more drinking in an area that has copious numbers of drink outlets already. 
Coming back to Part 6 clause 88(i) goes to the issue of liquor licences. It is something I have a real concern about. I do not think that we need to be promoting rugby on the basis of whether we can drink copiously or have an enormous number of drink outlets for this occasion to be a real success. 
I point out as my colleague has done that we oppose this legislation on the basis of what it allows the Minister to do—on the basis of what it allows the Minister to do. We are completely supportive of the opportunities that the Rugby World Cup gives to New Zealand. I am certainly supportive of what this world cup gives to the people in the area that I represent around Eden Park. Businesses there will be booming. Obviously they will have to be in compliance with Part 6 clause 88(i) and I remind people about that. 
Once again I say that it is a mistake to give the Minister more or less carte blanche to make decisions that override the authority which will then be set up and in place and that override many of the decisions that have been made through good procedures and regulations. It is something that members on this side of the Chamber oppose. 
Part 6 is largely miscellaneous. It is regulations but nevertheless it still speaks to and supports the other parts of the bill that we are not very happy with. 
JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
KELVIN DAVIS (Labour) 
: 
 I know that we are talking about Part 6 but I have to get this off my chest—it comes down to what Jacqui Dean said about Labour not supporting rugby. What she said is ridiculous. I bet anything that Jacqui Dean is one of those chardonnay supporters who are there just for the moment. I bet you anything that Jacqui Dean did not get up at 3 o’clock in the morning on Saturday to watch New Zealand versus England. I bet you she has not cried herself to sleep. 
Craig Foss 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I am just interested that the member is trying to wager bets with you as Chair. He kept saying: “I bet you that x y z.” I do not think that is appropriate. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Thank you. I am a betting man and I took it in good faith. 
KELVIN DAVIS 
: I will bet anybody that Jacqui Dean has not cried herself to sleep every night since 27 October 1991 the day that we lost our world champion title to Australia in Dublin. To say that Labour does not support rugby and does not support the Rugby World Cup is an absolute joke. I bet anybody in this Chamber anybody in this country that we know more about any form of rugby or any sort of situation around rugby than that member. A true supporter knows stuff about rugby that nobody else does. I ask that member to name the All Black lock who in 1979 scored the only try for the All Blacks at Twickenham. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: We are on Part 6. 
KELVIN DAVIS 
: Yes Mr Chair; I just had to get that off my chest because as a rugby fanatic I do not think there is anybody in National who cares about rugby more than I do. 
I come to Part 6. As Chris Hipkins said the Governor-General may by Order in Council and on the recommendation of the Minister make regulations. That is the part of this bill that we are upset about. It is the unfettered power of the Minister that we are concerned about. To say we do not support rugby because we are challenging this part of the bill is absolutely ridiculous. The Labour Party has had great discussions and has allowed some members to vote one way and some members to vote the other way and that is democracy in action—something of course that that party on the other side of the Chamber would not have a clue about. 
Jacqui Dean 
: Which way did you vote? 
KELVIN DAVIS 
: I voted for it; in support OK? 
Jacqui Dean 
: Who was against? 
KELVIN DAVIS 
: Look it does not really matter who was for and who was against. What matters is that we are concerned that the Minister has unfettered powers—[ 
Interruption 
] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: We do not want that dialogue—it is not relevant to Part 6. 
KELVIN DAVIS 
: Thank you Mr Chair. We have a concern that the Minister has unfettered powers to override the Rugby World Cup Authority. The Labour Party supports rugby and supports the Rugby World Cup. In our party we are allowed to have robust debate and discussion and on this issue we voted as we saw it. Some supported it some were against and some abstained. The Labour Party is right behind the Rugby World Cup. We have given it a lot of thought and consideration. 
As someone mentioned earlier Helen Clark flew over to Dublin—the city where the All Blacks lost in 1991—and because of her contribution and her support for Tana Umaga and the rest of the Kiwi contingent this wonderful event will happen in New Zealand next year. It will be a great thing for New Zealand. It will put us on the world stage. But we do have to be concerned about this issue and it is right that Labour as a party has challenged parts throughout this bill to make sure that everything goes right during the Rugby World Cup. 
