Lees-Galloway Iain: Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Lees-Galloway Iain: Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:668;Page:14882] 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North) 
: 
 I appreciate the opportunity to enter the debate on the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill for the first time in the Committee of the whole House and to speak to Part 2 which refers to and deals with the establishment of the Rugby World Cup Authority. It is a pleasure to follow Jacqui Dean who was interested in broadening out the debate. I appreciate that she wanted perhaps to go a little beyond Part 2 and I am happy to speak to some of her concerns about why there was no minority report from the Opposition members on the Government Administration Committee with reference to Part 2. That is because the Labour members actually support Part 2. What we are concerned about is the fact that there are good provisions in Part 2; however— 
Nikki Kaye 
: Why wasn’t there a minority report? 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY 
: Nikki Kaye asks why there was no minority report. She can continue to interject and I am happy to respond to her interjections but perhaps she would let me get to my point. The reason that there is no minority report for Part 2 is that the Labour Opposition actually supports Part 2 but Part 2 is undermined by the provisions in Part 4. 
Part 2 establishes the Rugby World Cup Authority as a body corporate and sets out its functions and powers which include determining all applications making recommendations to the Minister and granting urgent applications. That is a good role for the authority but the problem is of course that Part 4 completely undermines the authority. We may as well not even bother to have the authority because Part 4 says the Minister can just override it and ignore it. So we speak in favour of this part but we highlight the fact that other clauses of the bill undermine it. Jacqui Dean brought this issue into the debate; she wondered why Labour had a problem with this bill and it is because this part which is a good valuable part of the bill is completely undermined. 
I will refer specifically to the amendment to clause 9(2) made by the select committee. One of the things that the authority had to take into account in the original wording was “the safety of individuals participating in or attending the Rugby World Cup 2011;”. That has been amended by the select committee—and I think it is a positive move—to read: “public health and safety are protected as far as it is reasonably practicable during the period of the Rugby World Cup 2011”. That amendment made by the select committee is important because it acknowledges the fact that the event the Rugby World Cup will have an impact on New Zealand as a nation and on our community as a whole not just as the original wording said on “individuals participating in or attending the Rugby World Cup 2011”. It is a positive change. I think it is fair to say it is an unusual change for this Government to support given the use of the term “public health” and the Government’s general abhorrence for public health. 
But what concerns me is that although Part 2 has that provision in it and the authority should be making recommendations to the Minister about what in practical terms can be done to ensure public health and safety and although the authority will no doubt be taking advice from organisations like the police the Fire Service public health services and district health boards—all those organisations will be able to feed into the process and advise the authority which can then advise the Minister—the Minister can turn round and say: “No thanks. It is too difficult and too expensive. We will assume there is no issue of public health and safety.” in the interests of expediency or of securing profits for sponsors. It could be any reason; in fact the Minister does not particularly need to give a reason. In that way Part 4 undermines what is a very very good clause here in Part 2 of the bill. As I said I think the amendment to clause 9(2) is a good amendment because it recognises that the issue is about not just safety but also public health. When we have a gathering of people as we will do with a tournament like this we have to think beyond just safety issues in terms of alcohol or driving.