Volume 668 Week 58 - Wednesday 27 October 2010 
Volume 668 Week 58 - Wednesday 27 October 2010 
[Volume:668;Page:14843] 
Wednesday 27 October 2010 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Questions to Ministers 
Financial Statements Crown—Trends 
1. 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What trends are evident in the Government’s latest financial statements? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 The financial statements for the year ended 30 June 2010 show that the Government is generally on track with its fiscal management. The fact that core Crown expenses were flat at $64 billion from one year to the next indicates we are getting on top of expenditure control. The residual cash deficit increased slightly from $8.6 billion to $9 billion for the year ended in June. This deficit is forecast to rise to $13.3 billion for the 2010-11 financial year. 
David Bennett 
: What trends in net Crown debt were highlighted in the Government’s latest annual accounts? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Net Crown debt is increasing as the Government absorbs the shock of the recent recession on its own books helping to protect New Zealanders from the sharp edges of that recession. Core Crown debt is now around $27 billion or just over 14 percent of GDP. That debt will continue to rise because this year the Government expects there will be a cash deficit of around $13 billion. However we cannot keep running deficits or increasing debt forever and that is why the Government has a 5 or 6-year track towards a surplus involving tight control of Government spending. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Can he tell hard-working Kiwis why he has borrowed an extra three-quarters of a billion dollars in the last 2 months to pay for his economic mismanagement? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: No. Fortunately a lot of hard-working Kiwis understand just how much this Government needs to do to correct the economic mismanagement of the previous Government and to deal with the recession. That is why the Government’s economic policies are broadly supported. 
David Bennett 
: What do the latest forecasts show about the likely path for the economy and the Government’s finances? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Treasury is currently working on forecasts which will be published at the half-year update on 14 December. As I told the Finance and Expenditure Committee today tax receipts for July and August were lower than forecast. I am told that the September tax receipts are up a bit clawing back some of the difference. It is difficult to draw detailed conclusions from just 2 or 3 months’ worth of data but I would expect that in the half-year update tax revenue will be a bit softer and that may flow through to the rest of the Government accounts. 
David Bennett 
: What positive signs is he seeing from the nature of the current economic recovery? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Well many—many positive signs. As we have talked about in the House this economy needs to be rebalanced away from excessive property speculation excessive Government spending and excessive personal consumption. The early signs of the recovery are promising. Private consumption is pretty much flat because New Zealanders are saving a good deal more than they were. Although that has meant a more muted economic recovery in the short term it is laying a stronger platform for sustainable economic recovery in the long term. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Why did he tell the Finance and Expenditure Committee today that there was “no V-shaped recovery” when the Prime Minister said it would be aggressive; and who is right: he and the Governor of the Reserve Bank who think the recovery is slow and fragile or his boss whom he describes as floating from cloud to cloud? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: As we have gone over this issue about 10 times in the House and the select committee I will explain it again. The Prime Minister made his comments in early 2009 and he was correct; the economy turned round from a 2.5 percent contraction to about a 2 percent growth rate. Like other developed economies as New Zealand households have increased their savings dramatically it has meant that they have less to spend. That is why retailers and the construction industry are finding it tough. 
Economic Policies—Contribution to Medium-term Fiscal Consolidation 
2. 
METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Is he satisfied that all the Government’s economic policies contribute to the goal of “clear credible ambitious and growth-friendly medium-term fiscal consolidation”? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 The answer to that is yes. The goal the member is referring to is one that was set out either by the OECD or the G20 finance Ministers in their recent communiqué. 
Metiria Turei 
: How does it help to meet this goal by paying over $1 billion a year in accommodation supplement subsidies to landlords especially as the total Government housing subsidy is expected to rise to nearly $3 billion by 2016? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The member will be aware there has been debate for some time about what drives the cost of housing. We will continue to pay the accommodation supplement to tenants. I know some believe that that is just passed on to landlords but they should try taking it off the tenants and see what happens. Of course it would leave them in an unacceptable situation. The member will know that the Government has done a review of State housing and a number of our Resource Management Act changes are designed to increase the supply of affordable housing. 
Metiria Turei 
: Does he agree then that it is an inadequate supply of housing to meet the current deficit of 70000 homes that is fuelling the projected blowout of the Government’s housing subsidy? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I think the member is probably at least in part right that constraints on the supply of housing drive up the cost of housing including for those tenants that the Government is subsidising. I look forward to the Green Party’s support of the changes the Government is making to our regulatory structures to improve the supply of affordable housing. 
Metiria Turei 
: Will the Minister then consider a State house building programme like that proposed in the Green Party’s Mind the Gap package of 6000 homes over 3 to 5 years which will help to address the housing shortage constrain the growth in the housing subsidy and create 28000 jobs in the process? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The Government’s obvious preference would be that the private sector was able to expand the supply of affordable houses. We have just done a review of State housing where a pretty broad-based group with a lot of experience in housing made the point that the simple growth in the number of State houses often does not help those who are most in need. They are the Government’s priority. 
Metiria Turei 
: Why then is the Government prepared to borrow ever-increasing sums of money to fund a housing subsidy for landlords yet is not prepared to borrow to invest in building homes for New Zealand families? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I am not sure whether we are disagreeing here. The Government would like to see a greater supply of affordable housing. It is somewhat ironic though that the Green Party is among those who most vociferously object to new subdivisions and to the expansion of housing. If we could get those rules changed in local bodies so as to encourage more affordable housing then that might drop the cost of the rental subsidy as well as increase the opportunities for first-home buyers. 
Parity with Australia—Progress 
3. 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: What recent progress has he made on catching up with Australia? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Prime Minister) 
 on behalf of the  
Prime Minister 
: In terms of catching up with Australia the biggest step we have taken is to return the economy to growth after five quarters of economic contraction which started under the previous Labour Government. The second-biggest step we have taken is to start undoing the damage done by the wrong-headed economic policy of the previous Labour Government. As the member will know the Australian economy did not go into recession at all so we have been starting from some way behind. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: How many net additional jobs does he expect to see created in New Zealand this year compared with the quarter of a million new net additional jobs that Australia has so far created this year? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I cannot give the member that number but I can say that as Australia has had its terms of trade double in 5 years because of the value of its resource base up against our commodities whose terms of trade have increased by about 50 percent then of course there will be a challenge. Equally we had a recession and Australia did not. That member’s party might be able to explain why New Zealand went into recession under his Government before the global financial crisis and Australia did not. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Will the first decline in the median income in New Zealand to take place in more than a decade which Statistics New Zealand recorded over the last year help close the income gap with Australia? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: When the member was away we discussed in the House how useless the median income measure is because it does not measure what happens to household incomes. That member ought to explain how the Labour Government managed to drive New Zealand into recession when the Australian economy did not go into recession. He was in the Government at the time. 
Chris Tremain 
: How have wages in New Zealand fallen behind those in Australia? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The history of this is quite interesting. Between September 1999 and September 2008 real after-tax wages in New Zealand rose only 3 percent. In contrast in the same period in Australia real after-tax wages rose 19 percent. So over the last decade wages in New Zealand fell a long way behind wages in Australia. Since that time I am happy to say we have made progress towards reducing the wage gap but it is early days yet. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: When will the unemployment rate in New Zealand which has reached nearly one in two for Maori and Pasifika teenage girls and over one in three for Maori and Pasifika teenage boys persuade him that he needs to give the same priority and focus to skill training and education to our young people at risk instead of cutting as he did last week $55 million out of skill training? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The member may not be aware that about 100000 people who are participating in the industry training system were getting no credits whatsoever. With the agreement of the industry training sector the Government has taken the unutilised and wasted money and shifted it to where it can be more usefully employed. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: When putting together his tax package what consideration did he give to ensuring that most of the benefit went to those on modest incomes as they did in Australia rather than the lion’s share of the benefit going to those on the top incomes as it does in New Zealand? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The member is simply wrong and the fact that he repeats that description and includes Australia does not mean that he is right. The Government published all the analysis in respect of the equity of the tax cuts after the Budget and it showed that when we take into account the impact of the increased taxes on property and on foreign owners of New Zealand assets the major income groups all got about the same positive increase in income. That is the analysis and in fact no one has challenged it. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Which of the policies introduced by his Government has done the most to widen the income gap with Australia? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: As we pointed out the real after-tax wage gap has actually closed. That is the measure that is used and it was legislated by the previous Government as the wage measure that is relative to national superannuation. We believe that our whole raft of policies including our investment in infrastructure microeconomic reform our tax switch our reform of the public sector our focus on education and skills and our extension of innovation and business support are all adding up to a policy that will close the gap with Australia. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Has he passed the test that he set for himself to close the gap with Australia; or was that promise about as credible as his promise not to increase GST? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Yes. Our policies do pass the test. We have put together a six-point economic programme which we are executing. Ours is a programme that his new friend Mrs Gillard would recognise because she gave a speech a lot like ours and his policies are heading in the opposite direction from where his new friend Mrs Gillard is going. 
Gambling Problem—Intervention Services 
4. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Health 
: He aha nga rautaki ka kokuhua ki te whakautu i te pikinga ma te 25 orau o nga kiritaki hei whakararu nei i nga ratonga aukati peti moni otira tera pikihanga e 5325 i te tau 2008 ki te e 6673 i te tau 2009; a ka whakaae a ia ki ta Barbara Phillips kaiwhakahaere no te Manatu Hauora i ki ra “those seeking help are only a small proportion of overall gambling prevalence”? 
[ 
What strategies have been introduced to respond to the 25 percent increase in numbers of clients presenting to problem gambling intervention services which rose from 5325 in 2008 to 6673 in 2009; and does he agree with Ministry of Health manager Barbara Phillips that “those seeking help are only a small proportion of overall gambling prevalence”? 
] 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Associate Minister of Health) 
: 
 The Government recently approved a new 6-year strategy for the period 2010-16 and a funding plan for the period 2010-30 including a comprehensive needs analysis based on client user statistics such as the ones that the member has quoted prevalence data and models of best practice. The 3-year service plan continues to provide for a range of services from public health activity through to brief and comprehensive interventions. For communities that do not have access to face-to-face services the toll-free gambling helpline service is now available 24 hours a day 7 days a week. Typically clients present to services in crisis which is a smaller percentage of those affected by problem gambling. The Government has therefore strengthened its focus on early interventions in order to reach people before they reach that crisis point. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: Kua hoparangia e te Minita o te Hauora nga painga o te tuitui i te kari whai-putea me te kari whakatu-whakapaunga-putea ki te rautaki whakakore petipeti; ki te kore he aha? 
[ 
Has the Minister of Health investigated the promotion of player tracking cards and pre-commit cards as part of the integrated problem-gambling strategy; if not why not? 
] 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: I think a more logical comparison would be to look at data from the same quarters of previous years. An analysis of Department of Internal Affairs data shows that there continues to be a decline in spend in the non-casino gaming-machine sector. For example in September 2008 the sector spend was $232.3 million; that fell to $220.7 million for the September 2009 quarter and to $215.2 million for the September 2010 quarter. I think that data provides the answers to the member’s question. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: He awangawanga ona e pa ana ki nga tatauranga e ki nei ahakoa kua mimiti te tokomaha o nga raihana nga mihini petipeti me nga whare petipeti i te tau kua hipa kua piki tonu te putea kua whakapauria i te hauwha tau kua taha ake nei mai i te $209m i te Pipiri ki te $215m i te Here-turi-koka; a he aha nga ara kei mua i te tangata ki te whawhai i tenei ngarara te petipeti? 
[ 
Has he concerns that despite a decline in numbers of licence holders gambling venues and gaming machines in the past year spending in the last quarter still rose from $209 million in June to $215 million in September; and what measures are in place for a person to combat this addiction to gambling? 
] 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: The issue that the member raises falls within the responsibility of the Department of Internal Affairs but I am aware that we already have systems that interrupt play on pokie machines that are known as pop-ups or player information displays. I gather that some Australian states are proposing to implement technology such as pre-commit cards and I imagine that the Minister of Internal Affairs would want to see the outcome of that move before determining whether to further regulate the sector in New Zealand. 
Child Poverty—Government Action 
5. 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: What action if any has the Government taken to reduce child poverty in New Zealand? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Acting Minister of Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 Apart from the great economic work being achieved by this Government’s robust fiscal policies the Ministry of Social Development has done a great deal to help children and families in these tough economic conditions including the Job Support Scheme ReStart payments Job Ops Community Max Break Away programmes and the highly successful Community Response Fund. In addition we have increased the abatement rate for the domestic purposes benefit and the invalids benefit so people can earn more while still receiving the benefit. 
Hon Annette King 
: Has the Government made a commitment to end child poverty in New Zealand; if so what timetable has been set to achieve it? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: It would be great to be able to say that we could end child poverty in New Zealand. Certainly the previous Government had 9 years to do it and the best economic times to do it but never achieved it. 
Hon Annette King 
: Will she support the Every Child Counts call to establish a cross-party group to address child poverty and will she seek to convince the Prime Minister that it should be established given that he dismissed the idea when I raised it with him in November last year? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: No. 
Hon Annette King 
: Has she seen the report from the Child Poverty Action Group which states that before the election National made political capital out of a so-called underclass in New Zealand but since the election child poverty has become invisible; and has she argued in Cabinet for priority to be given to end child poverty in this country—a country that can afford millions for a building to have a party in yet children have to wait? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: I have not seen the report from the Child Poverty Action Group. I can however say that under the very best economic times that the previous Labour Government inherited it was not able to end child poverty. We have inherited a recession and we are doing a fantastic job. 
Hon Annette King 
: Does she agree with the Prime Minister’s Chief Science Adviser Professor Peter Gluckman who said that the Government is putting the money in the wrong end that investing in troubled teens is often too late and that the first 6 years of life are critical; will she ensure that funding is provided to reduce child poverty even if she will not commit to ending it—reduce it as happened under the previous Government—and will she commit to reducing it in the next Budget? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: The best way out of poverty for families is work—[ 
Interruption 
] Well I know that that might be a four-letter word for Labour members but it is not for this side. I agree with the Children’s Commissioner who said that work is a road to salvation. 
Prisons—Staff Safety 
6. 
SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) 
 to the  
Minister of Corrections 
: What reports has she received on initiatives to improve the safety of prison staff? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Corrections) 
: 
 The safety of Department of Corrections officers is one of our top priorities and I am very pleased to report that the department has delivered an intensive 3-day training course in advanced tactical communication and de-escalation techniques to its entire front-line staff of 4000. This was delivered via an impressive 12500 training days across the country. The training allows officers to effectively talk down an escalating or potentially dangerous situation. I expect that this will result in fewer officers being hurt in the line of duty. I have been told that the training has already led to many tense situations being resolved without the prisoner involved resorting to violence. 
Sandra Goudie 
: What other steps have been taken to protect front-line corrections staff? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: Prison staff have already been provided with new protective equipment for use in dangerous situations. This includes stab-proof vests spit hoods and batons. The department is now starting a 12-month trial of pepper spray with a view to adding this tool to the range of safety equipment available to front-line staff. I am also delighted that our Government is introducing legislation to make offending against a Department of Corrections officer or a police officer an aggravating factor in sentencing. 
Government Accounts Cash Deficit—Tax Cuts 
7. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Why did he continue with his 2010 tax cuts when the Government has a cash deficit of $9 billion? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 Because the package of tax cuts will lift New Zealand’s rate of growth by improving the incentives to work to save to invest and to export and to help a much-needed rebalancing of this economy. The tax changes have little bearing on the Government’s cash deficit as they are broadly fiscally neutral and are revenue-positive by the end of the forecast period and in future years. Of course they will leave the vast majority of New Zealanders a bit better off. 
Hon Shane Jones 
: Can he confirm why his old-fashioned recipe of borrow and hope is going to generate jobs and lead to the creation of new firms in the face of tax revenue declining and the Government borrowing over a billion dollars a month as he confirmed this morning at the Finance and Expenditure Committee? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: No I cannot confirm any of that because it is all wrong. It is a bit rich being lectured by Labour on borrow and hope. It is a bit like being lectured by a gambling addict on going to the pokies. 
Craig Foss 
: Did the Government at any stage borrow in order to give tax cuts? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The answer to that of course is no. The income tax cuts of April 2009 were fully funded by the accompanying changes to KiwiSaver and the research and development tax credit. The 2010 income tax cuts are funded by an increase in GST and by a tightening of the tax regime on foreign investors smokers and people who own investment property. Once this policy is fully in place it will produce an annual revenue gain of $175 million a year in 2013 2014 and beyond then. Our tax cuts have been good for economic growth and fair for New Zealanders. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I seek leave to table a copy of Budget 2010 showing—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It is a shame that the Minister of Finance interjected then; otherwise Mr Cunliffe might have been taking an early shower. When I get to my feet he will sit immediately. The member knows that we do not table copies of the Budget or waste time during question time on that sort of thing. 