I finish my contribution by challenging Jacqui Dean and the National Government to come up with any evidence that they support rugby and the Rugby World Cup more than the Labour Party. Members of the Labour Party are true fanatics and true supporters of our national game not chardonnay supporters such as Jacqui Dean. 
CRAIG FOSS (National—Tukituki) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
PHIL TWYFORD (Labour) 
: 
 We are in the dying minutes of the Committee stage of the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill and it is fitting that we should finish by responding to the excruciating speech made by Jacqui Deans. We are finishing as we started— 
Jacqui Dean 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I would be grateful if the member addressed me by my correct name which is Jacqui Dean. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I am sure the member has taken that on board. 
PHIL TWYFORD 
: I apologise. I should have said we were responding to an excruciating speech from the member Jacqui Dean. She is the member who cannot understand why Labour voted against the odious Part 4 which gives the Minister— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: We are on Part 6. 
PHIL TWYFORD 
: I am getting to that Mr Chair. She cannot understand why Labour voted against Part 4. She cannot understand why we would take a conscience vote or a personal vote on the alcohol provisions in this bill. The members on this side of the Chamber unlike the member Jacqui Dean have not put their brain into neutral while they have been debating this bill. The best argument that she could come up was that we do not like rugby—woo hoo! 
Part 6 is interesting because it reflects just how well thought through much of this bill is. The detail and thought that have gone into Part 6 are extraordinary. I draw the Committee’s attention to subclause 5A of clause 89 where no detail has been overlooked. Subclause 5A states: “A notice or document is deemed to have been received as follows: (a) if sent electronically when acknowledged by the recipient or when an automated delivery receipt … is received by the sender:”. Subclause 5B states: “If a notice or document is required to be served or delivered on or by a particular working day—(a) it must be served or delivered by 4.00 pm on that day;”. If a notice or document arrives after 4 p.m. it is deemed to have been received on the following day. That is extraordinary. 
No detail has been overlooked in Part 6 yet Part 4 hands over to Murray McCully the Minister for the Rugby World Cup extraordinary powers to override the recommendations of the eminent appointed members of the Rugby World Cup Authority. All of the detail all of the thought that have gone into this bill could count for nothing because Murray McCully the Minister for the Rugby World Cup can completely disregard all of the thought that has gone into setting up the systems structures and procedures for the Rugby World Cup Authority. 
That is why the Labour members of Parliament will ultimately vote against this bill. We will not do that because as Jacqui Dean thinks we do not like rugby are unpatriotic or do not care about the success of the Rugby World Cup. We do. We have made it abundantly clear that we support the Rugby World Cup. We want it to be a fantastic success for New Zealand. We want it to be an unforgettable moment for all New Zealanders to savour the beautiful game. But we will not countenance the bad law or bad systems that are being put in place by this Government to completely disregard the normal conventions of accountable Government and to hand over to Murray McCully the unfettered power to disregard the members and the advice of the Rugby World Cup Authority. The sublime elegant detail contained in Part 6 provides that if a notice is received after 4 p.m. it is deemed to have been received on the following day. But in spite of the beauty elegance and simplicity of Part 6 Labour will vote against this bill. 
We have not given up hope that the Government may see sense finally before this bill is passed. 
David Shearer 
: I don’t know about that. 
PHIL TWYFORD 
: Some of my colleagues have given up hope. I have not; I have an open mind and a good heart. I live in hope that the members on the other side of the Chamber will reignite and reawaken their commitment to the conventions of accountable Government and will not give Murray McCully the extraordinary powers that are contained in Part 4. 
AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Motion agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 6 be agreed to. 
Ayes 108 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 38; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 9 
Green Party 9. 
Part 6 agreed to. 
Schedules 1 and 2 agreed to.  
Clauses 1 and 2 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North) 
: 
 Clause 1 refers to the title of the bill and as we all know the title offered up by the Government is the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill. On the surface that seems perfectly sensible. The title refers to the period of time during and around the Rugby World Cup 2011. It empowers the Rugby World Cup Authority which is created by the bill the Government of course and a Minister—we are not quite sure which Minister; it might be the Minister for the Rugby World Cup or another Minister—to do more or less what the Minister likes. In those terms one might think the title is fairly appropriate because the bill vests an enormous amount of power in one individual Minister. It empowers that Minister to do more or less what the Minister pleases. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY 
: It is nice that the Minister in the chair Jonathan Coleman could amble his way down to the chair to join us for this debate. We are on clause 1 the title of the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill which before the dinner break I was saying seems superficially like a fairly reasonable title for the bill. I note that the Government steered away from using in the title the word “enabling” instead of “empowering”. Enabling bills were of course favoured amongst some of the 20th century’s better dictators and the word “enabling” might have alluded to some of the dictatorial powers included in Part 4 of this bill so it was probably wise to steer away from it although it would have been a sensible word to have included rather than “empowering”; “enabling” might have been a bit more appropriate. 
