Ardern Jacinda: Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Ardern Jacinda: Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:668;Page:14893] 
JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) 
: 
 It is my pleasure to take my first call on Part 3 of the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill. Before commencing I want to hark back to the contribution made by my colleague John Hayes. He seems to really resent the fact that the Opposition is exploring some of the detail of this bill in the Committee stage—as it is imperative that we do. My colleague Iain Lees-Galloway described him as being monosyllabic in his contribution. I think that if we distil down my colleague John Hayes’ contribution on Part 3 we would find that if he had his way this bill would simply state: “Part 1 Let’s Have Party. Commencement Date: Now.” He seemed to utterly reject the notion that we should have any discussions on the way that some of the detail of the Rugby World Cup should be dealt with. Members on this side of the Chamber see this as quite an important job and one that we will continue to undertake with vigour. 
Part 3 is a really important substantive part of the bill. The whole intention of course is that the bill balances the need to reduce any delay in time and unnecessary bureaucracy but still makes sure that due process is undertaken when granting the authority power to undertake certain activities that would otherwise go through quite a rigorous separate procedure. Getting that balance right is absolutely critical. A lot of that occurs to a certain degree in Part 3. 
My colleague Chris Hipkins has already outlined some of the time lines that may apply to certain applications under this part. I think his rough estimation at its longest point was that we may see delays in an application which perhaps had public notification attached to it of roughly 25 working days. With the Rugby World Cup being in such a short time even the longest process that we might see could be perceived to be an impediment to undertaking an activity. 
So I wondered whether any Government members anyone on the Government Administration Committee—whether any members of the committee wish to contribute on this question—or the Minister in the chair the Hon Judith Collins wished to take a call. I note that no calls have been taken by a Minister in the chair up until this point which is disappointing. It would be useful if the Minister could outline to us the longest period that it is anticipated an application could take to be processed. It would be useful to understand that from the Government’s perspective. 
Is it intended for instance that the ministerial power for unforeseen circumstances—and the Government is unable to explain to us what that might look like—could be used to override a process that is taking too long under the jurisdiction of the authority? Is that the intention or does it fall outside the ambit of what the Government anticipates that extraordinary ministerial power being used for? Some clarification on that point would be useful. 
I think it is interesting to reflect on clause 19(2)(c). That clause goes into some of the additional requirements that have been set out. The select committee clarified that an application going through this shortened process must be specific to the Rugby World Cup. It must include for instance information on the steps an applicant must take to ensure as far as reasonably practical the health and safety of those undertaking the activity maps and plans of a location and any conditions the applicant considers appropriate for the declaration—a few things that are specific to the Rugby World Cup. 
Again I reflect on the fact that the select committee in its definition split the notion of tournament events—the actual sporting events—from ancillary events for instance the public screening of an event in a public place or an additional liquor licence for a pub in a remote area to extend its usual licence requirements to screen an event. I would be interested if the Minister could clarify whether it is anticipated that we split the way that those are dealt with by the authority because although I concede I am new to looking at this legislation that is not entirely clear to me on a cursory glance. 
I come specifically to clause 21A which deals with overlapping applications between the statutory bodies that would usually deal with the applications. The authority will now deal with with those applications in a circumvented process. I think it is right that we have quite clear procedural direction as to what happens when we have duplicate applications through either of those bodies but I still have some question marks over for instance arbitration and those who have a higher delegation of power between those two bodies. I just want to raise those. 
Clause 21A states that if there are overlapping applications that are the same or substantially the same as an application already lodged with a statutory body or person the application to the relevant statutory person or body is to be treated as having been withdrawn from the relevant statutory person or body and must be transferred to the authority in accordance with the regulation made under this Act. It is quite a significant power to basically instruct that a relevant statutory body must as outlined in subclause (4): “without delay—(a) forward a copy of all documentation it holds on the application to the Authority; and (b) cease to process the application.” 
I wonder whether any arbitration can take place in a scenario where for instance there might be some question over whether the application fulfils the criteria set out in the bill or where a statutory body may have some jurisdiction questions and may wish to maintain the processing of that application. We are talking about overriding what would probably otherwise be local council authority. Those are quite significant powers in that regard. 
I congratulate the select committee or the Government—whichever it was—on anticipating this issue and trying its best to resolve it. It does seem curious that it has anticipated this issue but cannot anticipate the circumstances in which carte blanche powers for a Minister might be required. It is hard to imagine what kind of scenario it is wishing to anticipate. 
I refer to clause 21A(6)(b) which states: “the statutory time limits applying to the relevant statutory person or body recommence from the date that the statutory body or person receives the documentation.” So for instance if an authority declines an application under its criteria for processing a liquor licence and then refers it back to the usual statutory body that processes it that relevant statutory body must treat the decision and the reasons of the authority as irrelevant for the purpose of the decision on the application. 
It seems to me that although there is no judicial oversight to challenge a decision made by an authority we do have a backstop measure. Basically someone who makes an application could just go back to the statutory body make the application again have it processed in time for the Rugby World Cup and still come out with the relevant requirements and legal rights to proceed even though an authority had already made a decision otherwise. So I would be interested in hearing the rationale from the Government or from members of the select committee. Perhaps the Minister in the chair might like to tell us why the authority’s decision is not full and final and why we still have in a sense an additional judicial process that someone can go through. It is an extra layer of bureaucracy really and I am curious as to why those decisions are not full and final. Actually at the end of the day we are leaving local authorities to potentially be the final arbiter. I wonder whether that was the intention of the Government. Some clarification of that would be good. 
Jacqui Dean 
: The member doesn’t understand the bill. 
JACINDA ARDERN 
: I think I just heard Jacqui Dean offer to stand up and clarify the position on that area. I would perfectly happy to hear her contribution given that her contributions to date on this legislation have been somewhat shallow. 
Hon Member 
: Too far too far. 
JACINDA ARDERN 
: I am happy to make that accusation given that the only thing I have heard from that member is that Labour hates rugby. What a full contribution that was!