Stuart Nash 
: Given that he admitted to the Finance and Expenditure Committee today that his tax cuts were not stimulatory can he explain to the House why according to Budget 2010 documents he is borrowing ever-increasing amounts of money to pay for them? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: No the member is wrong. The Budget documents do not show that. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Oh yes they do. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Well no they do not show that. They show that over 4 years they are broadly fiscally neutral and that beyond year 4 there is actually a gain of about $175 million a year. I do not know which Budget the member is reading. 
Craig Foss 
: What impact did the 2010 tax package have on income distribution? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: As demonstrated in Budget 2010 and the background documents the Government spent some time focusing on the distributional impacts of the tax package. It shows that the gain to the lowest one-third of households by income was about the same as the gain to the highest one-third of earners. Both groups had their real after-tax incomes lifted by 0.7 percent. If Labour really thought the tax cuts were unfair it would campaign to repeal them. Of course they are not. 
Brendon Burns 
: Can the Minister tell New Zealand’s hard-working families why they are paying more GST on everything they buy when he gets $200 a week in tax cuts and is borrowing nearly $300 million a week to pay for such cuts? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The Government is not borrowing anything for tax cuts; it has been a broadly fiscally neutral package. In fact the Opposition has been complaining that we put GST up in order to pay for the tax cuts so it cannot have it both ways. These are fair tax cuts but more important they help to rebalance this economy after a decade of mismanagement in which New Zealanders were misled into believing that borrowing spending and speculating on houses were the path to wealth when they are not. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Given that he admitted to the Finance and Expenditure Committee today that it cost $450 million in year 1 and $1.045 billion over 4 years to fund his tax cuts and that the reason he continued with the tax cuts in April 2009 which he knew the country could not afford was that it was a National Party election promise why did he raise GST when his Government had promised not to? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: All the member’s assertions are wrong. As I explained to the member the tax cuts in April 2009 were actually offset by the changes in KiwiSaver and the research and development tax credit which the Opposition often refers to and the tax cuts in April 2010 were fiscally neutral. We are very proud that we have implemented tax cuts that favour saving exporting investing and creating jobs whereas the Labour Party favours consumption borrowing and excessive Government spending.  
Regulatory Reform—Protection from Compliance Cost Increases 
8. 
Dr CAM CALDER (National) 
 to the  
Minister for the Environment 
: What actions has the Government taken to avoid unnecessary cost increases for New Zealand householders from excessive regulation? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 Regulations passed by the previous Government would from 1 January prohibit the sale of over 1000 common household products sold in cardboard or refill packs even though the toxicity of those is little more than table salt or lemon juice. These excessive regulations would have added over $20 million to family grocery bills and over 30 million plastic containers to the waste stream. This Government campaigned on removing such unnecessary red tape and today it has repealed them. 
Dr Cam Calder 
: What products would have been banned from sale and does any other country require such regulation for similar household products? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Products that would have been banned from our supermarket shelves include Surf and Persil. Spray n’ Wipe would not be allowed on our supermarket shelves let alone the deadly Palmolive dishwashing liquid. We also would have had to get rid of—oh here is the man who is responsible. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I can remember some time it might have been last year but certainly during your reign on the throne you prevented the Greens—I think Sue Kedgley—from doing exactly this by using props. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Speaker is considering a genuine point of order. I certainly did not allow a member to table such things and I did not allow other members to produce such things other than the speaking member. But I do not recollect having ruled that a member with the call could not use props to support what he or she was saying. If I have I will apologise for that. I will check back on my record to avoid inconsistency and I apologise if I got that wrong. The member has answered considerably; he should not go on much further. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I think it is very appropriate. The other product that has been banned is the good old Toilet Duck. These regulations exist in no other developed country and are particularly significant for relations with Australia in that prohibiting these products makes New Zealand uncompetitive with Australia. 
Hon Rodney Hide 
: How has the ACT Party and the regulatory reform work led by me helped identify and reverse these nanny State regulations inherited from the previous Labour Government? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The Minister who asked the question has initiated a comprehensive programme of regulatory reform and when the Grocery Marketers Association raised these issues with the Minister of Regulatory Reform he insisted on a review. That review found that these regulations were totally unnecessary and were the sorts of nanny State regulations that caused the previous Government to be thrown out. 
Dr Cam Calder 
: Has the Government reversed all the regulations designed to better protect children against harmful substances? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: No. There are some stronger cleaning products like some bleaches and concentrated dishwashing powders that do pose a threat that justifies child-resistant packaging such as Janola. I hear members opposite arguing that that is somehow nanny State. I will tell members the difference. The difference is that we are practical on this side of the House. We apply some common sense rather than banning these assorted products that would not have been allowed on New Zealand supermarket shelves if Labour had stayed in Government. 
Hon Rodney Hide 
: Has the Minister received any advice on the job impacts of these regulations given that we would be the only country in the world requiring child-resistant packaging for products like Surf and Persil? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Yes I have. It would put New Zealand out on a limb and at serious disadvantage. I am advised that the Unilever factory in Petone would be put out of business by these regulations including the 330 staff who are in the previous Minister for the Environment’s own electorate. This is a classic example of poor regulations costing New Zealand householders and costing jobs and it is one of the reasons why this Government has a comprehensive programme of regulatory reform. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Before I call the honourable member for the next question I ask the Minister to please remove the props now that he has completed that answer. 
Climate Change Cancun Conference—Legally Binding Agreement 
9. 
Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green) 
 to the  
Minister responsible for International Climate Change Negotiations 
: Will New Zealand support a legally binding agreement to cut global greenhouse gas emissions at the Cancun climate change conference this December; if not why not? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Acting Minister responsible for International Climate Change Negotiations) 
: 
 Yes that is this Government’s ambition. This was the position at Bali at Copenhagen and it will also be so at Cancun. However all indications are that this is unlikely to be achieved at Cancun but New Zealand is ready and willing to make as much progress as is possible. 
Dr Kennedy Graham 
: If such an agreement is not likely and we are then obliged to rely on the Copenhagen Accord instead does he believe that the combined voluntary emission cuts promised under the Copenhagen Accord will be sufficient to meet the agreed safe threshold of 2 degrees Celsius which requires a 28 percent reduction in global emissions by 2020? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The climate change negotiations are very much the art of the possible because they require the agreement of over 190 countries on such a complex issue. It is the Government’s view that the Copenhagen Accord was a second-best outcome from Copenhagen but it is better than nothing. Our hope is that we will be able to translate some of the good work that is included in the Copenhagen Accord into a more robust international agreement. 
Dr Kennedy Graham 
: If climate change negotiations are the art of the possible is it possible for him to reconcile his plan to cut national emissions by 10 to 20 percent with a global reduction target of 28 percent given that as a developed country we are obliged to take a larger share of the 28 percent notwithstanding our special situation on agriculture? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I think it is very important that Parliament understands that the 10 to 20 percent reduction target range for New Zealand is of course based on 1990 emissions and 1990 emissions grew between then and 2008 by 25 percent which is a very substantial increase. The second point that is unique to New Zealand is that of course 50 percent of our emissions come from agriculture where the technologies are a lot more challenging. My view is that a 10 to 20 percent reduction from 1990 levels by 2020 is a hugely challenging target for New Zealand. 
Louise Upston 
: What progress has New Zealand made in climate change and will this enable New Zealand to meet its Kyoto obligations? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: We have made good progress with the emissions trading scheme coming into effect on 1 July. I am encouraged that the future forecast projections of emissions show the first years of decline in New Zealand’s net emissions in any time since 1990—that is during every year of the previous Labour administration emissions went up— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: And we had growth and you’ve got a recession! 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The member interjects. It is interesting to note that the big gains have been firstly in the area of forestry. Under his Government New Zealand deforested; under our Government we are planting trees. The second big gains have been in the area of renewable energy where rather than building thermal power stations which occurred under the previous Government we currently have a record level of investment in renewable energy and that should be welcomed. 
Hon John Boscawen 
: Does he agree with the Greenhouse Policy Coalition that when comparing New Zealand’s emissions trading scheme with the European Union emissions trading scheme from 2015 only 50 percent of emissions in the EU are covered compared with 100 percent in New Zealand; if so does he accept that New Zealand’s emissions trading scheme is more comprehensive than the European emissions trading scheme and may also render us “uncompetitive with Australia” as the Minister for the Environment has just explained to the House with reference to his props of Persil and Surf? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Firstly in respect of the issue of the comparison with Australia it is interesting to note that electricity prices in Australia have gone up by more than 30 percent over the last 5 years in response to a whole lot of regulatory measures that Australian Governments have tried—in an inefficient way in my view—in order to deal with the challenge of climate change. So I think we are well placed in competitive terms with Australia. In respect of the comparison with Europe it is very important that we compare like with like. If we compare our emissions trading scheme today with that of the European Union we see that our scheme covers less and is less aggressive and we will have a review of the scheme next year. The commitment of this Government is to ensure that New Zealand does its fair share on climate change not that we should try to be a world leader because we have to carefully balance those economic and environmental responsibilities. 
Education National Standards—Schools’ Comprehension of System 
10. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: What evidence does she have as to the level of understanding of the Government’s national standards system in schools? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Education) 
: 
 A range of evidence is available to me as to the level of understanding of national standards. This includes Education Review Office data and results from the Ministry of Education’s monitoring and evaluation programme as well as anecdotal evidence from schools I have visited and people I have met. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Are her standards designed to provide detailed information to inform the quality of teaching on a daily basis? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: The national standards are designed to provide signposts—expectations of what children should have learnt and by when—to ensure that children make good progress towards the goal of National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA) level 2. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It was a very specific question about whether the national standards are designed to provide information that would help teaching on a daily basis. The fact that they are designed to do something else might be taken as a no but I deliberately asked a very direct question in an attempt to have it addressed. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I hear what the member is saying—it was a very direct question. I think the Minister should try to answer that. I accept that she almost did in indicating what the standards are designed for but the question actually asked whether they were designed for that specific issue. It was a very direct question; I think it would be helpful if the Minister were to answer that. 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: As I said the standards are designed as a set of expectations of what a child should have learnt in reading writing and maths and by when. Teachers can use those to guide their teaching as they do currently and they can also use those during the teaching year as they assess—using either assessment tools or their own teacher judgment—the progress that a student is making. 
Allan Peachey 
: What evidence has the Minister seen of the level of understanding in the community about national standards? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: I have had numerous emails about national standards from members of the community that show that they understand the standards including one from a board chair who said: “Since we have implemented the national standards our school community has been very happy with the new level of reporting and we have had overwhelming positive feedback. Please keep up the good work.” and this one from a parent: “We are thrilled with the new national standards and there are thousands of parents like us who fully support you and think you and the National-led Government are on the right track.” 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Is it the Minister’s hope or expectation that the quality of teaching will improve on a daily basis based on the information teachers get from national standards? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: The national standards are a set of expectations by which teachers can measure the progress of their students in reading writing and maths. Quality teaching methods will be used to lift achievement and to accelerate progress where it is needed but the standards do not provide that quality teaching. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Can a year 5 student achieve a year 6 standard in reading comprehension? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: I do not have the data in front of me. If the member cares to put that question in writing I am happy to provide him with an answer. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Was a backward-mapping exercise carried out to ensure that progress according to the standards leads to level 2 NCEA in year 12? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: It is my understanding that the technical experts who designed the standards which were based on the existing literacy progressions that were introduced under Minister Maharey as Minister of Education and the numeracy project which was introduced when the member who asked the question was Minister of Education used those and back-mapped from NCEA level 2 but that is just my advice. I did not design them. We used technical experts to design them. 
State Housing—Challenges 
11. 
HEKIA PARATA (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Housing 
: What are the current challenges the Government is facing with social housing? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY (Minister of Housing) 
: 
 One of the challenges is that a State house is currently the only benefit in New Zealand where once someone is in that person’s need is never reassessed. As a result we have over 5000 Housing New Zealand Corporation tenants paying market rents who could afford to rent from the landlord next door and all the while 4000 families are classified on the waiting list as high priority for a State house. We also interestingly have over 2700 tenants in homes that are underutilised with two or three spare bedrooms. A similar number of tenants 2700 are in houses that are deemed to be overcrowded and really need to be transferred to a larger property. 
Hekia Parata 
: Is the Minister able to provide any real life examples of those situations? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: I do have in hand a couple of examples. In Henderson for example we have a tenant in a four-bedroom home who originally lived with her husband two adult children and one dependent child. She is now the only tenant and she has three spare bedrooms. If that tenant could have been moved into a smaller property the house could be a match for a single mother and her seven young children who have been living in a garage since her marriage broke up. Four bedrooms would still be a squeeze but I think that family of eight would have found it better than the garage they were often put in under the previous Government. 
Hekia Parata 
: What cost does underutilisation have for the New Zealand taxpayer? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: Firstly for every home that is underutilised by two or more bedrooms there is a family that is living in overcrowded accommodation. Secondly many taxpayers do not realise that they pay Housing New Zealand Corporation the difference between an income-related rent that tenants pay and the market rent for the property. The larger the property generally the larger the subsidy. For example in Otara we have a single tenant who is living in a four-bedroom house and paying a rent of $47. There are three spare bedrooms and the tenant is paying $47 in rent. Other tenants of course are languishing on the waiting list while that person with three spare bedrooms gets a $21000 subsidy per year. 
Moana Mackey 
: Does he agree with Housing New Zealand Corporation staff who say that the biggest impediment to moving people on from their Housing New Zealand Corporation home which the staff try to do now is not that they refuse to move but that they have nowhere to move to and does he stand by his statement that no tenants will be made to leave their Housing New Zealand Corporation properties if they do not have anywhere to go? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: The biggest impediment to Housing New Zealand Corporation staff moving tenants on and asking them to be moved on is that the staff have not been allowed to ask them to move on in the last decade. 
Moana Mackey 
: Which parts of the country will see a reduction in the number Housing New Zealand Corporation properties because they are deemed to have an oversupply of State housing? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: The areas of the country that will see an increase in the amount of social housing will be the areas that have high needs. The areas of New Zealand that will see a decrease in the amount of social housing will be the areas of low needs. It is not exactly rocket science! I suppose we could be like Labour and build State houses just in Labour seats but we are the National Government and we would rather put houses where the needs are. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! 
Hon Annette King 
: He’s just a show off. 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: Well I am. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: On this occasion the Minister himself is lucky that the honourable deputy leader of the Labour Party interjected or he would have been leaving the House because when I get to my feet even Ministers will sit down. The Minister had said quite enough and the question did not justify the last part of that answer. The important thing is that when I get to my feet Ministers will sit down. He is just darn lucky that there was an interjection from the other side of the House or he would be leaving the House. I insist that that rule will be obeyed. 
Pasifika Language Resources—Decision to Stop Publishing Tupu Series and  
Folauga 
12. 
SU’A WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Mangere) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: Does she stand by her ministry’s decision to stop publishing the five Pacific language resource Tupu series and the Samoan language  
Folauga 
 journals that are used by 33 Pacific bilingual units to provide bilingual education to about 1300 primary students throughout New Zealand? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Education) 
: 
 The Ministry of Education has not decided to stop publishing the Tupu and  
Folauga 
 series. However it is reviewing whether these are the most effective resources to support Pasifika education. This is in light of the fact that Pasifika students’ literacy levels are consistently and significantly lower than those for other groups. Schools will continue to receive new titles from the Tupu and  
Folauga 
 series in 2010. In addition a new series of Pasifika language learning story books have been developed to support the five Pasifika languages curriculum. These will be distributed to schools starting in November and going through to 2011. 
Su’a William Sio 
: What evidence does the Minister rely on when in her own words “It has been decided to pause Tupu as it does not align with the ministry priority outcomes of every child achieving literacy and numeracy levels that enable their success.”? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: As I said in answer to the primary question in fact the evidence that the ministry is relying on to review these series is the fact that Pasifika students’ literacy levels are consistently and significantly lower than those of other groups. 
Su’a William Sio 
: If the Minister has rejected research recommendations that New Zealand use Pacific bilingual education to raise Pacific students’ academic achievements in schools how does she intend to meet the related objectives of strong identity self-confidence and parental aspirations or is she not concerned that Pacific people in New Zealand are on a course to lose their first languages for ever? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: I totally reject the assertions made in that question. I say to that member that the ministry will continue to provide language guidelines resources and professional development for teachers to support the teaching of five Pasifika languages as part of the action from the  
Pasifika Education Plan 2009-2012 
. The Pasifika languages are an integral part of the learning of languages area of the New Zealand curriculum. These resources also support the preservation and maintenance of Pasifika languages. In addition there are a significant number of Tupu and  
Folauga 
 books available online. 