The “Rugby World Cup 2011 (Elected Dictatorship) Bill” would have been quite good because essentially Part 4 offers a Minister of the Crown absolute complete total authority over what goes on around the Rugby World Cup and all the provisions within the bill and the authority that has been set up are just about completely meaningless because of the elected dictatorship that is established in Part 4. 
Another title could be the “Rugby World Cup 2011 (Vesting Total Authority in One Minister) Bill” which is essentially what this legislation does. It could be the “Rugby World Cup 2011 (Establishing an Impotent Authority) Bill” because the vast majority of the bill—Parts 1 2 3 5 and 6—deals with establishing an authority to deal with a range of aspects of the Rugby World Cup from liquor licensing through to venue establishment through to events that occur around the Rugby World Cup. This legislation establishes an authority that is supposed to have control over those events grant liquor licences give people authority to hold those events and run test events in the lead-up to the Rugby World Cup but in fact all of that authority is completely undermined by Part 4. The bill establishes a completely impotent authority. In the case that the Minister disagrees with the authority’s position he can just come straight in and overrule anything that the authority does. Although the bulk of the bill—many many clauses and many many pages—is turned over to establishing this authority the real crux of the bill is Part 4 which says that even though we have an authority it is completely impotent and completely useless in the event that the Minister disagrees with what the authority says. 
Given the nature of the debate thus far from the Government benchers few and far between as it has been Government members have not looked to engage in the debate as much as all that but they have tried to say that Labour members hate rugby that we do not want to have a good event and that we do not want to run a good event. I would say that that would make this the “Rugby World Cup 2011 (Short-term Memory Loss) Bill”. They forget about the previous Labour Government and Helen Clark who as we all well know now flew to Korea via Ireland. Who does that I do not know but it showed how keen she was and how much she had vested in being part of the delegation to the Rugby World Cup to make sure that New Zealand got the Rugby World Cup in 2011. The Government has conveniently forgotten all of that effort put in by Labour and all of the support that Labour would continue to offer for this bill if the Government could just make some tiny amendments to Part 4. We wanted to build a consensus and be able to have a bilateral approach to this but the Government refused to take that up. 
CRAIG FOSS (National—Tukituki) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I have a question. Prior to the dinner break when we were voting on various parts—4 5 and 6 I think—Labour gave split votes which is absolutely fine of course. But I bring your attention to Standing Order 139(2) which states: “If a party casts a split-party vote the member casting the vote must deliver to the Clerk at the Table immediately after the vote a list showing the names of the members of that party voting in the various categories.” I recall that there were votes for votes agin and abstentions from the party opposite. I ask whether those names have been tabled yet and whether they are available to the Committee. 
JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) 
: 
 I am happy to respond that the proxies have been taken from Labour and will be provided to the Clerk in due course. We are just locating those in the handover between whips at this time. I am sure that the Government will be patient with us while we locate the relevant names but we have it in hand. 
CRAIG FOSS (National—Tukituki) 
: 
 Are we to expect those names forthwith? I notice that it has been 2 hours since the first split vote that I am aware of from the other side. That seems ample opportunity. What would be a normal time frame? When should we expect that? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I do not know what an ample time frame would be. “Immediately” sounds like it will be pretty prompt. The Chair of the Committee cannot force people to do things. We have an assurance from the whips that the names will be produced and that the paperwork is being resolved. I expect that the whips for Labour will produce the paperwork very quickly. I have that assurance and I accept the whips’ assurance. 
