Roy Heather: Urgent Debates — Rugby World Cup—Extension to Queens Wharf Fanzone 
Roy Heather: Urgent Debates — Rugby World Cup—Extension to Queens Wharf Fanzone 
[Volume:675;Page:21365] 
Hon HEATHER ROY (ACT) 
: 
 I rise to speak to this urgent debate on behalf of the ACT Party. I would like to say to start with that it would be nice to see some facts involved in this debate but perhaps that is too much to ask. Mr Mallard when he first got up to speak used this as an opportunity to attack the Government. He seemed more upset I have to say that the Prime Minister had not acknowledged the contribution of Labour in getting the Rugby World Cup here than he does about the provisions of the urgent debate itself. Minister Joyce in response took the chance to have a swipe back at Trevor Mallard by using 2006 press clippings amongst other things. Although the Greens speaker used the opportunity to publicise much more broadly the Green Party’s public transport policy he did in fact get to the crux of the matter. I was very pleased to hear him acknowledge Dean Knight’s contribution his paper  
Nationalisation of RWC party central? 
. This is the only summary I have seen—the only comprehensive narrative on the issue—that actually gets to the crux of the matter of this urgent debate. 
Anyone listening of course would be much more taken I think with the political bickering opportunities that have been taken in this debate than with an examination of the facts involved which largely revolve around the two laws put in place: the Major Events Management Act and the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Act. I would contend that this action is much more about perception than it is about reality. I think it does bear some examination. What exactly is it that the Minister for the Rugby World Cup has done? What does the announcement made by Minister McCully mean? 
The Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Act was passed late last year to provide for special procedures for regulatory approvals for Rugby World Cup activities and liquor licences. Of course the independent Rugby World Cup Authority was constituted to consider these applications. The legislation itself allows for application and the process it follows but also it provides for an even more expedited process “in circumstances of urgency that for good reason was not foreseen”. A much higher threshold was required. A different and more expedited process was provided for as I have said but rather than being determined by the Rugby World Cup Authority as some seem to think is the case the authority itself only assesses the application and makes a recommendation to the Minister for the Rugby World Cup. There is no obligation to subject the application to a participatory process; it is merely a handing on once it is assessed. 
The decision about whether the approval should be granted then falls not to the authority itself but to the Minister responsible Minister McCully. He is obliged to consult the Minister for Economic Development and any other relevant Ministers. He must take into account but is not to be bound by the recommendation of the Rugby World Cup Authority and his decision is final at that point. And that is it. Those are the only special powers under the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Act and we should not lose sight of that notwithstanding the events of last Friday that have sparked this debate today. The Minister’s role which should be noted is a reactive role as ultimate decision maker once an urgent application is made and then only after the independent Rugby World Cup Authority has scrutinised it. 
The Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Act thankfully does not give the Minister the ability to take control of the waterfront or to run parties on that waterfront. A jolly good thing that is too; I do not think any of us would want to see that. So what is it that is happening now that the applications have been made? The applications presently being made urgently are conjoint applications by the Ministry of Economic Development and Auckland Council’s events team. It seems that these applications were already in the process of being prepared collaboratively before the Minister’s announcement and the fast-tracked approvals currently being sought are I have to say largely mundane. The most recent application is a joint one between the Ministry of Economic Development and Auckland Council’s events unit. The Ministry of Economic Development is seeking to use Captain Cook Wharf for fanzone events and the Auckland Council is seeking to extend the existing liquor licence over the wharf. So that will now be passed on to the Minister to decide. The Rugby World Cup Authority is considering both applications following a brief period for public submissions and it is holding a public hearing today. 
So what exactly are the problems arising from that? Well in listening to the debate today I think that probably nobody is very clear what the problems are but from an ACT perspective this is how we see things. This is not about taking control and as I have already said that is a good thing. This is not about taking control of the waterfront or taking control of any parties. Rather it is a perception that the Government is doing something. So on the other side I contend that the Government has made a meal of this when in fact very little other than what has already been talked about is happening. 
This is to do with the Minister’s special power to approve urgent applications under the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Act. It does raise a potential issue of law. It is a basic principle of administrative law that decision makers exercising statutory powers must keep an open mind and must not predetermine the outcome of applications. That ensures applications are properly considered and there is no conflict of interest. Keeping that in mind there is a live question about whether Minister McCully’s directives and public statements mean he has compromised his ability to personally consider the urgent applications. My Green Party colleague Keith Locke raised that very pertinent point in the speech he has just delivered. In such circumstances there is provision for something else to happen. Under section 7 of the Constitution Act 1986 another Minister is able to exercise that power. One of the things that I think this House should be interested in in the interest of transparency and accountability is to see whether that does in fact happen. Again my Green Party colleague raised that matter. 
Looking more broadly what is more worrying I think of the issues that have been raised as a direct result of the events on the Auckland waterfront of last Friday afternoon is the fact that the Government does appear to be saying publicly that it has no confidence in the new Auckland Council to handle these waterfront events. If it has no confidence that is indeed worrying not just for the Rugby World Cup but I would contend well beyond. It is something that we will certainly be looking at. 
I will finish by saying that we politicians as legislators need to be very careful before putting in place legislation that gives wide-ranging powers to a Government or to Ministers. We need to be very careful about empowering legislation and the power that it gives particularly to individuals. 
I hope that I have injected a little factual information into this debate and taken it away slightly if only temporarily from a “he said she said” debate about who is doing the best job of getting the Rugby World Cup here and how it is being run because that is not what this debate should be about. It should be on the provisions in place in law already and how those are being put into effect.