Su’a William Sio 
: I seek leave to table a letter signed by the Minister dated 7 October and addressed to Joanne Okesene in which she states that the Tupu series which supports language learning is to be paused. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Points of Order 
Members’ Notices of Motion—Leave to Move 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek the leave of the House to move members’ notices of motion No. 1 in the name of Jo Goodhew right through to No. 64 in the name of Melissa Lee without debate. I do this because lots of them move congratulations from many local members to Commonwealth Games medal-winners. It would be very nice if the House agreed to do this without debate. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that course of action to be followed. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
General Debate 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the House take note of miscellaneous business 
. As New Zealanders we like to think that our country is the best place in the world to bring up children. We call New Zealand God’s own. We say things like: “The future of New Zealand is with our children.” “Our children are our greatest assets.” “Every child deserves a decent standard of living.” “Every child should have the ability to reach their full potential.” and “We value our children and children matter.” How many times have we heard those words spoken in this House? I believe that all those statements are true and I doubt that any member in the House does not believe they are true. But are they true for every child in this country? That is the question that we should be asking ourselves in this House. 
Today we heard the compassionate and soft face of National! We heard Judith Collins answer a question about child poverty and she made it very clear National has no interest in what happens to children in this country. She has no interest in working across this House in line with the request of Every Child Counts that parties in this House work together for the good of children. The organisation made that request in all sincerity to this House. Whom does Every Child Counts represent? It represents the major organisations in New Zealand that look after and care for children and families from Barnardos and Plunket to kindergartens iwi organisations whanau organisations and so on. 
Every Child Counts is a major organisation and it has pleaded with this House for us to form a cross-party group to work for the benefit of children. In good faith I took its request to the Prime Minister of this country 1 year ago. He turned it down. I have that letter here and I will seek leave to table it later on. He turned it down and said he was not interested. He was not interested and I have waited 1 year to see what this Government would do in terms of children in this country. I waited to see whether it would put children first and whether children would become a major focus of this Government’s expenditure and policy development. 
Have we heard about children? As the Child Poverty Action Group said children have become invisible in New Zealand. They are invisible to this Government. The Government will say it has done so much for children. It had an advertising campaign to stop parents from shaking babies. It has done so much for children that it finds it hard to write it on a postage stamp! 
Well the truth is New Zealand is not doing well for our children; we are not doing as well as comparable countries. We sit at the bottom third of the OECD rankings in terms of most child indicators. Many of our children in this country are left behind. Their early life experiences are harmful and ongoing. Many Maori and Pasifika children have poorer life chances than other children of the same age. 
Contrary to Mrs Collins’ statements in this House the Labour Government did make some progress on child poverty in this country. We made it with positive actions like Working for Families which took 132000 families out of poverty in this country. We brought in affordable primary health care to reduce the cost of going to the doctor. We restored income-related rents and introduced 20 free hours of early childhood education. And we reduced the number on the unemployment benefit to 22000 compared with the 65000 we have now and that number is growing. 
But I have to say that is not enough. As far as Labour is concerned there is unfinished business when it comes to child poverty in this country. We ask the Government whether it will do something about it. It has had 2 years to address child poverty. We heard today that it will not make a commitment to reducing child poverty in this country. I need to tell those members opposite who sit on the front bench and make out that they care about children that child poverty in this country is growing yet again. The numbers are going up right now and they will continue to go up as long as the Government continues to follow its current policies. I recently read Plunket’s annual report in which it stated: “You need to invest in the first 3 years of life.” 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 My challenge for the deputy leader of the Labour Party is to explain how petty regulations passed by her Government would help child poverty. How would banning products like Cuddly somehow help the children of New Zealand? The real issues facing our country are how we make living more affordable for families and how we secure jobs for New Zealand. I say to members opposite that one of the positive things we can do is to repeal some of the stupid regulations that were passed by the previous Labour Government. I knew that Labour had passed laws to ban types of light bulbs. I knew it had passed regulations to tell New Zealanders what size showerheads they were allowed to use. I knew it had passed laws that said people could not do DIY work on their own houses. Never in my wildest dreams did I expect that products like Surf Persil and Mr Muscle—to mention Rodney Hide; or Toilet Duck to represent Mr Mallard; or Cuddly to represent Parekura Horomia—would be banned. Never in my wildest dreams did I think Labour would be so stupid as to ban those sorts of products. 
Members are chuckling. Let me just remind them of the real impact of those sorts of stupid policies. I am advised that that regulation would add $20 million a year—$20 million a year—to household grocery bills. How dare members opposite get up in this House and shed crocodile tears about the cost of living when they passed such silly regulations. It is even more serious than that. You see the sort of regulation that would add those sorts of costs would put hundreds of New Zealanders out of work. No other country in the world has those regulations. How is the Unilever plant in Lower Hutt which produces products like Surf and Persil able to be internationally competitive with the sorts of stupid regulations that members opposite put into our law books? I ask Trevor Mallard who is defending those rules why he cares so little about those 330 jobs. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Drink it Smith. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I think that interjection states the difference between members of the Government and members of the Opposition. They somehow believe in their nanny State minds that we have to regulate absolutely every element of life to protect children. I have checked with the poison centre and I have checked with Safekids the advocacy group— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Drink it now. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The pathetic interjection from Mr Mallard is for me to drink it. Is he saying that every single product on the supermarket shelves that might cause people harm has to have some special child-resistant packaging? That is what he is saying and that is what he put in the law books. 
I say that common-sense New Zealanders know that that is a nonsense. They know that they do not do it in Australia. They know that they do not do it in the US. They know that they do not do it in the European Union. It is a classic example of the petty nanny State regulations that drive New Zealanders mad. Nor does it make any environmental sense at all as 30 million extra plastic bottles would go into the system each year—30 million extra plastic bottles—if we followed the regulations that Mr Mallard sat over. It is the issue that separates the common sense on this side of the House with the nanny State regulators who would push up the costs and who would put New Zealanders out of work while they run this country mad with red tape. Thankfully this Government has the common sense to deregulate that sort of nonsense and apply a little common sense to the business of Government. 
CHRIS TREMAIN (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I did not rise to my feet during the middle of that speech out of courtesy to the Minister but throughout that speech and especially towards the end of it the former Minister across the House the Hon Trevor Mallard was shouting out repeatedly: “Liar liar liar.” It is unacceptable in this House and I expect the Hon Trevor Mallard to withdraw and apologise. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Speaking to the point of order— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not think that I need to hear further on the matter. In fact he was not interjecting that. I was listening very carefully. I was not so happy with his interjections but he was disputing what the Minister was saying. He definitely did not call the Minister a liar; he did not use the word “liar”. I listened very carefully to the interjections. But it is not helpful to the good order of the House to use that kind of language when interjecting. Neither is it to the good order of the House to use a member’s last name which the member was also interjecting further with. I ask members to be a bit more reasonable. Had the member interjected what Chris Tremain suggested then I would definitely ask the member to withdraw and apologise but he did not actually say that. 
Hon RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You are right in part but at the end of that speech Trevor Mallard called out: “He’s a liar.” When Chris Tremain was making his point Annette King nodded her head. I certainly heard Trevor Mallard say that the Minister is a liar. I think you should ask Trevor Mallard whether that is what he said. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: If members have taken objection I will ask the honourable member. I did not hear him say that. I heard him say “It’s a lie what the Minister is saying.” but I did not hear him call the Minister a liar. I say to the honourable member— 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I did. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I ask— 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: No before you do I say that the Standing Orders are very clear that members are required to take points of order on these matters at the time they occur and no member did. 
Hon Rodney Hide 
: Speaking to the point of order— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No I do not need further help on this. Members do not want to disrupt speeches but that is no excuse. If the member actually called the Minister a liar—I did not hear it—I ask the member to withdraw and apologise. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thank the honourable member. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 I seek leave to table a letter from the New Zealand Food and Grocery Council to me and the Minister for Regulatory Reform Rodney Hide dated 15 February entitled “Regulatory tsunami warning”. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Before I call the next speaker I apologise to the honourable member Chris Tremain for my not having heard the matter he objected to and doubting his point of order. I apologise to him. 
Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green) 
: 
 I rise to address the issue of climate change and this Government’s failure to develop adequate national policy to combat it. 
Climate change has slipped below the threshold of daily media focus and that is the way that this Government seems to want it. The failure at Copenhagen to tackle the global threat head on has sent the international community into a state of collective catatonia. We see this in the lack of leadership from the UN in the actions of national Governments around the world and in the attitude of much of the public around the world. 
The problem we have is that nature is not disposed to wait for humanity to iron itself out morally and get its political act together. The poor countries rail against us for historical responsibility and insufficient reduction targets. The rich countries fear the projected population growth among the poor and insist that they enter binding commitments before we sign on to medium-term cuts. 
Humanity probably faces only two global threats: immolation through nuclear conflict or suffocation through global warming. The first is the product of traditional enmity; the enemy was the other tribe or the other nation. Climate change is the product of a new enemy: us. We try to cut nuclear arsenals by changing the enemy’s behaviour; we are required to cut carbon emissions by changing our own behaviour. It is no surprise that we are not succeeding. Most Governments lack the political courage to convey the magnitude of the climate change threat to their peoples and they lack the political insight to prescribe the required global and national policies that are necessary. 
Before during and since Copenhagen the threat of serious unpredictable climate change has grown. Our scientists do not know when non-linear change might occur but they warn that tipping points exist. If the precautionary principle is to mean anything we must all move with speedy purpose and resolve. Translated politically that means we must act not as an international community of States but as a global community of peoples who are represented by Governments. If the difference seems vanishingly small then we do well to act on it none the less lest our prospects of survival prove to be the same. 
Our professional negotiators are rearranging the deckchairs contemplating whether we shall have one or two legal agreements and whether it will be next year or 3 or 10 years from now. Our political leaders dampen our expectations with appeals to realism. We all suffer from cognitive dissonance. Every so often we see the magnitude and imminence of the threat but it is simply too frightening to accept individually and politically so we basically return to business and government as usual. 
As the Minister made clear recently in question time the state of play is the Copenhagen Accord with voluntary commitments to national cuts. These are demonstrably inadequate to the science-based judgment of what is required to avert failure but we pretend that it is a useful start to greater things. We are told that global emissions must peak within about 7 years and we know that the accord is way way short of achieving that so we mumble about bigger cuts later and avoid looking into our children’s eyes. 
Let us address some facts. To achieve a 2 degrees Celsius threshold we must reduce our global carbon budget from 50 gigatonnes today to 36 by 2020 and to seven by 2050. The rich countries must cut from about 40 today to 11 by 2020 and to one by 2050. That is correct: we in the rich world must emit only one gigatonne in 2050 out of the seven emitted by the world that year. It is called contraction and convergence and it is the only way humanity will successfully deal with climate change. That is when our moral and political standards merge at the global level. After 10 millennia especially the past two centuries it is the moment of truth. 
For our part New Zealand has to agree through treaty or by voluntary declaration in advance to cut our national emissions proportionately. That means we must cut from 78 million tonnes today to 56 million tonnes in 2020 down to 1.6 million in 2050. That is the scale of the challenge before New Zealand. It is as well that we face up to it now not when it is too late. 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY (Minister of Housing) 
: 
 I appreciate this opportunity to address the House. It would be fair to say that the National Government team the MP team and certainly the team in Cabinet are very very positive about the progress that we have made in the last 2 years while going through a very very difficult time. In the area of my portfolio I could not be happier with the way that Housing New Zealand Corporation has managed its work during this recession. There has been more pressure on the State house waiting list and on the stock than we have seen for a couple of decades. Why? Because during the worldwide recession many many families have come under pressure either because of the loss of jobs or because of reduced hours being worked. Because of the difficulties in a worldwide recession families have had to close their cheque books and their ability to spend on simple items such as rent mortgages and those types of things has become quite difficult. During that time Housing New Zealand Corporation has managed to maintain the waiting list at a level that has been typical of the last decade. We have not seen the waiting list shoot up by 3000 or anything like that; it has tended to oscillate at around the 10000 mark. 
I have to commend the corporation because it has done this through a variety of means. One of course is the Options and Advice Service which the National Government introduced. When people rock up to Housing New Zealand Corporation and say they need a State home instead of the corporation writing down their names and putting them on the waiting list it now takes them through some options. One option is to remain where they are. The corporation asks whether it can help them to remain where they are and outlines subsidies like the accommodation supplement. Another option is private rental—the possibility that they could rent privately. The corporation outlines subsidies for them to do that. 
Another option of course is homeownership. Here is a good one; this will fascinate members. In the last 18 months about 400 people have walked into Housing New Zealand Corporation—so that members do not misunderstand this I say thousands of people have walked into Housing New Zealand Corporation but they have included 400 people in particular who would under the previous Labour Government have been put on the waiting list. Can members guess what those people did after talking to the Options and Advice Service? Members will not believe this: they went to buy a home. The previous Government would have put them on the waiting list. They got some advice turned round on their heels went out and it was their intention to buy a home. The Labour Government would have put them on the waiting list. It is unbelievable. All that Housing New Zealand Corporation did was to ask them whether they were sure that they wanted to go on the waiting list. Those people asked whether there were other options and the corporation said yes there were options like staying where they were and the corporation would help them; renting privately; renting with another community housing provider; or even buying a home. They said: “Oh we could buy a home?”. We said that if they wanted to do that we could even help them to do so. 
The previous Labour Government would have told those people to go on the waiting list. They loved it for people like them to become welfare beneficiaries because then they would become dependent on the great Labour Party and vote for it for the rest of their lives. Well here is a crack-up: 400 people turned on their heels and decided that rather than going into a State house they preferred to go and buy a home. Many of them I understand have pursued that. 
For the very same reason we believe that it is worthwhile to look at the almost 70000 houses that we now have under the corporation’s management and to ask whether we are always housing the people who are most in need—because the answer is no. The reality is that when we have a couple in Mangere at this very moment who have a four-bedroom home and who originally had one adult child and two dependent children—so that is five people in a four-bedroom house—but who now live alone with three spare bedrooms those tenants could be matched to a one or two-bedroom home. We have another single mother with three children boarding with relatives in a garage in Mangere and they should be in the home that has three spare bedrooms. That is why we are not ashamed to make this conversation public and have a debate on the issue. 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato) 
: 
 It is evident that the Government is starting to worry because time after time in the House today every question was about what Labour is doing. Time after time in the House today every member on the Government side talked only about what Labour has done or is doing not about what they are doing. They are worried about the messages that are not resonating out there with the public. 
We can take Nick Smith for example; his whole contribution was just about child-resistant caps on bottles. We cannot buy Listerine today without a child-resistant cap; we cannot buy Janola today without a child-resistant cap. It is not about packaging per se; it is about ensuring that our kids are safe from some of the harshest household substances in our homes. Usually those substances are in the bottom cupboard under the sink by the washing machine or under the kitchen sink. Labour wanted to ensure that everyday families could keep their kids safe by having child-resistant caps on those substances. Anything more than that is pure fabrication by the Minister for the Environment and should be left as that. 
We know that when we put children at the centre of our thinking it is about making the types of changes that can make a real difference in everyday homes to Kiwis around New Zealand. We know that New Zealanders are excited about the message that our deputy leader gave to the annual conference. She said that we will unreservedly ensure that children are at the centre of our policy framework. More important children will be at the centre of the actions that we will take in moving forward if we should be elected in the 2012 election. 
We build on a foundation that has really supported children: affordable general practitioner visits free health care for under-sixes and affordable health care visits where when mum takes baby to the doctor she pays $10 or nothing for her child. That is set to change under National and families are worried about that. We know that families who are on fixed and low incomes have actually had a better deal under Labour with income-related rentals but that is set to change under National. Working for Families has helped low and modest income families who are partly working and want to get ahead. That scheme has helped but is probably set to be changed under National. The 20 free hours’ early childhood education policy was brought in by Labour and that is set to change under National—but there will be more about that later. 
Most important certainly for the families that I represent during the time that Labour was in Government Maori unemployment dropped from 19 percent to 6 percent. We believe in work for families. Jobs were there and our families were working. But I ask Minister Collins where the jobs are now. She got up in the House today and said the best type of support for families is work but where are the jobs? She could not answer that question. Minister Heatley got up in the House and said all those things that are happening in State houses but we know that out in our communities there are not enough State houses in some areas. In Thames for example they tell us that there are not enough State houses and families there have to go on to market-related rentals. The average cost of a three-bedroom home is $280 to $320 a week and those houses have a holiday clause. Those families have to get out in December and they can possibly go back in about February because those private landlords will get more from renting out their homes in that way so they will just let the tenants go. They do not care whether those tenants have a home. 
Key things are happening out in our communities under this Government that will put children at risk. But we know that we have to invest in the early years. We understand that more and more Kiwi families are making the decision to come home and bring up their children because they want to bring up their children in New Zealand but they are not supported by the current changes that this type of Government is making. 
I visited He Taonga te Mokopuna which is a teen parent unit. Labour was very proud of supporting young people who found themselves pregnant at a young age and who wanted to continue in education. We knew that supporting them to continue their education would make a real difference. We introduced a young parent allowance that would help them helping their children to be at a childcare centre while the young parents learnt. We are starting to see young parents actually graduate from tertiary education with the support of the types of policies that Labour brought in. But all of that is set to change under National and those members are harping on about things that make very little difference. 