KELVIN DAVIS (Labour) 
: 
 As we debate clause 1 which is the name of the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill we obviously know that we are talking about the Rugby World Cup and that it will be held in 2011. But whether it is an empowering bill—empowering for the Rugby World Cup Authority—is the point that we want to make. It is a moot point because the Rugby World Cup Authority set up under Part 2 is eclipsed by the powers given to the Minister for the Rugby World Cup under Part 4. So a possible name for this bill could be the “Part 2 is a Waste of Time Bill” because the bill goes through the whole description of setting up the Rugby World Cup Authority and then in Part 4 totally ignores it by giving the Minister unfettered power to do what he wants. 
Let us remember that the Rugby World Cup Authority is an authority in which a retired judge or a lawyer of at least 7 years’ standing has to be appointed as the chairperson and another member who is a lawyer of at least 7 years’ standing has to be the deputy chairperson. The Minister must ensure that the authority has available to it sufficient members with the knowledge skill and experience relevant to the authority’s function. I think it is really good that the authority should have that but then the Minister who does not necessarily have the knowledge skill and experience can come and override the decisions that the Rugby World Cup Authority makes. So this bill could also be called the “Put Murray McCully on a Pedestal Bill” because that is really what is happening. He is being put up there with this unfettered power to override any decisions that the Rugby World Cup Authority makes. 
We on this side of the Chamber have said that that is not right and that the Rugby World Cup Authority made up of these experts—lawyers and judges—with the knowledge necessary to make decisions around the Rugby World Cup should have the unbridled power. That group should be able to make those decisions and those decisions should stand. Labour does not agree that the Minister should have the power to override the authority. This bill could be called the “Clayton’s Empowerment Bill”—with all due respect to our colleague Clayton Cosgrove—because it is the empowering bill one has when one does not actually have an empowering bill since the only person being empowered is the Minister. Again as I said Labour disagrees with that. 
There is also the whole issue of forgetting that it was Labour that made sure that New Zealand won the right to host the Rugby World Cup. That issue has been continuously downplayed and overlooked. It was Labour that got the Rugby World Cup to come to New Zealand. So perhaps it could be called the “Acknowledge the Great Work Done by the Previous Labour Government Bill” as Labour made sure that the Rugby World Cup came to New Zealand. We could go through this bill and give it any number of names. They pop into our minds quite easily because of the unfettered overriding power that the Minister is given in Part 4. We could call it the “Take Part 4 Out of this Bill Bill” because as I said it is not right that the Minister has all this authority to override any decision of the Rugby World Cup Authority. That is not good lawmaking and it is not good democracy. I guess we could call this the “Labour Party Really Does Support Democracy Bill” because we are talking about setting up this authority to represent people and make sure that the unfettered and unchallenged power that the Minister has will not be misplaced or abused. 
Again I say that we need to make sure everyone realises that it was the previous Labour Government that got this event here through the great work of our previous Prime Minister. Labour still disagrees with Part 4. The Minister should not have this power to absolutely override anything that has been decided by the Rugby World Cup Authority if he so decides. 
JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa) 
: 
 I rise to speak on the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill to discuss the title. As all of my colleagues on this side of the Chamber would understand I am Murray McCully’s greatest fan. In almost every situation I would totally agree with everything he said but on this occasion I wonder whether the Minister for the Rugby World Cup has the correct title for the bill. I wonder whether it should be called the “Labour in Chaos Bill”. It occurs to me that the title of this bill may be being used by competing factions in the Labour Party to begin to run a coup against Mr Goff. We had a split vote on the bill just before tea and the Labour Party is unable to name the people who abstained from voting on it. 
Is it that we have the Mallard faction? Is it that we have the Goff faction? Is it that we have the Shane Jones faction? Is it that we have the Mr Cunliffe faction? Clearly there are four people on the other side of the Chamber who have voted or at least abstained from voting in a way that does not support their leader. This is a very surprising development. 
It may also be that this bill could be called the “Mallard (Sour Grapes) Bill”. I suspect that if Mr Mallard were the Minister for the Rugby World Cup today he would be entirely supportive of the empowering of the Minister to make sure that the Rugby World Cup event is absolutely successful because its success is really important for New Zealand’s global brand and for our economy. 
It is quite interesting to look at the scrambling that is going on on the other side of the Chamber and work out who is in what faction because clearly there is a lot of disharmony on the other side. Four people have moved from the main reason that the Labour Party was voting and they are abstaining presumably because they do not agree with Mr Goff or Mr Mallard or Mr Jones or Mr Cunliffe. I invite the whip on that side of the Chamber to put us out of our misery or at least tell us what is going on. 
