Lees-Galloway Iain: Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill — In Committee 
Lees-Galloway Iain: Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:668;Page:15108] 
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.