Hon PANSY WONG (Minister for Ethnic Affairs) 
: 
 I think that that member Nanaia Mahuta has forgotten with all of those policies that she talked about that Labour was thrown out of office in 2008 so I do not know where the fresh thinking is coming from. 
The National-led Government has so many initiatives to talk about that I am spoilt for choice. I thought that I would pick one that is really exciting: I welcome members to 128C Preston Road Otara; the most stunning three-bedroom first-home buyers’ dream home. I wish that when I was looking for my first home this stunning three-bedroom home had been available. Last Friday it was such a pleasure for me Dr Cam Calder and Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi to support two of our hard-working innovative Ministers the Hon Maurice Williamson and the Hon Phil Heatley. 
Under this National-led Government we do not impose things in passing laws. Dr Nick Smith demonstrated the ridiculousness of rules that were always imposed by Labour. Labour always thinks that it knows best for New Zealanders; that is why it was turfed out in 2008. For a difference look at this stunning sitting room in this three-bedroom home which cost only $168000 to build. That was the result of the National-led Government’s initiative called the  
Simple House Acceptable Solution.  
The Department of Building and Housing put the initiative together to ensure that people who want to build their first home can look at the requirements get the instructions about structural strength and durability and know what should be done to satisfy those requirements for a finish that will reflect the requirement for durability and flexibility to meet changes. All those requirements are contained in this first-home package. Guess what? The best thing is that for a very long time people complained about waiting for months if not years for building consents but this initiative reduces the consent process to days. We are talking about days not weeks. 
The day when we were at the house we were standing at the beautiful courtyard and looking into that three-bedroom home which is now so affordable for the first-home buyer. It can be built by anybody anywhere in New Zealand. It can be built on any land in any style. All they have to do is satisfy this very simple initiative called the  
Simple House Acceptable Solution 
. That is the style of National. We want to make homes that can be built faster and be more affordable. More than that we want to make homes that are stunning and that have flexibility. Future so-called cheap housing is actually a dream for anybody. This house alone—I am sure Dr Cam Calder who was there with me last Friday would agree—will transform people’s images of cheap housing. 
I think that lots of people now will rush in. Wait until next summer when this house will be up for auction. Some very lucky couple will be able to say: “Wow that’s the type of Government that I can support because it turns young people’s dream homes into a reality.” Anybody would be proud to own this home to bring up their children and enjoy barbecues which are coming up in summertime. Think about what this is doing to the Otara suburb. I am so proud of Otara and Manukau because this is the type of contemporary thinking they need. 
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
: 
 That was the Minister of Women’s Affairs who did not once mention this Government’s track record on women’s affairs. Is it any wonder? The Government has gone backwards so fast on women’s issues that she could not even clock it. The way a Government spends its money shows its priorities even in recessionary times. That is why it is shameful that the largest cut has been to early childhood education. That cut shows that the Government does not care about this nation’s children. It showed us as much when Nick Smith at question time gloated about taking away child-resistant caps so that young children may not be safe. They will be able to get into the laundry detergent in the wash houses of the very houses that Pansy Wong just spoke about. 
The public is starting to ask what this Government has against children. They have noticed that when the funding cuts came they hit the very youngest most vulnerable children in our community who are those aged under 5. It was the cuts to early childhood education that showed what a low priority children are to this National Government. That is despite what all the research says. All the research tells us that it is early childhood education in the years from birth to 6 that really makes the difference to life outcomes from there on in. That is where the investment should go. Even the Prime Minister’s own science adviser Sir Peter Gluckman told the Prime Minister this. That is where the investment should go but the Prime Minister has allowed funding cuts to early childhood education in the years from birth to 6 years of age. That shows a lack of priority for children. 
Then the Government set up a task force. After making funding cuts the Minister decided to overhaul the whole early childhood education sector. I can tell members that I have just been to a conference this very morning here in Wellington and the early childhood education sector is up in arms. It was not consulted at all about the review it had no say over the membership of the review and it is very concerned that there does not appear to be anyone on the review panel who has any experience of working in early childhood education at all. It is chaired by one Michael Mintrom. I am very worried about what I read about Mr Mintrom. He does not come from the early childhood education sector so we do not know a great deal about him. In the year 2000 he wrote a book called  
Policy Entrepreneurs and School Choice 
. The premise of that book is “Understanding how policy ideas catch on even when their workability remains in doubt.” What does that tell us about where this task force is headed? “Understanding how policy ideas catch on even when their workability remains in doubt.” is the type of comment that causes the sector grave concern over what this task force may well come out with. It represents yet another broken promise from National. 
I do not know whether members opposite have recently dug out the National Party’s policy on early childhood education at the last election. Almost every promise in that document has been broken already. The first thing National promised was that it would enhance 20 hours’ early childhood education by keeping the existing subsidies and fee controls. Yet Anne Tolley told us just yesterday that she has scrapped two of the subsidies that supported 20 hours’ free early childhood education. She admitted that yesterday in Parliament. That promise has been broken. Then National went on to say that it would reduce staff ratios. That is what it promised going into the last election but because of Anne Tolley’s and John Key’s funding cuts to early childhood education staff are being sacked from that sector. That means that children are in environments that have fewer adults and fewer staff who are involved in early childhood education. That reduces quality and reduces staff ratios. It is yet another National Party broken election promise on early childhood education. 
Families are feeling very betrayed. They believed National when it said that it would leave early childhood education alone. It clearly has not done that. National has broken its promises to those families because it does not prioritise children. I was shocked because another broken promise from National—and I was in the room—was when Every Child Counts asked for a cross-parliamentary group to support children. 
HEKIA PARATA (National) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Speaker. Huri noa i to tatou Whare. I am delighted to stand and speak about how the National-led Government’s aspirational programme is having effect and being embraced by the good people of the Mana electorate. I am determined to bring an even stronger voice for the Mana electorate in the John Key Government and I am absolutely determined to sound out the full story of the Mana electorate. 
We have had access to Ministers which is one of the features of being in Government. I have been able to have Dr Nick Smith for instance visit the Mana electorate and celebrate the memorandum of understanding that has been drawn up by the Porirua City Council the Greater Wellington Regional Council and 12 other agencies all of whom are committed to restoring the water quality of the Porirua Harbour and the Pauatahanui inlet. This work anticipates the report of the Land and Water Forum and Dr Smith was absolutely delighted to see the forward-thinking leadership of the people who are in local government in the Mana electorate. 
The Minister of Housing the Hon Phil Heatley has visited Mana. It was an opportunity for him to see and focus on the work and challenges that lie ahead of us because of the considerable deferred maintenance from the time of the previous Government and it shows the importance that we have placed on for instance the makeover of Hampshire Street in Porirua East and the refurbishment of Flora Street. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Has the member ever been there? 
HEKIA PARATA 
: The member has indeed been there more times than that member has had breakfast. He has seen the Flora Street refurbishment. He has announced the opening of the Gateway Housing programme in collaboration with Habitat for Humanity on Beauzami Crescent which is in Waitangirua I say for that member’s edification. 
Yesterday the Minister of Police Judith Collins visited. We took the unprecedented opportunity of thanking the volunteers in the community police bases which have flourished under this National-led Government. We visited the community police base in Titahi Bay we went to Cannons Creek and we went across to Whitby and down to Mana. It was a veritable Cook’s tour of the Mana electorate where every day volunteers commit some time to looking after their community—reflecting our Government’s focus and emphasis on community safety—and where police are part of the community. That was clearly shown to us. 
Let me tell members that the Kapiti-Mana policing area has the lowest crime rate in the Wellington region. This is contrary to the stereotypes that those more negative commentators wish to perpetuate so much so that I will just tell the House a true story. A community constable was late getting to the meeting yesterday afternoon because in the course of his duties he had been chasing an escaped criminal. Having caught the criminal and taken him down the Porirua police station he found that the criminal had a record of over 160 convictions. The constable asked him what he was doing there because he was not a usual resident of the Porirua area. His reply which was absolutely reflective of the Porirua area was: “I have moved to Porirua because it is safer.” That was from a felon with a conviction sheet of over 160 convictions. He moved to Porirua because it is safer there. 
During the course of the past few weeks I also had the opportunity to have the Prime Minister visit from Raumati in the north—for those members who are not familiar with the Mana electorate—to Linden in the south. Throughout the course of these visits he had people coming up to him saying what a wonderful economic management programme this Government has in place whether it is Lembas Café in Raumati South which won a Wellington on a Plate title or whether—[ 
Interruption 
] Members opposite may wish to deride this but I am speaking about real people rather than about the theory of invective that usually flows from the other side of the House. Whether it is Trudy at the wonderful Cafe Vella in Plimmerton or Belinda at the equally fabulous Peppermill Delicatessen in central Porirua all of these women in business— 
Iain Lees-Galloway 
: The people in Cannons Creek go to cafes all the time don’t they? 
HEKIA PARATA 
:—are backing themselves I say to Mr Lees-Galloway because they are enthused and encouraged by this Government’s programme. 
SU’A WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Mangere) 
: 
 I had the opportunity on Sunday to visit some friends and relatives and to talk with Kris Fa’afoi and church leaders in Cannons Creek. I am surprised by what the previous speaker Hekia Parata just said because after meeting church leaders and families I can say to this House with much confidence that many working families there are suffering under this Government. Many families there are suffering under the tax switch; many working families there are suffering because of the lack of jobs and the lack of having a plan at all by this Government. 
The majority of those who are hurting under this Government and its particular policies are the children of Mana. It is the desire of every family that I met in Mana on Sunday to have the best for their children. They want the best opportunities in education and in health and I have no doubt that that dream is shared by people up and down this country—our children are the future leaders of this nation. But I have said to those families that under this National Government we will have to fight for that dream if we want it to come true. 
The next Labour Government under Phil Goff and Annette King will put children at the centre of policy in health education housing and social development. We have to put children at the centre of those policies if we are to achieve the dream for our children and for future generations. But as I said to the people of Mana with their help we have to fight for it if we want to achieve it. We will not achieve it under this Government so we have to fight for it if we want children to be the centre of our education policy. We have to fight for it if we want our children to be strong and healthy in the future. New Zealanders have to fight for it because under this Government we will never achieve any of these dreams or aspirations. 
The last time the Nats were in Government in 1990 to 1999 under Jim Bolger and Jenny Shipley the period was marked by industrial unrest and by the widening divide of inequality. The children of that period suffered under the same failed economic right-wing policies that this Government is now bringing up again. Wages were driven down and unemployment reached unprecedented highs during that particular period. 
Labour in its last term in Government worked extremely hard to ensure that we regained some of the losses suffered under that National Government. Working for Families helped to reduce child poverty. We had affordable primary health care so that our children who had been unhealthy under that previous National Government could access a doctor and go to the hospital when that was required. Labour restored income-related rents. Under that National Government people were kicked out of their homes and the housing stock was left unsupported. Labour introduced 20-hours’ free early childhood education and we reduced unemployment. But all the gain that was made in 9 years we have lost in only 2 years under John Key’s National Government. We have lost it and the inequality gap continues to widen. 
Industrial unrest is what we saw at Labour weekend. Unemployment is increasing and the children of our ordinary families up and down the country continue to suffer under this Government. This is not a family-friendly Government; it is not a child-friendly Government. Under this Government failed right-wing economic policies are widening the gap so we are losing. Our families the people of Mana and the people up and down this country will have to fight if we are going to regain ground and put children at the centre of policies. 
If we want to achieve the dreams of our children our future leaders we will have to fight to get a Labour Government in office. I know that the people of Mana will bring Kris Fa’afoi back as their MP because they will fight for it. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Hunua) 
: 
 I heard only a few weeks ago from one of New Zealand’s leading children’s organisations that the former failed Labour Government under its Working for Families policy failed thousands of New Zealand children. 
But there is good news. Health is better sooner and more convenient. We notched up yet another success last Friday with the opening of Waiuku Health Plus a primary integrated medical health centre by the Minister of Health and me in the excellent Hunua electorate which is by chance the very electorate that I am privileged to represent. It is yet another sign of the significant gains to health services under the National Government. Firstly I congratulate Dr Mark Eustace his wife Jo the many medical staff and other colleagues and the developer. They were prepared to put in their own personal capital take risks and develop one of the finest integrated centres I have seen anywhere in the world. It will be the lifeline of this rural community for many many years to come. The facilities include doctors’ surgeries specialist facilities physiotherapists pharmacy facilities even a hypnotherapist and much much more. This is a magnificently designed building that will serve the primary-care needs of that rural community and it will be replicated throughout the country over the years to come. 
The point I want to make is that this was done with a sympathetic district health board in a climate in which the public health system and the Minister of Health collaborated with the private system unlike a phenomenon I recall from some years ago when Helen Clark the then Labour Prime Minister refused to turn up to the opening of the futuristic and excellent Ascot Integrated Hospital because she said she did not believe in a private health system. What a dreadful indictment! 
It is no coincidence that the Waiuku doctors had wanted to carry out a public-private partnership on the site of the old Franklin Memorial Hospital 5 6 or 7 years ago. But at that time under the climate of a Labour Government they were literally obstructed. There was nothing they could do. Instead they took the initiative into their own hands. They were prepared to take the risks and they have built this very forward-looking excellent community facility that will serve the community for so long. The National Government will encourage this exercising of choice for the people of New Zealand. 
The recent passage of the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Amendment Bill was historic in that all submitters agreed to it as did all parties—even the Labour Party. This means that New Zealand health services will be not be subject to the electoral swings that have occurred vastly over the last 20 or 30 years. An insightful National Government has brought in well-crafted legislation and that legislation ensures that we run an efficient effective health service in which every health dollar counts which is something that the former Minister of Health the Hon Annette King failed to do in the health system which was reflected by the Labour Government’s doubling the amount of money spent for no extra services. 
The other thing that the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Amendment Bill will do is ensure that back-office bureaucracy is minimised and the resources moved to the front line which is something that will be more and more prevalent under this excellent National Government. 
Hon Sir ROGER DOUGLAS (ACT) 
: 
 For the past 15 years New Zealand has been slipping slowly—some people would say not so slowly—into economic difficulty; some might even say that it is headed towards chaos. This has happened over the past 15 years because both Labour and National have been prepared to compromise any principles they claim to have. We have seen a preparedness to write a cheque for whatever demands the latest focus-group puts out there. The worst case of this was probably at the 2005 election when Labour was re-elected probably thanks to interest-free student loans. That did the trick. This year it is putting up the idea that it would take GST off some items of food. That is why New Zealand is in economic difficulty. I must say that it is not helped by a National Government that says: “These things are sacred. We will not touch the interest-free student loans.” even when it knows it is madness; “We will not look at the age of retirement of 65.” when it knows that the big issue that will confront New Zealand over the next 10 or 20 years is the clash between young and old as the young start to say that they are either leaving this country or they are not prepared to pay for the benefits at the current level. The National Government will not touch Working for Families and it will not even look at the issue of privatisation even if it means higher productivity. 
The fact is that we as a nation are borrowing $250 million a week or $13 billion a year. For a family of four we are borrowing about $240 a week. We have had a situation where over the last 11 years this country has increased Government expenditure out of all proportion to what is reasonable. We have seen a situation whereby Government spending per person under Labour increased over 9 years by $5500 in real terms and in 2 years under National it has increased by $1500 in real terms. Government spending has increased by $7000 per person in real terms or by $525 a week for a family of four. 
We might well ask what we as a nation get for that increased spending of $7000 per person or $525 a week for a family of four. Do all children receive a decent education as a result of this massive increase in public spending? No. Do most people retire with enough money to live in comfort in this country? No. Does everyone receive health treatment when they need it? We have increased public expenditure by $7000 per person or by $525 a week for a family of four. Do they get health treatment when they need it? No. Have we eradicated poverty? No. On the very goals that the welfare State has sought to achieve no one in this country can genuinely argue that we have succeeded. Even the modern-day proponents of the welfare State be it National Labour the Greens or the Maori Party know deep down that it has failed. But they think they have the solution that all we need to do is increase spending; but increasing Government spending by $7000 per person in real terms over 11 years has not done it—maybe $10000 will! The fact is that National and Labour should apologise to the people of this country. They do not really care. The only thing they care about is re-election. 
SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) 
: 
 What a privilege it is to be a small part in the John Key - led National Government. To some extent I go along with some of the things that the previous speaker Sir Roger Douglas has said because he is right. Actually the National Government does have a $13 billion deficit this year. 
We are borrowing $256 million a week I think to keep things going and to ensure entitlements and does it not just show the lie in Labour politics when those members come into this House and talk about all the cuts and the cutbacks? We are keeping things going. We are a centrist Government which is doing the right things at the right moments in this country’s economy. [ 
Interruption 
] Many people say such very rude things about Trevor Mallard but I do not mind him. I saw an uncommon act of humanity when Sir Roger Douglas tipped over his glass of water—Trevor Mallard went over and did something about it. I like that; that is the sort of thing I expect a National MP to do but it was very good of him to do that. 
