Clendon David: Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Clendon David: Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:668;Page:14895] 
DAVID CLENDON (Green) 
: 
 I just make a few brief comments on Part 3 because it is very significant and is quite technical in a way; it is quite detailed. Essentially within this part we are told by what means by what mechanisms people will have their rights reduced and will have their opportunities to participate reduced. We are told to what extent and by what means ordinary members of the public will be denied their usual access to decision making about events activities structures facilities and so on that actually could influence them in their day-to-day lives. Of course there are some quite substantial provisions put in place in Part 3—all in the name of the Rugby World Cup and getting a good event. We all do look forward to that event and hope it goes well and also hope that we might leverage off the event to the maximum amount available. That is a point I will return to. 
But initially having made the point that Part 3 is the nitty-gritty this is where we are told how the authorities served by the numerous secretariats will diminish people’s rights—take away our access our right to participate—but in a sense this part is almost redundant— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I just check whether you are aware of what the member is saying. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Absolutely. 
DAVID CLENDON 
: To an extent Part 3 is almost superfluous because the sting in the tail if you like is that no matter what decisions are made at this level no matter who informs those decisions or by what means they are made ultimately one person will have the say-so in terms of what may or may not occur. That is the one step too far that has clearly brought Labour on to the side of opposing this bill: a place where the Greens have been from day one on this bill. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: That’s in Part 4; not in this part. 
DAVID CLENDON 
: Indeed it is but I am sure we have had reference to that issue already. 
I give a couple of quick examples as to some of the diminished ability that people will have to participate. There is the matter of public notice which has been commented on earlier; that information and supporting documentation about particular applications may be limited to being placed on one website. Potentially people who wish to make submissions may be obliged to make submissions only through electronic means. For many people that will not be a problem—it is commonplace—but we must recall that not every household in New Zealand has access to electronic media. Not everybody chooses to use that form of communication. I think we should be respectful of choices in the ability that people have to make submissions. 
It is interesting that the matter of standing is addressed in Part 3—that standing will be needed to be proved. We are basically going back to the bad old days of town and country planning when not everybody had standing as of right as is generally the rule under our new resource management approach. It is required that a person must have an interest in the matter greater than that of the general public. There are various statements about “affected persons” and statements that the Rugby World Cup Authority for example when it is considering what constitutes an adverse effect must ignore effects of a temporary nature. That means that communities of people could be subjected to significant noise over a period of days and weeks without any opportunity to object to that because the effect is deemed to be temporary. That is just not acceptable. 
I mentioned earlier that the justification underpinning a lot of these conditions is that this event will put New Zealand on the world stage. The various provisions in Part 3 are there because of the implied argument about the greater good for the country. It is interesting that in 2005 when the event was first awarded to New Zealand we were told amidst great rejoicing that we estimated some 60000 extra visitors would come here. That is a very debatable claim in itself given that very robust European research demonstrates that most often the expectation about extra visitors for an event is overstated. In 2005 the expectation was for 60000 people; today the expectation is 85000 extra visitors. The expectation has been inflated by some 40 percent in 5 years. In 2005 we understood that 3.4 billion people would witness this extravaganza on television; now that number has gone up to 4 billion people. For every one of the intervening 5 years another 120 million people have an interest in rugby!