Hipkins Chris: Eden Park Trust Amendment Bill — Second Reading Third Reading 
Hipkins Chris: Eden Park Trust Amendment Bill — Second Reading Third Reading 
[Volume:656;Page:5692] 
CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) 
: 
 It is nice to have an opportunity to speak on a bill that is receiving more or less unanimous support around the House. Peace and love appear to have broken out and I am happy to contribute my 10 minutes to that effort. 
Paul Quinn 
: That’s because you want to be on the sidelines. 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: Well actually I am not sure I will be able to afford the tickets so I might be more likely to be on the sidelines. 
I recall very fondly the trip that Helen Clark the former Prime Minister made with Tana Umaga Colin Meads and various others to Dublin in order to help secure the rights to host the Rugby World Cup in 2011. I watched from home the progress of that. I was told a few moments ago by my colleague Darren Hughes that he was consulted extensively on Helen Clark’s speaking notes when she went to the International Rugby Board and he wanted to claim a little bit of credit for New Zealand winning the hosting rights to the Rugby World Cup in 2011. I suspect however that my colleague Trevor Mallard would argue that he had a little bit more to do with New Zealand winning the rights to host the cup. So I congratulate him on the considerable efforts he put in. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: That’s right. They left me at home to make sure we won! 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: I am told by him that he was left at home to ensure that the bid would be successful and that nothing would go wrong on the trip. I suspect that showed exceptionally good judgment on the part of those who organised the trip. 
As we talk about the Eden Park Trust Amendment Bill which of course primarily has come into being because of the hosting of the 2011 Rugby World Cup I thought it might be useful to talk a little about the history. In 1912 the Auckland Cricket Association purchased land comprising most of Eden Park from the Eden Cricket Club through the support of a number of cricket enthusiasts who acted as guarantors for the necessary loan and became trustees of Eden Park. The land was then leased to the Auckland Rugby Union for the winter period from 1 January 1914 and the Auckland Rugby Union financed the grandstand that was built in 1913. The Auckland Cricket Association financed the members’ stand which was built in 1914. 
In 1926 a deed of agreement vested control of Eden Park in a board of control comprising three members each from the trustees of Eden Park the Auckland Cricket Association and the Auckland Rugby Union. In 1955 the Eden Park Trust Act was enacted. It set down the legal ownership of Eden Park and the rules by which it was to be administered. In 2007 an agreement was made between the Crown the Eden Park Trust Board and the Eden Park Board of Control whereby the Crown undertook to underwrite an amount not exceeding $190 million for the redevelopment of Eden Park with the proviso that the redevelopment be under the control of a redevelopment board and that new governance arrangements be agreed. 
Now we have to keep the agreement that was made in 2007 in mind when we consider this bill. It was one of the things that the Government Administration Committee had to give considerable thought to because some of the suggestions that came forward for amendments potentially could have undermined the discussions that took place between those parties. We were very mindful of that and I will talk a little bit about some of the technical issues that were raised during the select committee process in particular issues raised by the Attorney-General and by the Regulations Review Committee. In this particular instance the select committee chose not to follow the recommendations of the Regulations Review Committee. That is actually quite an unusual thing I think for a select committee to do so it is probably quite important that I spend a considerable amount of time outlining the reasons that we did not follow its recommendations. 
But first I will talk about the need for the bill. Due to the redevelopment of Eden Park for the Rugby World Cup 2011 it is necessary to vary the terms set out and to set out new terms upon which the Eden Park Trust Board will hold this property on trust. The bill considerably simplifies the statutory regime relating to the trust. It repeals several definitions in the Act and it repeals at least 10 sections. The import of the bill-repealed sections is transferred to the new trustee which forms part of the bill. 
The issue that the Regulations Review Committee raised with the select committee was to do with the trust deed being incorporated in the legislation and the legislation then giving the Governor-General power to amend the trust deed in the legislation without having to come back to Parliament for any subsequent amendment to be ratified. It is known I believe as a “Henry VIII” clause; it empowers the Governor-General to make changes to primary legislation without it coming before Parliament. That of course is very unusual and a very big no-no. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: A constitutional outrage is what it is. 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: It is a constitutional outrage as my colleague Lianne Dalziel is saying. We considered that matter very carefully and I am just looking through my notes to find the piece of paper where I noted what we talked about. The Government Administration Committee actually went to the degree of writing back to the Regulations Review Committee setting out the reasons why we did not want to follow that. 
I thought it would probably be quite useful for me to share with the House what we said to the Regulations Review Committee in regard to that particular “Henry VIII” clause. We said: “The trust deed is a legal document which is separate from the bill.” I think we need to keep in mind that important point. Although it is in the bill the trust deed itself is separate from the bill. “The words of the trust deed are repeated in the Schedule solely to make the terms of the trust deed accessible to the public in the most robust manner possible.” This is reflected in the wording of paragraph (a) of the definition of “trust deed” in clause 4(2) of the bill. “The trustees can amend the trust deed regardless of whether or not it is set out in the bill. Doing so would change the terms upon which the trust operates” but would not change the substantive provisions of the enabling legislation. The ability to amend the schedule by Order in Council has been provided for simply to ensure that the copy of the text of the trust deed set out in the schedule of the Act continues to accurately reflect the wording of the actual trust deed if the trust deed is amended in the future. 
To put that in plain English basically it means that if the Eden Park Trust Board amends its trust deed it would actually effectively amend the legislation. Unless the Governor-General has the power by Order in Council to reflect that change in the legislation the trust deed contained in the legislation would not reflect the actual trust deed as in existence. So we decided as a committee that it would be ludicrous to remove the ability of the Governor-General simply to make sure that the trust deed contained in the legislation actually reflected the trust deed that was in force. It was the subject of quite a bit of backwards and forwards discussion around the committee because as my colleague Lianne Dalziel said the Regulations Review Committee has written entire reports on the “Henry VIII” clause. The decision of the Government Administration Committee not to take note of the concerns raised by the Regulations Review Committee was not taken lightly but as Lianne Dalziel said I think given the deliberation and the thought it put into it it probably reached the right decision in deciding not to follow its recommendation. 
A number of issues were raised by the Attorney-General but in particular he raised some issues regarding potential incapacitation of trustees and the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act considerations around that. We addressed those considerations in the bill and we were very pleased to be able to do that. So I think the bill is reported back to the House with the Attorney-General’s concerns dealt with. Concerns were also raised during the process about the ability for the bill to be enacted by Order in Council rather than a specific date being put in the bill. That is another issue that the Regulations Review Committee has been particularly sceptical about: the idea that the Governor-General by Order in Council can have the power to enact legislation at a certain point in time. Parliament could pass a bill that may not ever come into force or it could be done completely randomly several years down the track. 
The Regulations Review Committee was very unsupportive of that so we amended it in the actual bill. Members will see that now in clause 2 of the bill there is a specific date: “This Act comes into force on the 30th day after the date on which it receives the Royal assent.” We did not determine that date completely randomly; we determined that 30 days was probably about the right amount of time that the trustees and others would need to deal with the routine implementation and the administrative process of putting everything in place after the bill was passed. They will have the surety of knowing what the law is going to be and they then get 30 days in which to get everything all together so that they can put the law in place.