I will talk about the tax cuts because I have not had the chance in this House since 1 October to talk about them and now we know that they are bedded in. The remarkable thing—again something that shows the lie in Labour politics—is how well the tax cuts have worked. Despite all the scaremongering by Labour I am not getting emails any more from people complaining about GST because they are seeing the very real impact the tax cuts are having across the board for them. People are seeing the money in their pockets. They are feeling it. They are very very happy about the tax cuts. 
I am not an economist; I am the first to admit that. But I know that when we have $2 billion in GST rises and we have $4 billion going out in tax cuts across the board that means that 73 percent of Kiwis have a top marginal tax rate of 17.5 percent. That has to be good not just for fat cats but for all Kiwis on all incomes. We have done a very good thing there. 
In electorates like Tauranga Otaki and Hutt South which Trevor Mallard represents where there are significant populations of elderly people the news is best for them. Over the last couple of years an average married couple on superannuation with a home has had $100 extra. They have had an additional $40 in compensation with the tax cuts so they are substantially better off. 
One does not need to be an economist to know that there is more cash in people’s pockets as a result of what National has done. One does not need to be an economist to know that with inflation at 1.5 percent things are going pretty well in terms of prices staying where they are. After-tax wages are much higher than they have been in the last 5 or 6 years I think under Labour and Labour members do not like it. There has been real after-tax wage growth. It is not miracle stuff. 
Slowly but surely we are putting things in place. We are putting the incentives in place. We have lowered taxes. We are increasing the infrastructure spend with all the efficiency that that brings. We are bringing better smarter public services moving things to the front line. We are reforming the regulations. We are bringing in education and skills in a way that Trevor Mallard frankly—I know he tried his best—could not do. We are encouraging business innovation and trade in this country. I repeat what I said when I started: it really is a privilege to be part of this National-led Government— 
Stuart Nash 
: You said “a small part”. 
SIMON BRIDGES 
: Yes a small part—small in stature—but nevertheless I am privileged to have a part in this Government led by John Key as we do a lot of good in this country. 
The debate having concluded the motion lapsed. 
Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill 
Instruction to Committee 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I move  
That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill that it have the power to consider and if it thinks fit adopt typescript amendments to clause 51 in the name of the Hon Trevor Mallard. 
 That amendment is very very important. Although it may well be that there will be no decision to rule it out I think it is important that we have a belt and braces approach and ensure that the Committee has the ability to discuss it and that there be no question of it being ruled out. The amendment is designed to ensure there is a system put in place whereby a Minister is unable to adjust a recommendation of the Rugby World Cup Authority such that he or she ends up approving something that is not otherwise approved by that authority. In relatively simple terms the amendment is to ensure that there are proper checks and balances placed in the system. 
I will use an example. In the case of an urgent application post-August it would mean that under the current legislation there could be a full hearing of an authority. We could have witnesses council people and all sorts of experts— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: I need a bit of clarification from the member who is on his feet. It is my understanding that this amendment is in order; therefore it does not need an instruction of the House for it to be debated. It is in order. Please acknowledge that there has been a change of presiding officer while this has been happening. I need to understand what the member is doing because it is my understanding that the amendment is totally in order. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I think you are almost certainly right Mr Assistant Speaker but I have also checked this. Notwithstanding the fact that it is likely to be in order that does not prevent this motion being moved in order to make absolutely certain of that. There is no restriction on this motion. It is something that has been checked through very carefully over the last 24 hours and I have had an absolute assurance that this motion and the next few that will come before the Committee are in order. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: I am just trying to think through the precedent of what the member is actually doing. The discipline of this House is that it lives by precedent. It would occur to me that although this step might be in order it may set some precedents that take the House in a direction that the House does not want to go in. Having given the member an assurance that his amendment is in order and will be acceptable to the Committee of the whole House I am perplexed as to why the member is seeking this particular course of action. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I think members on the other side of the House are well aware of the reason for us doing this. There has been quite a lot of discussion between members from both sides of the House on the way that this bill is being handled. It is my understanding that although this is unusual and may even be unprecedented it is within the Standing Orders. I think you are right; it is probably identifying a loophole within the Standing Orders and could well set a precedent that people may want to close off through a change to the Standing Orders but that does not mean that it can be ruled out. 
Chris Tremain 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Given that you have ruled that the amendment that the Hon Trevor Mallard has put on the Table for debate is within order and will be debated as part of clause 51 within one of the parts of the bill this afternoon and this evening it seems to me that the Hon Trevor Mallard is attempting to trifle with the House’s time and to delay our progressing to the bill. I think that is trifling with the House’s time and I ask you to rule that this be out of order. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Speaking to that— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: I will listen to the member then I will respond. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Yes sure. I think that what the member should know is that one of the honourable roles of the Opposition is to delay. It is a longstanding precedent. The term “filibuster” is well known in both United Kingdom and United States politics. When bad law is being made one of the roles of the Opposition and one of the very few tools of an Opposition that does not have the votes to stop particular legislation is to make sure that it is subject to a debate that is as extensive as is possible in order to ensure the best possible examination of it. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: Standing Order 172(1) states: “An instruction may be given to a committee of the whole House extending or restricting its powers …”. What the member is seeking to do is not actually extending or restricting. He has assured me that he has done some work in the last 24 hours. I have not had the opportunity to do that work. These are the options open to me: I can rule that the member is having a debate that is not necessary and therefore it is out of order I can let the debate take its full course or I can perhaps indicate to the House that a closure motion might be considered at some near time in the future when a considered decision from the Speaker might be the best way forward. But I will allow the member to finish his speech. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think a problem has now developed. It probably has been caused by the fact that there was a change of Speaker. Mr Speaker accepted this motion. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: That is what I have done. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I am pleased to hear that because it is very very important. The amendment that has been discussed is important and by way of extension I just want to make it very clear that in my opinion this does make an extension because it provides both belt and braces in this arrangement. [ 
Interruption 
] Well Peter Dunne is the person who probably understands belt and braces better than anyone else. As I indicated earlier the danger that we are facing is that there is a full hearing of an authority which takes a decision to decline a particular application. It says that no that should not happen. It might for example be the demolition of a historic building. On the basis of the evidence a decision is made not to demolish that historic building. The way the bill is at the moment and without consideration of my amendment a Minister could then say: “It does not matter what the judge said it does not matter about the fact that there was a hearing I am going to allow my mate’s house to be demolished.” They might have a party central or a little “party not central” there for a period of time but afterwards the section becomes available for building on in a way that would not otherwise be the case under current planning legislation because a demolition would not previously have been allowed. It goes to the ability of a judge to make a decision and whether the House should be considering that they have the ability to consider it. 
I have another point I would like to make and I do not think I am doing this by way of a point of order. I think I am doing it by way of debate although it does do it by way of referring to the comments that you Mr Assistant Speaker Roy made when you were on your feet. It is not for the Speaker to rule whether something is in or out at the Committee. It is a matter for the Chairman. The Speaker cannot give an assurance because it is not his role to give an assurance on something that he must rule on when sitting in the Chairperson’s Chair while he is sitting in the Speaker’s Chair. In fact I think there could be some question of conflict if Speakers attempted to take that sort of approach. Although I do not think there are many men who are more honourable than you are as far as the House is concerned and we do of course rely on your word I think we have to be very clear that the role of the Speaker is different from the role of the Chairman and in fact the only— 
Chris Tremain 
: Is this a speech or a point of order? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: No I think it is entirely within order. The only circumstance where the Speaker— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: I have told the member to continue with his speech. This is not a point of order. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: No. I made it clear it is not a point of order but I am referring to your comment just to make it clear. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: The member should not litigate my ruling. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: No I am not litigating; I am adding to it. I am saying how much I trust you. The point I am making is that the House is unable to be given assurances by the Speaker in this matter because the role of the Speaker will be to consider the matter if in fact the Chairman in error ruled it out. That then would be a case for bringing the Speaker back to the House in order to debate the issue. I think you could see that it would be more than slightly incongruous for you Mr Assistant Speaker Roy to rule on a matter as Speaker and then to rule on it as Chairman. There is the possibility of ruling on your own ruling as Chairman. I think that sort of approach is the one taken in the Fijian Parliament or some other place where democracy is non-existent. That is probably the only place where that would occur. 
I want to make clear that the Labour Opposition is very firm that it is important to have this debate. I know that my colleagues are very keen to outline to you why they think a belt and braces approach is necessary on this particular legislation. I might say also that because there has been a lot of debate about this matter of power within the select committee and within the media and because there has been a lot of discussion about the powers in the Canterbury legislation following the earthquake the issue of the limits of ministerial power are very much alive in New Zealand now. That is why it is important that this debate is held on this subclause. 
At this stage and without going into the substance of the debate because I think we will get to the debate on Part 4 today or possibly after the adjournment I say that this is very important. I am slightly ambivalent on this argument myself but I think there is a certain lack of trust in the current Minister and the way that he might exercise the powers. I think it is fair to say that the Minister has a growing reputation which has been highlighted by my colleague Phil Twyford inter alia of being involved in micro-management across portfolios. I think it is fair to say that the fingerprints are not always left there but there are a few greasy marks on the piece of paper. There are signs on the piece of paper of a Minister becoming involved in areas that he should not be involved in. That is why we think it is important that a Minister should not get the power without any consideration from the Regulations Review Committee. I know that my colleague Lianne Dalziel is involved in that committee and certainly Chris Hipkins is involved in that committee. If the decisions of the Minister were for example reviewable by a committee of this Parliament then I am sure— 
Chris Hipkins 
: Sounds like another amendment. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Well I think there will be an amendment; there will be amendment after amendment and we will take about 10 minutes to deal with each of them as the day goes on. But if these are not to be considered by any court because there is not time and not to be considered by the Regulations Review Committee then it is important that the Minister not be left with this power. I want to remind the House of what we are doing. We had someone who is an experienced judge—with a panel—hear the evidence and make a decision but at the end of that the Minister said that declining that position— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: The member’s time has expired. 
CHRIS TREMAIN (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: I will accept the closure for this reason: I think it is a novel approach and an interesting one that the Hon Trevor Mallard has promoted. I know I do not have to give a reason why I have accepted it. I will bring back a considered opinion. I do not believe the honourable member in his speech proved the case that this did extend or restrict so the question is that the question be now put. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 51 
New Zealand Labour 41; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Motion agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill that it have the power to consider and if it thinks fit adopt typescript amendments to clause 51 in the name of the Hon Trevor Mallard. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand Labour 41; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Motion not agreed to. 
CHRIS TREMAIN (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Clearly the Opposition wants to put up another couple of amendments and go through the same charade that we have just been through. In speaking the Hon Trevor Mallard has acknowledged that he is doing this to filibuster. He has acknowledged that that is a tool that the Opposition has at its disposal. I bring it to your attention that this can be used only within the rules of the House and within the Standing Orders of the House. If the amendments that the member is seeking to have debated before we get into the Committee stage are in fact already to be debated and have been agreed to be in order then I think the process of going through the charade that we have just seen in the last 10 minutes is a complete waste of the House’s time and I think you should rule them out of order. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: Firstly I cannot prejudge what or what may not happen. I assure all members that I will assiduously enforce the rules of this House as laid down by both Speakers’ Rulings and the Standing Orders. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I move that it be an instruction to the Committee on the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill that it have the power to consider and if it thinks fit adopt the typescript amendment to amend Subpart 3 by adding new clause 72(1)(a)(iii) set out in the name of Iain Lees-Galloway. 
Mr Speaker— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: No I have indicated to the member that I will bring back a ruling on these matters. Although the member did raise at an earlier time that it is not for the Speaker to give an instruction or to presume what the Committee as a whole may or may not do with amendments before the House there is also—and I commented on this earlier—a well laid-out set of rules that we abide by both in Speakers’ rulings 
and in the Standing Orders. It is those same rulings that the presiding officer of the House will judge any amendment on at the time. Therefore I am not prepared to accept the motion that the member was about to move. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am in a very difficult position because we now have a Speaker ruling differently from the senior Speaker who ruled on the very same issue about 20 minutes ago. Mr Assistant Speaker Roy you know that I have considerable respect for you and for your integrity. Certainly there is no doubt that you as Speaker—because you are sitting in the Chair as Speaker—have the ability to make rulings as has Mr Speaker. So I am not debating your ability to do that; the question I ask is whether precedent applies in this House and whether precedents set by a Speaker on consideration not 20 minutes ago— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: Let me truncate this somewhat: the member is out of order because  
Parliamentary Practice in New Zealand 
 by David McGee page 369 states: “A member may move only one instruction in relation to the same bill.” 
Therefore I declare the House in Committee for the Rugby World Cup— 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North) 
: 
 I move  
That it be an instruction to the Committee on the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill that it have the power to consider and if it thinks fit adopt typescript amendments to clause 72 in the name of Iain Lees-Galloway.  
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: I have said that I will bring a ruling to the House. I realise that members want to progress this matter now but the case really has to be made for an extension of or change in the restriction to a motion and the rules are quite clear. Although the member earlier said that it is not for the Speaker to give an instruction to the Chair the rules are quite clear about whether there is an extension or limitation. I cannot see where that occurs so I have said that I will bring a ruling back to the House on this matter. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. In a way the ruling you have just given would have been fair for the previous amendment when there was debate about whether there was an extension or restriction. But there is no doubt in the case of this amendment. It is a question of whether it is within scope and my view is that this amendment is also probably within scope. There is no doubt whatsoever that this amendment extends the bill into an area that is not otherwise considered because it extends it to details of transportation options available near the premises. My firm view is that the amendment is within the broad scope of the bill but notwithstanding that it is within scope it is an extension from the point at which it currently sits. Again I hope that you will continue to seek advice on this amendment Mr Assistant Speaker because it is my firm opinion that it involves an extension. It goes into an area that although within the broad parameters of the bill is something that is not currently touched on. It is something that goes beyond what is in the Sale of Liquor Act because requirements on transportation are not part of that Act. But in this one having these transportation details—[ 
Interruption 
] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: Order! 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I am making very serious comment to you Mr Assistant Speaker. I accept that as the Speaker in the Chair you would automatically rule on the previous amendment but it is fair to say that within this amendment there is at least a modicum of doubt about the issue. I will repeat the comment I made before: it cannot be for a Speaker to rule on the role of a Chair unless by way of appeal; that would prejudice the right of the Opposition to then take things to the Speaker later. 
CHRIS TREMAIN (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 There is no modicum of doubt in that respect. This amendment is part of the scope of the bill. It is within Part 5 and can be debated there. The present debate is totally superfluous and is trifling with the House’s time. I ask Mr Assistant Speaker that you rule against these amendments. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: I think the member makes a point which I will pick up on. How can the Speaker possibly make a ruling when he has not been presented with the amendments or given the opportunity to give consideration to them in the same way a Chair would when amendments are tabled in the Committee of the whole House? For that reason since 1856 we have had a process by which the House in Committee makes these rulings. I understand that members have raised a serious point. I have given an assurance that these matters will be considered and that a finding will be brought back. For that reason I am ruling that I am not prepared to accept debate about instructions to the Committee in the manner in which that has been raised. I therefore declare the House— 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Now this gets to something that I think is very serious—that is what happens when there is doubt in the Speaker’s mind as to his role. You have said— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: Let me answer that point. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: No I have not finished— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: Let me answer that quite clearly. There is an option: if the House is in any way displeased or has a question it has the right to recall the Speaker. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: No we don’t now— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: The member will just listen; he will not interrupt me when I am giving a ruling on a point of order. When the House is in Committee if members who put an amendment or a Supplementary Order Paper on the Table feel that an inappropriate ruling has been given by the Chair it is the right of the Committee of the whole House to then call the Speaker back and the Committee can do that. I have given an assurance that there will be a ruling so that gives us some time to do that. It seems to me also that to ask the Speaker to rule on amendments that are not tabled in front of the Speaker is a totally inappropriate way to do business; it is for that reason amendments are tabled in the House. I therefore declare— 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think you have missed the point. We are not asking you as Speaker to rule on amendments; we are asking the House to make a decision. It is the right of members to ask the House to make a decision. I am not asking you as Speaker to rule something in or out. That is something for the Chairman to do. What I am asking the House to do and what my colleague is asking the House to do is for the House to make a decision. One of the rights of the Opposition is to put motions that are within the Standing Orders. I do not think you have argued that these amendments are not within the Standing Orders. I think they are—in fact the Speaker Dr The Rt Hon Lockwood Smith has accepted one amendment. You have had another come before you Mr Assistant Speaker and you have quite rightly ruled. I was not aware of the McGee ruling on the ability to move only one instruction to the Committee but my colleague then moved another instruction. No one is asking you as Speaker to rule on these amendments. In fact it is my view that you cannot unless these are clearly— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: Let me respond to that because I am bound to apply the Standing Orders. Standing Order 172(1) states: “An instruction may be given to a committee of the whole House extending or restricting its powers …”. So I have to rule whether the debate is in order because that will either extend or restrict the powers of the amendment. That is what I have to rule on so in effect I have to rule on the amendment. In that respect and as a way forward the member is saying that the House should be able to vote on that. My thought perhaps—because as Speaker I should take a ruling—is that I will apply the same procedure that I applied in the first instance so on this occasion I will accept that procedure on this amendment which is that the member can take a call. 
