Shearer David: Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill — Third Reading 
Shearer David: Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:668;Page:15340] 
DAVID SHEARER (Labour—Mt Albert) 
: 
 I do not agree with the point made by the previous speaker John Hayes. I agree with my colleague Phil Twyford who outlined the very reasons we are opposed to the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill. Labour members have been very straightforward have taken this matter right up front and have made constructive comments and constructive interventions to enable this bill to go through but those have been ignored. 
The previous speaker was right in saying that this tournament is important to New Zealand. It will bring enormous amounts of attention to New Zealand. It will be watched by an estimated 4 billion people which I think is a gross overestimation myself but nevertheless it will be watched by a large number of people throughout the world and it will bring in 70000 80000 or 90000 people to watch the event as well. 
This legislation would have gone through without concern but there are problems in Part 4. I will speak to Part 4 but first I will address some of the concerns I have in relation to Part 5. Part 5 of the bill concerns the accelerated liquor licensing ability. It gives only 5 days for people to object to an application for a liquor licence and to be heard by the Rugby World Cup Authority. That provision is obviously a relaxation of the situation right now. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
DAVID SHEARER 
: I am feeling even more dulcet after dinner so I will up the dulcet scale. Before the dinner break I was talking about the licensing regulations in Part 5. In the Committee stage we talked about the difficulties in alcohol licensing and particularly the problems that emerged after the Eden Park fiasco. Eden Park is in my electorate. I have spoken to a huge number of people in my electorate who are concerned about a repeat performance of that night. There were bottles thrown there were scuffles there was fighting and there was drinking on the streets. People certainly do not want—and they do not deserve—a more liberal climate in which alcohol can be served and sold even more easily. It is for that reason that I voted—on this side of the House we had a conscience vote—against Part 5. 
I will say a couple of words on the key areas that I disliked about this part. It liberalises the ability to sell alcohol in and around Eden Park. It impacts on the local residents. It means that if people do not like alcohol being sold they have only 5 days to protest against it. This bill basically contracts the period that is obligated under the Sale of Liquor Act 1989. With all the preparations that are going on around the development of the Rugby World Cup it seems to be an extraordinarily ad hoc thing to do without too much planning to shorten a well-received and well-acknowledged process of approving liquor licences so that alcohol can be sold more easily. The police definitely opposed this measure originally. I think there were some discussions behind closed doors that made them ultimately change their mind. St John Ambulance came out against it and I believe that it was right to. So I ask why we really need to make this process more liberal when we have an authority a regulating process and planning that has been ongoing for many many months. 
One thing that I think exemplifies the fears that residents around Eden Park have been feeling—this could also be anywhere else; it could be in the other areas where the Rugby World Cup games will be played—is the fact that 12 years ago in 1998 a regulation forbade holding two games of rugby on the same day at Eden Park. The regulation also restricted how many cricket games could be played in that time as well. The real reason for that law was that two games of rugby with an excitable crowd drinking heavily might mean that there would be trouble. Last year in 2009 without notification that law was changed by the council. So the council has allowed for two games of rugby—or rugby league as it was a couple of weeks ago—to be held at Eden Park in one day without any reference to the residents. The residents asked how that regulation could be revoked without their having any say or any input when in 1998 the Environment Court had decided that that was an unwise thing to do. The answer is that the decision was made without due process it was taken behind closed doors and it was taken for all the wrong reasons without consultation with the local people. That is the very reason today that I do not agree with Part 5. This part shortens the period during which people can protest and object to applications for liquor licences. It will mean that people have a more liberalised alcohol environment there is greater potential for trouble and there is less ability to protest against it. So when residents reflect on the situation in 1998 the situation today and the process by which it has changed they will say that they do not want processes like that to be put back into legislation so that the Sale of Liquor Act 1989 can be overridden. Those residents want to have a robust system by which they are able to protest against alcohol being sold in their area. 
The last part that I want to talk to is Part 4. The reason that Labour is opposing this legislation has nothing to do with trying to help the passage of the bill through Parliament and it has nothing to do with any sort of reticence that Labour might have about supporting the Rugby World Cup. Indeed as many of our speakers have said it was Labour who had the aspiration which is a word that National likes to use to bring the Rugby World Cup back to New Zealand. The real reason for our opposition to this bill is that it gives Minister McCully in consultation—although we are not quite sure exactly what that consultation might be; it might be a phone call a chat in the aisles who knows—the ability to override legislation and enact policies that the established Rugby World Cup Authority which is set up under this bill may have ruled against. We are setting up an authority with all the right types of safeguards and with the tight seniority that we need yet we are giving the Minister the ability to override decisions that the authority might make. And that ability is in question when we think back to the experiences we saw in Mount Eden and the Sandringham area around Eden Park that we want to guard against happening once again. 
In conclusion we support very much the need for facilitating legislation to make this Rugby World Cup go well be a success bring in visitors and advertise New Zealand. We want the Rugby World Cup to be a standard bearer event for New Zealand so that people can really see something that brings out the best in New Zealand. But I think we are going too far in my opinion with Part 4 which Labour opposes en masse.