I come back to the point of this empowering bill. I am quite sure that if Mr Mallard were the Minister concerned with 85000 people coming from overseas and millions of people watching on television he would not allow New Zealand to be showcased in a way that was not appropriate. The point of this bill is that it does not change the criteria for issuing liquor licences. It will allow the temporary streamlining of Government regulatory processes to ensure the tournament and the many activities that support it can be organised as effectively as possible. When discussing this issue earlier in the House I have drawn attention to what has happened in the Wairarapa with the La De Da concert which was scheduled to take place in Martinborough on New Year’s Eve. We do not want the circumstances affecting the Martinborough concert to happen with the Rugby World Cup. 
In the Martinborough case a council initially told the organisers of this concert that they would not need resource consent as would have been the case if this event had been run in Masterton but now the council has suddenly discovered that it can ankle tap this concert. It will ankle tap the 12000 people who have paid more than $100 and up to $350 for a ticket and it will say that resource consent costing $50000 is needed. 
We cannot afford this situation to arise with an event as important as the Rugby World Cup which is why we must empower the Minister to break through the bureaucratic nonsense nanny State-ism and red tape that could potentially stand in the way of this event which is vital for the New Zealand economy. I particularly want to say that we are not going soft on the liquor process; in fact the bill provides additional requirements for that. Thank you. 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to take a call in the debate on the title of the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill. The title is simply not generous enough to the Government. I think it needs to really capture John Hayes’ passion for this issue. Possibly that member could call it the “Rugby World Cup 2011 (Let’s Forget About Health and Safety) Bill”. Mr Hayes has just been telling us all about things being nanny State but those things on Saturday were bottles flying in the air and landing on people. That image of New Zealand which Mr Hayes seems so concerned about will be projected around the world. 
Mr Hayes was also concerned about Labour’s voting. On this side of the Chamber we are always worried about whether Mr Hayes is confused. He is frequently confused and we are always worried when he is confused. To clarify for that member I say that when it comes to debating and voting on issues to do with liquor Labour has a proud tradition of conscience voting. Occasionally in the past National has had a proud tradition of letting its MPs follow their consciences but now members on that side of the Chamber have only one conscience. 
We have noticed this because we on this side of the Chamber know that on another issue relating to liquor—that of the drink-driving rules—there are members of the National caucus who want to back a change to the drink-driving laws. 
Craig Foss 
: Jumping the shark. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: I know that Craig Foss wants to back a change. He is looking for stricter drink-driving laws. He is looking for the blood-alcohol limit to be lowered from 0.08 to 0.05. That is right is it not? I ask Mr Foss whether that is correct. I ask Mr Foss whether it is true that he wants to lower it. He wants to lower it but he is not allowed a conscience vote. On this side of the Chamber we are proud of the fact that Labour allows people to express their consciences on one part of this bill. 
Mr Foss may not have noticed but on every other part of this bill and on the final vote on this bill Labour is unified in saying that we are not prepared to back a bill that gives Murray McCully carte blanche to make whatever decisions he likes in the run-up to the Rugby World Cup. The Government has set up an authority to do what it likes the authority comes forward and then Gerry Brownlee Murray McCully and Nick Smith can override it all. Mr Foss can rest assured that Labour is unified in opposing this bill but we are very clear that on issues involving liquor we allow our MPs to have a conscience vote. 
The shame in this Chamber is that MPs on that side are no longer able to express their consciences. They are not able to express their consciences on the drink-driving limit and they are not able to express their consciences on this change to liquor laws. We on this side of the Chamber stand proud of the fact that we give our MPs the ability to speak freely on matters of liquor law change. 
Mr Hayes might be confused but we know that passing this bill in its current form is not right. Iain Lees-Galloway has already stated that with a simple amendment this bill could have been supported by Labour and Murray McCully would not have a veto right over the Rugby World Cup Authority. National failed to take up that amendment and that means Labour will be voting against this bill having given its members the right to have a conscience vote on alcohol issues. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Murray McCully to clause 2 be agreed to: 
to insert in subclause (1) “Sections 1 and 2 and” before “Parts”. 
Amendment agreed to. 
Clause 2 as amended agreed to. 
Progress reported. 
Report adopted.