Iain Lees-Galloway 
: Mr Speaker— 
CHRIS TREMAIN (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. We have been through this process and clearly it has been accepted on the Opposition’s side of the House that this is simply a filibustering technique. The amendments that have been tabled which the Opposition is asking to be debated are within scope as the member has admitted and therefore will be debated as part of the bill in the Committee stage. But these amendments should be ruled out of order and we should move on to the Committee stage. 
Iain Lees-Galloway 
: Mr Speaker— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: I ask the member just to give me a moment. Members can observe that I have taken some advice on this. I am troubled by the fact that I have to apply Standing Order 172. I understand that these amendments are all within the scope of the bill and therefore the process that we are taking is now unnecessary. What I can do is put the motion to the House without debate. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You have just called my colleague. You cannot interrupt his speech in order— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: Let me make the point quite clear. I have not called the member. He made a bid for a call and I ruled it out completely. I have not at any stage in this debate given a call to that member. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I invite you to take some advice and review your decisions Mr Assistant Speaker because you did say that you would hear from Ian Lees-Galloway. He stood up he took the call and he was just starting when Chris Tremain interrupted him with a point of order. I am checking with my colleagues but I think I can give you an assurance that you gave the call to Ian Lees-Galloway. Once you have done that it is my view that you cannot rule the debate out of order at that point. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: The member is correct in that if I had given a call I had given a call to Ian Lees-Galloway. 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North) 
: 
 The reason I have asked the House to instruct the Committee to consider this amendment—and I accept that it is on the bounds of the scope of the bill—is that the amendment offers an excellent opportunity to reinforce public safety. The amendment seeks to amend clause 72 “Conditions applying to all licences”. Clause 72(1) states: “A licence granted under this Part is unless expressly stated otherwise subject to the following conditions:”. Clause 72(1)(a)(i) refers to the signage available in a licensed premises and outlines that that sign must be “easily read by persons immediately outside the principal entrance of the premises or within the area;”. That offers up an opportunity that this amendment would address. I recognise and accept that it is something of an extension to the original bill and that is why I ask that the House consider at this point instructing the Committee of the whole House to consider it. 
The opportunity that lies here is to reinforce public safety using the signage that the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill will require to be in place in licensed premises. It gives the opportunity for that signage to offer a public safety message that patrons should seek out safe transportation options and the options available to patrons should be clearly made available to patrons who are enjoying the entertainment within a licensed premises. 
This is an important issue to cover in the current environment where we have a very high blood-alcohol level tolerance in New Zealand. In fact a number of patrons within those establishments would get to see this message if this amendment was accepted. They will come from countries where the blood-alcohol level tolerance is lower and perhaps the adjustment they will have to make on coming to New Zealand may lead to some unsafe practices and unsafe situations on our roads particularly in Auckland—where a number of the games are and where there are already a number of transport issues—but also in communities right across the country. 
As I said I accept that this is something of an extension to a clause about licensing the licence that is granted and the requirement to publicly display a message that shows that the licence under which that premises is operating is a Rugby World Cup licence rather than the standard licence under which a premises would ordinarily operate. In those terms clause 72 is actually quite narrow and in its original form it does not allow for these sorts of safety messages to be included. 
One could argue that a whole range of safety messages could be included and that is probably why the original clause is so narrow in its definition. But I seek the House’s approval to consider this amendment because I think it would have a significant impact on the community and would probably be the most important message we could get through to people. I do not think for instance that there would be much point in putting forward an amendment about the proximity of hospitals the proximity of police stations the proximity of drug treatment facilities or anything like that. But in all likelihood most people will require some form of transportation so this is the most relevant and most obvious change that could be made and signage in the licensed premises offers us as a Parliament the best opportunity to address an issue of considerable debate in the public at the moment. 
The public want to see Parliament taking the issue of drink-driving seriously. So again even though this amendment is something of an extension in the current environment—we have an active campaign by one of our leading national newspapers encouraging respected members of the public and parliamentarians to get on board with the drink-driving message to consider safe options for transportation and to be aware of the options that are available to them—it is entirely relevant and appropriate in this bill. 
We know that the Rugby World Cup as a tournament as an event will offer up far more opportunities for people to go out and enjoy themselves probably become intoxicated and get themselves into a position where knowledge about the options in terms of transport available to them becomes very very important in terms of public safety and the safety of the wider community—including those who choose not to be in the licensed premises those who are simply out on the road undertaking business that has nothing to do with the Rugby World Cup whatsoever. Those people will be very concerned— 
Sue Moroney 
: What are their names? 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY 
: I could list them—but those members of the public will be very concerned that although the majority of the impacts are positive there is the opportunity for some of those impacts on our communities to be negative. This amendment would address and mitigate one of the potentially negative impacts that the Rugby World Cup could have in the wider community. 
It is not currently incumbent on the licensee who has to display the sign referred to in clause 72(1)(a)(i) and (ii) to make available to patrons information about transportation options. It is a requirement that they have low alcoholic drinks non-alcoholic drinks and food and that those things are all clearly on display. However although there is a requirement to ensure that transport options are available there is no requirement in the bill at the moment to make sure that those options are clearly on display and that that information is available to patrons. So by recommending to the Committee of the whole House that this amendment be considered the House is dealing with an issue not currently provided for in the bill. 
All the other measures to mitigate the potential harms of alcohol will be on display and available to patrons but there is no provision for this measure—which is probably the most relevant and would have the most impact—to be on display. I accept and acknowledge that the amendment is probably on the outer limits in terms of the scope of the bill but I ask that the House consider this motion vote in favour of it and direct the Committee of the whole House to consider the amendment in the interests of public safety. 
CHRIS TREMAIN (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 42 
New Zealand Labour 41; Progressive 1. 
Abstentions 9 
Green Party 9. 
Motion agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That it be an instruction to the Committee on the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill that it have the power to consider and if it thinks fit adopt typescript amendments to clause 72 in the name of Iain Lees-Galloway. 
Ayes 42 
New Zealand Labour 41; Progressive 1. 
Noes 69 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; United Future 1. 
Abstentions 9 
Green Party 9. 
Motion not agreed to. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: I said to the House that I would give a considered opinion on this matter. I have had time to reflect and to take advice. I also say that I have received a message from Speaker Smith who acknowledges that he was in error to allow these debates to take place. The ruling that I am about to give is: an instruction to empower the Committee to do something the Committee already has power to do is not in order. I will therefore entertain no further points of order or calls in relation to this matter. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: Is this in relation to the ruling I have given? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Yes it is. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: Well I have made a ruling. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I have heard you and I am taking a point of order Mr Assistant Speaker. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: I will hear the point of order but I caution the member that I have ruled on this matter. I am not going to entertain any discussion in relation to the subject matter. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I think there is a slight problem. I think there is a problem ruling points of order leading to motions as out of order when you have not yet heard whether those motions extend the bill. I think you are attempting to prejudge motions that members may be moving and prejudge Supplementary Order Papers that you have no knowledge of. You cannot know Mr Assistant Speaker that a motion to be moved is out of order. Once it is moved and once you have examined the particular Supplementary Order Paper to which it refers of course you have the right to do that. But for you to say Mr Assistant Speaker that something is automatically out of order before you have heard what is moved is in my view beyond—I know you are prescient but it does not go quite as far as that. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: I thank the member for his point of order. I say that in the two debates that we have had the members have absolutely been unable to convince me that they were extending or restricting the Supplementary Order Paper. I take that into consideration. The next point I make is that we have a process that has stood in this House since time immemorial and I have reinforced that process. I have not created or instigated it on this occasion; I have simply affirmed the process by which the House has taken place. If the member has a justifiable concern the appropriate place for that concern is at the Standing Orders Committee. As I say the process by which the House has taken place has served the House for some time. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Point of order. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: I will hear the member but he should bear in mind that I have been extremely tolerant and that will diminish very quickly if members seek to challenge the ruling I have just given on consideration which I promised. I gave the members the opportunity to demonstrate that their Supplementary Order Papers were actually an extension or a limitation. I am now at the end of my patience. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I move that it be an instruction to the Committee on the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill that it have the power to consider and if it thinks fit adopt an amendment in my name that extends this bill in order to consider gaming matters not otherwise considered by the bill. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: You are out of order because a member can move only one instruction to the Committee. 
Chris Hipkins 
: Point of order. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: No I am not taking any more points of order on this matter. 
Chris Hipkins 
: Point of order. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: If the member wishes to raise a point of order in relation to Supplementary Order Papers he will leave the Chamber. The member will. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Point of order. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: The same applies to that member. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I just want to get this absolutely clear. You are ruling that a member cannot take a point of order in order to move a matter in relation to a Supplementary Order Paper that you have not seen. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: That is correct. 
In Committee 
Debate resumed from 26 October. 
Part 2 Establishment of Rugby World Cup Authority ( 
continued 
)  
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) 
: 
 We are debating Part 2 of the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill and in particular the establishment of the Rugby World Cup Authority. The Labour Party supports the establishment of this authority because we see that it is a reasonable mechanism by which to hear urgent matters that may arise in the build-up to the Rugby World Cup. However as we have stated several times during this debate we have grave concern about the fact that having established this authority the Government is then putting in place a process by which the Minister for the Rugby World Cup Murray McCully in consultation with Gerry Brownlee and Nick Smith can override vary ignore and do whatever he likes with that decision. The example I was giving when I spoke before was the question of wet-pour facilities at Eden Park. I note that some material obtained under the Official Information Act actually shows that Gerry Brownlee was refusing to listen to the advice from the police about health and safety concerns over not having wet-pour services for alcohol at Eden Park. 
From our point of view this raises a grave concern about the approach that Ministers are taking. A Minister has received advice from the police—the people charged in our community with protecting community safety—that they believe that wet-pour facilities are essential for the health and safety of New Zealanders. If that advice is simply ignored by the Minister what sort of case does it set for the authority being established in Part 2 of this bill? The authority will give consideration under clause 9. An example of the kind of thing the authority would do is to grant liquor licences. It would go away and it would seek advice—in this case from the police. The police came back and said they believed wet-pour facilities needed to be provided at Eden Park. The Minister got that advice and said that he does not really consider it to be significant and he is not going to go along with it. That is the concern we have because the establishment of the authority is a useful process. 
To see the kinds of people who are going to be appointed to the authority we look at clause 11 of Part 2 “Membership of the authority”. The membership of the authority will have someone “who is a current former or retired Judge or a lawyer of at least 7 years’ standing”. That implies a quasi-judicial type of role for this authority which clearly is required given that it will have to look at the potential amendment of Acts of Parliament. A serious job is being given to this authority and serious people are being brought in. Under clause 11(2)(b) there needs to be another member of the authority “who is a lawyer of at least 7 years’ standing to be its deputy chairperson.”; then “In appointing members the Minister must ensure that the Authority has available to it sufficient members with the knowledge skill and experience relevant to the Authority’s functions”. The clause then lists some of that required experience. 
Being on the authority will be a serious job and serious people will be undertaking that job yet in Part 4 the Government is trying to put a process in place that will fundamentally undermine that work. So from our point of view when we look at Part 2 we see a part that on the face of it we can support but that is undermined by other parts and that is disturbing to us. 
The process by which the authority will work is then laid out in clause 12 of Part 2 and that is through appointing panels. Again in looking at the case raised specifically by the police wanting wet-pour facilities to be established the kind of panel we would establish in relation to that would no doubt have police involvement. Those people whom the authority would have brought in to determine what they would do about those sorts of issues would talk to the police. 
But Gerry Brownlee on three occasions has had the police go to him and I have the notes from each of those meetings here. On each of those occasions Gerry Brownlee declined to go along with police advice about their health and safety concerns; rather he said he did not feel that the Rugby World Cup 2011 justified putting in place that activity. The police then said they believed that the activity would be a legacy investment that the Rugby World Cup 2011 should put in place for the health and safety not only of New Zealanders but also of visitors to our country. 
Part 2 of this bill certainly provides for the authority to make decisions about liquor licences. That was a decision related to the question of the provision of liquor and the provision of licences and that was an example of the Associate Minister for the Rugby World Cup deciding that he wanted to ignore that decision. He will be one of the people whom Murray McCully as Minister for the Rugby World Cup turns to in order to decide what to do about the recommendations of the authority established in Part 2 of the bill. Gerry Brownlee has shown himself to be one of those people who are not interested in what the police have to say about safety or about how the Rugby World Cup should operate in terms in liquor licences and I have no confidence that that would not happen over the issue I have referred to. 
I think that the authority has probably been given the powers it needs to do its job with the exception of what is happening in Part 4. I congratulate the committee which has made a number of minor changes in Part 2 particularly in relation to the functioning of the administrative secretariat in clause 15. The functions have been varied somewhat in order to allow the secretariat to provide advice to the authority which again is useful because the authority will have to act quickly. It needs all of the people around it that it can get. I think that it is important to note once again in this debate on Part 2 that Labour supports the Rugby World Cup 2011 strongly— 
Nikki Kaye 
: No you don’t. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: We certainly do. Nikki Kaye can interject across the Chamber. I say that this side of the Chamber supports the Rugby World Cup 2011 and we have done so from the beginning I tell Ms Kaye. 
JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) 
: 
 One has to wonder at Labour’s priorities when its members stand up in this Chamber and deliberately act as spoilers of the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill. 
Jo Goodhew 
: It’s all they’ve got. 
JACQUI DEAN 
: Well I just think that it speaks volumes for the commitment of Labour members to the Rugby World Cup and I think probably it says that Trevor Mallard—who is no longer the Minister for the Rugby World Cup Labour having lost the Treasury benches—is throwing a bit of a tanty and doing all he can to spoil the progress of this bill. 
New Zealand wants the Rugby World Cup the Government is behind the Rugby World Cup and the New Zealand Rugby Union and all the sub-unions around the country are firmly in favour of this Rugby World Cup. Who is acting as the spoiler? Trevor Mallard and his band of little merry men are acting as spoilers for this legislation. I say “Shame on them—shame on them!”. 
There are a couple of points that I will pick up here. In terms of liquor licensing the amendment about liquor licensing that was indicated— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Part 2. 
JACQUI DEAN 
: Oh thank you Mr Chair. Seeking to introduce new material into the debate after the select committee process—and I am referring directly to the provisions in Part 2—is contrary to whatever Labour members have said in the past about introducing new material and truncating the Committee process. Labour is merely trying to spoil this process. Trevor Mallard has his nose seriously out of joint because he is no longer the Minister for the Rugby World Cup and this is just his little tanty to try to slow down the Committee process. He is being aided and abetted in a shameful way by the members of the select committee who I understood when we met in consideration of Part 2 acted constructively all the way through the select committee process. In fact all the way through the consideration of Part 2 we had good robust debate when going through issues such as the membership of the authority which the member opposite has just stood up and decried. Well that is news to me because during the select committee process we had good discussions on that and general agreement— 
Jacinda Ardern 
: No we didn’t! 
JACQUI DEAN 
: I do not see any minority report being brought before the Committee in relation to any of the provisions in Part 2. Let us call this what it is: Labour members are filibustering they have their noses out of joint and they do not support the Rugby World Cup. I think that that is a terrible shame and an indictment on the Labour members of how low they are prepared to go to act as spoilers of what should be wonderful legislation to enable a wonderful marvellous Rugby World Cup event. I hope they come to their senses and start supporting this bill and supporting the spirit of this bill as does the Government. 
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. 
NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central) 
: 
 I am pleased to take a call on the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill. Firstly I think we have seen Labour’s true colours in regard to this legislation. We are seeing that those members are clearly trying to undermine good legislation going through the House in support of what will be the largest sporting event that New Zealand has ever held. It will be a time when 4 billion people will be watching us with 2000 media. Frankly it is quite embarrassing because members opposite sat in the select committee and went through a reasonable process—and members on this side of the Chamber have talked about that process—but then those members did not put in a minority report. They have far too much time on their hands and Mr Mallard has stirred them up taking them down a little garden path. My concern is that we have had a very very clear process there but there was no minority report. My colleague said it very well by saying that we need to call members opposite for exactly what they are doing. They are filibustering and they are showing a lack of support for New Zealand by not supporting this legislation. 
We are very clear that this Part 2 of the legislation is about setting up the Rugby World Cup Authority but we are hearing a lot of contradictions coming from the other side as well. Yesterday those members said that they supported the process for the establishment of the authority. In fact Mr Mallard even said yesterday that he supported the fact that Mr McCully was consulting members opposite regarding that membership. But we just heard from Mr Lees-Galloway that—actually no—because of the provisions about urgent consents it is Labour’s position that it does not support the legislation at all. Complete contradictions are coming from the other side of the Chamber. We know what is happening here. We know that this is about wasting New Zealand taxpayers’ money and we have just seen it via an hour of filibustering. That is not good for New Zealand particularly when we have had pretty hard economic times. 
I come back again to Part 2 of the legislation. We on this side of the Chamber want to be very clear that we are supportive of the authority that is being set up. A very reasonable process has been undertaken in relation to Part 2. There is a very clear process about the membership of the authority in terms of consulting the Minister of Justice the Minister for Economic Development and the Minister for the Environment. They are all elected people. Again it comes back to some of the arguments that have been raised by the Opposition in regard to not having an urgent consent process whereby there is a power of veto by the Minister. We on this side of the Chamber would prefer to have elected representatives rather than unelected people accountable. That goes to the core and heart of a number of the discussions that have happened so far. 
I say that we on this side of the Chamber support New Zealand support the Rugby World Cup and support this legislation going through compared with a Labour Opposition that is filibustering that is wasting the Committee’s time and that does not support the Rugby World Cup. Those members show a lot of contradictions in terms of what they are saying. We are supportive of the Rugby World Cup and I commend this legislation. 
JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) 
: 
 It is my absolute pleasure to set the record straight because very unfortunately several members of the Government have tried to mislead those who might be watching this debate on the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill. I am happy to restate that Labour absolutely supports the elements of Part 2—in particular the establishment of the Rugby World Cup Authority. A robust process has been set out there. But I must restate for the benefit of those who may be watching that we do oppose the notion that carte blanche powers should be given to a Minister—powers that are unnecessary. To somehow translate that objection as Labour being against rugby—in fact I heard the statement that Labour is against New Zealand—is I find a stretch. 
We are trying to make good law. That is our obligation in this Committee. It is our job to make sure that we do that well. We absolutely support the Rugby World Cup which is why we want to make sure that robust procedures are in place to make sure it happens. In my mind I am much more comfortable with the way that the authority has been established the membership of the authority the procedure of the authority and the decision-making role that it will play than I am with decisions being deferred or taken out of that authority’s hands at the whim of the Minister which is essentially what this bill allows. I am against that and Labour is against that. 
But I will go over some questions I have for the Minister in the chair the Hon Anne Tolley who is obviously acting on behalf of the Minister who has responsibility for this bill. My first question is about liability. We are dealing with a circumventing of process and procedure for which the authority has been given powers as set out in this legislation. If for instance a Minister takes the ability to make a decision outside the hands of the authority where does the liability for that decision lie? Does it then lie directly with the Crown or does it then fall to the authority which may have made a counter decision to that of the Minister? That is one of my questions on the issue of liability because we are dealing with quite contentious issues. 
The Rugby World Cup is an event that has the potential to have significant health and safety issues attached to it and that could potentially become litigious. I note in Part 2 clause 12 that the ability to question the chairperson’s exercise of his or her discretion before the courts is removed. I imagine that holds for all of the authority’s decisions. In terms of litigation the power to pursue that via the court is removed; does that power then exist if a decision is made by the Minister? That is a question I put to the Ministers themselves in relation to the issue of liability. It would be useful to have that clarified. 
Otherwise I think this bill sets out quite clearly the criteria by which the authority must consider various decisions that are within its ambit and I think those criteria are very very robust. I see that the select committee made one change in particular highlighting the importance of ensuring that “public health and safety are protected as far as it is reasonably practicable during the period of the Rugby World Cup 2011.” It then also sets out a range of other criteria. I wonder whether the Minister could point out whether it is intended that the Minister would use the same criteria given to him or her if the Minister exercises the power given to him or her in Part 4. Will any of those requirements that we are asking the authority to take into account—to which the select committee has given a lot of consideration—be taken into account by the Minister as well to fulfil that set of obligations or does the Minister have different criteria altogether? 
I also thought it was useful that in clause 9(2)(e) of that part it is pointed out that one of the criteria is “the desirability of maximising the benefit to be derived during or after the tournament from things done in preparation for and in support of the tournament.” I have another question for the Minister there. Because the select committee has split it out—instead of referring to the Rugby World Cup as a whole the provision refers just to the tournament—does that criterion not apply for the ancillary events that I notice the select committee has split out? Does that mean that the authority does not need to take into account the desirability of maximising the benefit derived when we are talking about ancillary events? Is there a separate set of criteria for those? 
CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) 
: 
 I am very happy to take a call on Part 2 of the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill and from the very beginning I say that I am quite excited about the Rugby World Cup coming to New Zealand. It will be a major event for this country and I am looking forward to it. I am also very broadly supportive of the establishment of the Rugby World Cup Authority which is what the second part— 
John Hayes 
: So why is Mallard off the leash? 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: Mr Mallard also supports Part 2 “Establishment of Rugby World Cup Authority”. I will talk about some of the powers that the authority has some of the considerations about membership and in particular how the authority will be supported. 
Part 2 establishes the Rugby World Cup Authority as a body corporate. It sets out its functions and powers which include determining all applications making recommendations to the Minister for the Rugby World Cup and granting urgent applications. 
One of the issues that the Government Administration Committee took into consideration and had some significant discussion on was how best to support the authority in exercising its powers and in making decisions. Effectively we are taking some of these functions and powers off local authorities and for matters related to the Rugby World Cup transferring them to this authority. But the expertise and the local knowledge which is quite critical in many of the decision-making processes that will take place will still reside with those local authorities. So the question is whether a secretariat should be established that would specifically serve the Rugby World Cup Authority or whether it would be better to draw on local expertise and knowledge from within the existing local authorities. Of course I tend to go with what the bill has ended up with which is that it is better to draw on the expertise and knowledge of the existing local authorities. However the question then becomes whether we can meet the objectives of the bill which are to speed the process up and make sure we do not have undue delay. Can we do that if we are relying on the local authorities to provide the process and secretarial support? 
In the case of larger local authorities such as the Wellington City Council or the new Auckland Council they are likely to have significant resources behind them and it will not be a problem for them to supply good-quality robust secretarial support to the authority and to meet those constrained time frames and time pressures that the authority will face. However if we move to a much much smaller local authority that will not necessarily be the case. Even Hamilton which is not tiny but which is not a big local authority either— 
Sue Moroney 
: It’s the fourth-largest city in New Zealand. 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: —the fourth-largest city in New Zealand—may not have the staff and the support available to support this authority to meet the time frames that it is required to meet. There will have to be a balance between relying on local authorities to support the new Rugby World Cup Authority and providing additional advice and support. 
I think it is important that we understand what the functions of the administrative secretariat will be. As I have said the administrative secretariat will have to be supplied by existing local authorities. Clause 15 sets out what is required of the local authorities and clause 15(4) sets out the functions of the administrative secretariat. I think the important provision here is clause 15(4)(ba) which states: “to provide advice to the Authority in accordance with its requirements for matters relevant to any determinations of the Authority:” and then clause 15(4)(bb) which begins “to act on the instructions that the Authority gives”. Ultimately the local authorities the councils will still be the ones that have to implement whatever decisions the authority makes. So although the authority gets the power that currently resides with the local authorities that does not simply mean the local authorities do not need to be involved. Whatever decisions the Rugby World Cup Authority makes the local councils will still be ultimately responsible for implementing them. 
Having the administrative secretariat supplied by the local authorities will certainly assist in making sure that that process works effectively but we should also acknowledge the resource constraints that that will potentially place on some of the smaller local authorities that may have to deal with that issue. 
STUART NASH (Labour) 
: 
 I was in my office listening to the television when I heard one of the National members stand up and say that Labour is anti-rugby. At that point I thought I had to come down to the House and defend the honour of my Labour colleagues. The reason I have a dodgy shoulder and a stuffed hamstring at the moment is that at my age I am still pulling on a rugby jersey and representing this House on rugby fields around the country. I love rugby. Every Saturday I take my son to play rugby but I am not unusual. This weekend will be based around rugby. It reminds me of a league player who was asked whether he liked the game of league and would die for it. He said that he did not know whether he would die for it—go into a deep coma maybe but not death. 
I have looked at the part of the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill that provides for the make-up of the Rugby World Cup Authority. I love rugby but I also value democracy. Democracy is a fundamental principle that underpins everything we do in this House and that is what the authority represents. When I look at the make-up of the authority I understand why Labour is supporting Part 2. The chair of the authority must be a retired judge or a lawyer of at least 7 years’ standing. The deputy chair must be a lawyer of at least 7 years’ standing. This is not an authority that has been just thrown together made up of people who are passionate about rugby; this is an authority of people who have vast knowledge and competency in organising events in law in local town planning and everything. Clause 12(1) states “When any application is received by the Authority under this Act the chairperson must appoint—(a) a panel…”. Clause 12(2) states the panel “must comprise at least 3 members including as presiding officer a lawyer of at least 7 years’ standing (who may be the chairperson of the Authority).” Clause 12(3) states “the chairperson must have regard to the need for the panel to have available to it sufficient members with the knowledge skill and experience relevant to the particular application before it.” The process is very robust and the authority will not say it does not like rugby it does not like New Zealand and it will hold up the Rugby World Cup event for whatever reason. 
The reason the authority is being put in place is to ensure that due diligence is undertaken that due process is followed that the event is not a shambles and that we do not ride roughshod over the taxpayers and the citizens of New Zealand. That would be undemocratic. To have a clause in this bill that states the Minister can make decisions without input from any other person is so undemocratic as to be abhorrent. I love rugby but I also love democracy. 
I come back to the point made by my colleague Mr Hipkins. Napier will be a proud host. I am thinking the final might even be played in Napier! The bill says the Minister will appoint members of the authority in consultation etc. but it must have people who understand the local requirements of the region to which the application before it refers. The process is very robust. As it is it bypasses the standard legal procedure of this House but it is a very robust process. I cannot understand for the life of me why the Government would want to bypass the authority. It is set up it is supported by Labour and it is an authority whose members are supported I think by the Minister for the Rugby World Cup in consultation with three of his colleagues. The process is so robust as to be almost watertight. 
I also see that clause 9(2) states that “the Authority must to the extent relevant have regard to—(a) the desirability of making proper preparation for the Rugby World Cup;”. That is what we are all about. The authority needs “to ensure the efficient safe and lawful conduct of the Rugby World Cup;”. Efficient safe and lawful conduct? Goodness me! We are all for that. Every single member of Parliament supports that. Clause 9(2) also refers to “the desirability of supporting the appropriate delivery of services by or through Rugby New Zealand 2011 Limited;”. Every single member in this House supports the authority. It is what is needed to ensure that the Rugby World Cup event held in New Zealand is a very very successful venture. It will be successful—of that I have absolutely no doubt. 
Jacqui Dean 
: Labour doesn’t support it! 
STUART NASH 
: To hear that member say Labour does not support the Rugby World Cup 2011 is a dreadful statement. 
JO GOODHEW (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
PHIL TWYFORD (Labour) 
: 
 I want to respond to the comments made by the member for Auckland Central. I have never heard such self-righteous cant in the last 2 years in this House as we heard from Nikki Kaye in this debate. She did not so much wrap herself in the flag as in an All Black jersey in her enthusiasm to accuse Labour members in this Parliament of not supporting the Rugby World Cup of not even liking rugby and of being unpatriotic. How pathetic! Members on the Government benches are threatened by the fact that Opposition members would dare to criticise one part of this bill. I emphasise that it is one part of this bill. We have made it crystal clear at the Government Administration Committee in public statements and in the entirety of this debate so far that we are voting for every part of the bill bar one. We have made that clear in the first reading in the second reading and in the entirety of the Committee stage to date. We support this bill; we support the Rugby World Cup; and any attempt to make this an argument about patriotism and whether we support rugby and the Rugby World Cup is absolute nonsense. The member for Auckland Central should know better. 
The member for Auckland Central said that it was embarrassing to see Labour make all these criticisms of the Murray McCully provisions in this bill. She asked why Labour has not put up a minority report. Nikki Kaye should ask herself why any Opposition member would not put up a minority report. It is because members on the Government benches are making a habit of voting down and rejecting minority reports. 
Nikki Kaye 
: That’s not true. 
PHIL TWYFORD 
: It is absolutely true. We saw it at the Law and Order Committee and we are now seeing it at other committees too. The Government is so defensive and insecure that it cannot brook any dissent from the Opposition in the form of minority reports which after all are a mechanism that this House has developed over many years to allow the Opposition to have its say and to have a dissenting opinion. In this case we are talking about only one part out of—how many parts are in this bill? 
Sue Moroney 
: Seven I think. 
PHIL TWYFORD 
: There are seven parts. Labour has made it clear that we oppose only one part yet the member for Auckland Central cannot tolerate the slightest criticism of her bill without going into paroxysms of outrage and self-righteousness by suggesting that Labour does not support the Rugby World Cup. I say to members opposite that they should listen to what the Opposition is saying. We oppose the granting of unfettered powers to the Minister for the Rugby World Cup to override the recommendations of eminent specialists who have been recruited into roles to administer the Rugby World Cup Authority. We think that is undemocratic and we are saying so. That is a perfectly justified opinion. Members opposite should take a deep breath and recognise that this is a debating chamber. This is where we carry out the democracy of our country and we scrutinise legislation. That is what this debate is all about. I am glad to see that the outrage on the part of members opposite seems to have dissipated and we can get on with debating Part 2 of this bill. 
The select committee very usefully clarified some points in relation to the powers of the Rugby World Cup Authority. It made it absolutely explicit in the bill that in relation to any powers exercised by the relevant statutory body that will be granting liquor licences and considering and issuing consents the same powers would carry across to the Rugby World Cup. So there is absolutely no doubt about that in relation to the powers of the authority which are contained in Part 2; it is a very very useful amendment. 
Part 2 also deals with the role of the administrative secretariat. My colleagues have already made the point very clearly that we are entirely happy with the powers of the administrative secretariat. They have been thoughtfully and usefully put together. 
JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 51 
New Zealand Labour 41; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Motion agreed to. 
Part 2 agreed to. 
Part 3 Approvals and declarations 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: The debate on Part 3 includes schedule 2. 
CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) 
: 
 I am happy to take a call on Part 3 of the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill. This part deals with approvals and declarations. First I want to set out what the scope of this particular part is. It sets out the scope of the applications that may be made and how they are to be lodged. The applications may seek approvals declarations or a change of conditions of an approval or declaration or of existing approvals granted under other enactments. In addition there is a provision for applications relating to events that are not connected with the Rugby World Cup 2011 but for which event organisers wish to test whether a proposed activity—for example traffic management—is likely to be adequate for the same purpose in relation to the Rugby World Cup 2011. 
I want to talk about that in particular because here in Wellington earlier this year at the Westpac Stadium we had an event that was designed specifically to test whether the stadium the security facilities and all those who were going to be involved in hosting the Rugby World Cup events in Wellington were adequately prepared and ready. For example Westpac Stadium wanted to put in place some changes around how traffic management worked. I think it is important that if it had required additional authority for for example road closures and those kinds of things it would have needed a provision for that to happen as there is under this legislation. Even though the Wellington event—I think it was an All Blacks test match—was not directly connected with the Rugby World Cup it was important that it could be used as a tester to make sure that the systems being put in place for the Rugby World Cup were going to work. 
This bill allows the authorities to determine that events not directly connected with the Rugby World Cup can be deemed to be like Rugby World Cup events for the purpose of testing things and making sure they will work. In order for that to happen an applicant needs to establish that measures have been undertaken to obtain the necessary approval or declaration through the normal processes but that it is unlikely that it could be obtained in time. That is an important principle that runs through this legislation and it is something we talked about a lot at the Government Administration Committee. It is really important that this bill is not seen simply as a short cut for sloppy management or bad practice. 
Things will come up in the course of organising the Rugby World Cup that are unforeseen that cannot be dealt with through normal processes and that will therefore need a truncated or a shortened process. But that is not an excuse for people to simply put everything on hold and say: “We know that the authority is being established and that the Minister will have extra powers so we just won’t worry about it yet. We’ll worry about it further down the track.” That is not the message we want to send to anybody who is involved with Rugby World Cup activities. 
The message we want to send is: “Do it now if you can use the regular processes and don’t wait but if you need to then obviously these powers will be available.” So unless the enactment that would normally apply to an application makes no provision for public notice to be given all applications must be publicly notified by the authority. I think it is important to stress that at this point. 
We want to respect existing democratic processes and ensure that this legislation is not used in such a way as to curtail the rights of New Zealand citizens to have a say in quite significant approvals processes. Any submission must be made no later than 10 working days after the date on which public notice of an application is given. Ten working days is a reasonably truncated time frame so it will be important that those who have an interest in these issues are keeping a close eye on what is going on. 
If the authority considers it necessary or if a person with a right to be heard requests to be heard a hearing will be heard no later than 10 working days after the closing date for submissions. By the time we have a 10-day notification period and potentially a 10-day process for submissions to be heard we are already up to 20 working days potentially for something that will be considered under this part. Any appeal must be brought not later than 5 working days after the authority has notified its determination so we are now looking at a period of 25 days potentially for decisions to be made. 
Although this part provides for some truncation of the process it does not unnecessarily restrict the ability of people to make submissions and to be heard. There was some discussion at the Government Administration Committee about the notification provisions and whether given the shortened periods notification in the daily papers was required. For example if we are talking about a 10-day time period for notification depending on the timing of dealing with newspaper classified advertising deadlines it might not necessarily be practical to advertise something in the way it would normally be advertised by using the newspapers. The question then became whether it was possible for advertising to be done on a website and so forth. 
This part sets out the methods of making any application that is to be considered under it. It is important. It sets out that applications must be made in writing and in a form and manner prescribed by regulations or as approved by the authority. I think it is important that applications are in written form. People will not be able to ring up the authority say they have a great idea and ask for approval. There have to be robust processes for doing that. Making sure that an application is in writing is important. It has to be lodged for registration with the administrative secretariat and accompanied by any information the case may require and any deposit that the administrative secretariat may require. 
The previous part Part 2 which we have dealt with allows the administrative secretariat to put in place provisions for the deposit and a bond in some cases. That can all be part of the written application process that the secretariat and the authority may put in place. There were some significant changes to the way this section of the bill was structured by the select committee. The changes were mostly technical so I will not go into those in great detail. 
There is quite a significant clause—clause 19—that deals with the information that needs to be supplied with applications for approvals and declarations. So the House in passing this legislation is giving some quite detailed instructions to the authority on the process that we want it to be engaging in. I think it is really important that when we are truncating a democratic process which we are doing in this case—by removing the power from existing decision-making bodies and giving it to the authority—we still have a very robust process in place for the authority that will be making those decisions and dealing with that. 
I note just to give an example some of the things that clause 19 talks about in terms of the information that must be supplied. It refers to “all the information required under the enactment that would but for this Act apply;”. So if people are applying for a licence permit or whatever they will still need to supply all the same information that they would need to supply under the existing Act were it not for this truncated process. That is a very important provision. 
Clause 21A talks about the procedure in the event of overlapping applications to the statutory person or body or authority for the same activity and I will not go into those in any great detail. Subpart 2 talks about jurisdiction public notification and the making of submissions. I think that is really important. Again it is quite prescriptive in terms of the process for the notification and submissions to be determined and also for the determination of an affected person’s status. All these things would be regularly covered by established systems and processes were the normal processes to apply. Here we are talking about a truncated process—establishing something that will be operating for a very short period of time in potentially quite a pressured environment given the time constraints on it. 
I think it is really important given that the authority will not have time to establish its own processes systems and body of precedent or case law or whatever we want to call it that the House be quite prescriptive about how we expect it to operate and function. That is what this part does. It sets out in great detail the provisions relating to notification submissions and consultation. For example clause 25 specifies what the contents of a public notice must be and it includes things like the nature of the application including “the activity facility or test activity or facility for which approval is sought …” and so forth. 
JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa) 
: 
 Chris Hipkins the previous speaker strung together a lot of highfalutin words which gave the illusion that he was smart enough to understand the game but I reflect and suggest that he was stupid enough to think that what he was saying was important. 
Chris Hipkins 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I am generally pretty comfortable with robust debate but I am not sure whether it is in order in this House—in fact I am absolutely certain it is not—for a member to call another member stupid. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Is the member taking exception to that— 
Chris Hipkins 
: I am indeed. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: —under Standing Order 116 “Personal reflections”? 
Chris Hipkins 
: That is correct. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I ask the member to withdraw that comment. 
JOHN HAYES 
: Thank you Mr Chairperson. I certainly did not intend to— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: No I have ruled. 
JOHN HAYES 
: I withdraw and apologise and I certainly did not intend— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: No no. 
JOHN HAYES 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: That is it. 
JOHN HAYES 
: Part 3 of the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill provides for this country to organise and have the greatest contest that it has ever experienced in the whole period of New Zealand’s existence. Part 3 is quite critically important in allowing 48 rugby matches to take place in 13 locations in this country. We are trying to use Part 3 and the other clauses of this bill to create a “Stadium New Zealand”—a vision to help to move this country forward. The vision set out and prescribed in Part 3 will enable us to portray ourselves as a great country on the world stage. 
Part 3 will help us to manage the 85000 visitors to this country who hopefully will leave a lot of money behind to support all sorts of small businesses: homestays taxi drivers bus drivers and other people. On top of that we will have a huge global television audience. That is what this bill is about. This bill in Part 3 is about creating New Zealand’s greatest event ever. Instead of celebrating this we are dealing with words like “truncated”. They are strung-together words that sound important but I can assure members that they are not. They are big words. The outcome of what we have seen in the House earlier this afternoon was having members just trying to be like Helen Kelly and hobbits. Part 3 is about trying to set up the underpinning of the greatest event that will occur in New Zealand in our lifetime. The Opposition is trying to pull this apart with negative comments about Part 3. 
This legislation will move this country forward. It will set up a Rugby World Cup Authority to help to do that. The authority established by this legislation will enable the granting of all sorts of applications for activities related to licensing and the prescribing of the use of land areas for other events where the Rugby World Cup will be involved. Clause 31(6) prescribes that— 
Sue Moroney 
: “Prescribes” is a big word. 
JOHN HAYES 
: I draw the member’s attention to the bill. If she had taken the trouble to read it she would find that the word “prescribes” is in the bill. For example clause 31(6) states: “The Authority may prescribe any other conditions that it considers appropriate including—(a) conditions that apply to any of the activities facilities or class of activity or facility to which the declaration relates;”. That is great jargon. What we need to keep very firmly focused on here is that this legislation will allow the greatest event to take place in New Zealand that this country has ever seen. I think it is critically important that this legislation allows our country to show itself off on the world stage in a way that leaves it full of credit and praise that adds significantly to the economy and that portrays New Zealand as the very highly organised host of a world-class brilliant event. Thank you. 
DAVID SHEARER (Labour—Mt Albert) 
: 
 I will start by once again stating what Part 3 is all about. I take into account what the previous speaker said which is that this bill is about enabling the greatest sporting event that New Zealand has ever put on to take place. I do not think this bill is doing that. That was done a few years ago when the Government of the day had the vision to go out and grab this opportunity. This legislation simply makes sure that the event can run smoothly once the vision has been seen and accomplished. 
Part 3 sets out the scope of the applications that may be made and how they are to be lodged. It is quite technical in nature. In many ways it sets out the process. As my colleague said it is a more truncated or if you like shortened abbreviated or reduced process than we would otherwise have. 
Phil Twyford 
: Shrunken. 
DAVID SHEARER 
: Shrunken minimalised truncated—it could be seen in a whole lot of different ways. In fact that member himself could be seen as somewhat truncated shortened or made smaller as a result of his recent operation. I have to say he looks much better for it. However this legislation truncated as it stands allows the process to enable this Rugby World Cup to go ahead in a smooth and easy way. Part 3 sets out the scope of the applications that can be made how they are to be made and how they are to be lodged. The applications may seek approvals. They can seek declarations and a change in conditions of an approval or of existing approvals granted under other enactments. The key point is that we are following a process if we have to do this. As David Clendon said yesterday we are quite good at putting on events like this. It seems that particularly in the transport area which was mentioned specifically in Part 3 we have done a very very good job in preparing ourselves. I do not think this legislation will be needed; nevertheless Part 3 goes into a great deal of detail. If we do need to use it at least it enables the process to be carried out with the fewest possible problems. 
There is provision in Part 3 for applications relating to events that are to test whether a proposed activity—for example traffic management—is likely to be adequate for the purpose in relation to the Rugby World Cup 2011. This has happened in my electorate which encompasses the Eden Park venue. An enormous amount of planning has been going on in and around that area particularly in the transport management area but also relating to the Kingsland railway station which has been modified dramatically in order to take people to and from the venue. 
I will touch on one point. We are now seeing for the first time people starting to take trains to go to these venues both in and out of the city and from the west and the south rather than using their cars. It is part of a general move that we are witnessing right across the Auckland region. The transport Minister may want to take note of that when he looks at the future of New Zealand rail. 
Part 3 will enable the smooth running of activities in the period during which the Rugby World Cup will be held. I want to look at clause 31 “Determination of applications for declarations”. It states: “(1) In determining an application under section 16(2) or (5) or 17 for a declaration a test declaration or a change to the conditions of a declaration or a test declaration the Authority must have regard to any adverse effects on the environment that would be would be likely to be if the application were granted more than minor as determined in accordance with section 31A.” This section is extremely important and again I use the example of the Eden Park venue. Two historic houses were removed in order to enable transport to flow more freely. To be perfectly honest I think that was unnecessary. We are changing our environment—I am talking about the urban environment here—dramatically in order to cater for the Rugby World Cup and I am pleased that some safeguards will be encompassed in this bill that will enable these environmental impacts which would be classified as major as they are certainly not minor to be heard and to be used in an adequate way. 
Clause 31(1A) states: “The Authority must not grant the application if the activity facility or class of activity or facility that is the subject of the application is prohibited by another Act.” Once again I think that provides the safeguards. It goes back to Part 2 which we have just discussed which covers the make-up of the authority that will be hearing the applications under this part of the Act. I believe that the authority is being set up in a way that it will have the utmost respect for the process and a senior judge of 7 years’ standing has been appointed chair of the authority. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
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! 
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! 
NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central) 
: 
 I am pleased to speak with regard to Part 3 of the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill. First I want to say this is a pretty momentous moment in the Chamber because some really great analogies are happening between the legislation we are debating which is designed to benefit New Zealand from an economic perspective in terms of world exposure and the fact that at 7.20 this evening the Prime Minister of New Zealand saved  
The Hobbit 
. This country is seeing a real contrast between the two sides of the Chamber particularly with regard to Part 3. National is putting legislation in place for the economic benefit of New Zealand with 4 billion people expected to watch the Rugby World Cup in our country and the Prime Minister moved swiftly to save  
The Hobbit 
 for New Zealand and save thousands of jobs for this country. Those on the opposite side of the Chamber are putting a whole lot of obstacles in the way of the average New Zealander who just wants a job at the moment. I am proud that we have a Prime Minister who acted to save that film for this country. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Order! 
NIKKI KAYE 
: I shall relate that point back to Part 3. Part 3 is about the Rugby World Cup 2011. We know that the tournament is expected to bring 85000 visitors to New Zealand and the numbers watching  
The Hobbit 
 will be pretty similar. 
The Opposition’s whole debate this evening has been about opposing one specific provision. We have heard a lot of contradiction from the Opposition team. Iain Lees-Galloway said that because of the provision Labour opposes this bill. Then all the other Labour speakers said that no actually Labour supports the Rugby World Cup. Well if those members did support the Rugby World Cup they would be standing up this evening and supporting this legislation. 
Let us go back to the actual provision. The Rugby World Cup Authority will go through a process in terms of consents—it gives people their democratic rights. National has said that this event is so important to our country that we will go through the process of consulting the Opposition over whom we appoint to that authority different Ministers of the Crown will be consulted and we will get advice and we will ensure that the authority is well resourced. However there could be an unforeseen situation. I know that members have asked what that unforeseen situation is— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: This is Part 4 Nikki. Wrong part! 
NIKKI KAYE 
: —but we have said very clearly that it is unforeseen. Mr Mallard interjects but my point is very relevant to Part 3 because that part deals with applications to the Rugby World Cup Authority; I am talking about a process that is relevant to applications to the authority. Yes it is dealt with in Part 4 but I am saying that our Government believes that this event is the greatest event this country will ever hold and it is very important to New Zealand. I am very pleased. I am saying today that we do not want to use this process; however we are putting a process in place that provides that if an unforeseen situation occurs our Government would act. There is a very clear decision for New Zealand a clear contrast between the two sides of the Chamber. The Government is ready to act in the best interests of our country. This moment is very important for people to watch because they will see a Government that is prepared to act in the best interests of New Zealand; prepared to say yes there is a process but if something goes terribly wrong and there is an unforeseen situation then we will allow our elected members of Parliament to be accountable for that. We will allow that to happen. 
I am very proud to be a supporter of the Government. I am a supporter of the Prime Minister John Key. I say good on him for saving  
The Hobbit 
. I am a supporter of the Ministers who have been behind that decision. And I am a supporter of this Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill because it is good for New Zealand. It will create jobs and that is what this side of the Chamber is about. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I thank you Mr Chairperson for your liberal approach to the previous speaker Nikki Kaye in broadening the debate. There are a couple of points that I would like to make. Labour welcomes the fact that  
The Hobbit 
 is to be made in New Zealand. We think that is very good. We know that Gerry Brownlee was part of the meeting that sorted out the industrial relations issue on 14 October and we congratulate him on taking Helen Kelly’s advice to bring that meeting together and on the results. Gerry Brownlee did a good job. 
If we can mix  
The Hobbit 
 the relationship with Warner Bros and the Rugby World Cup I think it is fair to say the Prime Minister is wearing the No. 2 jersey today. He is wearing the No. 2 jersey and one could say he has been on his knees to Warner Bros. The Prime Minister has been royally screwed by Warner Bros and as a result of that the company will be laughing all the way to the Bank of America. It will be laughing— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I have just reflected on a phrase that the member used. It is inappropriate. Do not use it again. It related to a tool. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I am sorry. I think that “screwed over” is OK. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: No it is not. Do not go there. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: He has been done. We will work our way through the analogies but what has happened is that the failure to have the $140000 dinner to keep the relationship going has meant that it has cost $15 million. We are told that the money is only for  
The Hobbit 
 so it is not general. If Kiwis want to make a major production they do not receive the money. If Warner Bros want to make a film the money goes to Warner Bros. It is just absolutely absolutely outrageous and we will work our way through the analogies. 
To return to the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill I want to respond to the comments made by John Hayes who said Labour hates rugby. It is fair to say Labour worked very hard to get the Rugby World Cup to New Zealand. I am trying to remember but I think that the former Prime Minister was on her way to Korea and went via Dublin in order to make a difference. There is a common factor in Premier House. On two separate occasions the former Prime Minister entertained the executive of the International Rugby Board at Premier House as part of the exercise that led to New Zealand getting the hosting rights to Rugby World Cup because she knew that it was important to build relationships rather than to do things on a crisis basis which is the way that National seems to approach them. 
I would now like to get back to—or start on possibly—the detail of Part 3 of the bill. I was a member of the Government Administration Committee and I will take responsibility for mistakes but I think that there is a mistake in terms of how the word “test” is used. It ends up being quite confusing as to what sorts of tests we are talking about. When you Mr Chairperson and I talk about the Rugby World Cup and tests we tend to think of matches involving two countries for which caps are awarded but if we look at clause 17 and in particular at clause 17(5)(a) and (b) it is possible that what is meant is a trial—testing something out rather than having a test. I wonder whether within the Rugby World Cup legislation we are better to reserve the term “test” for a rugby test rather than use it to refer to a trial. I know that the Minister in the chair Judith Collins who is focusing heavily on texting at the moment is more interested in trials than tests. It might be that she could take the initiative and work with her colleague Murray McCully on giving us some clarification as we work our way through this bill. 
One of the problems is that the more that we look at bills the more that we find things that could well be wrong. One of the areas that could well be wrong is new clause 31A “Determination of whether adverse effects are more than minor” which has come into the bill. I would like the Minister to respond to this because I think we might have something slightly arse about face in the bill. Clause 31A lists the things that the authority must disregard when determining whether adverse effects are more than minor. But one of the things it must disregard is (a) “any adverse effect of the activity or facility that … (iii) is of a temporary nature having regard to the duration of the approval declaration or test approval or declaration;”. 
The problem I have is that all of these determinations are of a temporary nature. They are time-limited; they do not go on. At the completion of the Rugby World Cup the determinations of the authority are finished. So I am not clear whether that means that because any adverse effects are of a temporary nature all adverse effects have to be ignored. I am— 
Jacqui Dean 
: Struggling. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: No it is not funny. 
Jacqui Dean 
: Struggling. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: The member is correct. I am struggling to understand how we made that mistake in the legislation because I think it is a mistake. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Don’t worry about it! 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: The member tells me not to worry about it. If the member was next to a fan zone and all adverse effects were ignored and were not able to be taken into account in making a determination he might get a bit grumpy and rightly so. 
Charles Chauvel 
: He’d never be next to a fan zone. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: He might be next to a fan zone actually because he lives next to his mother-in-law and next to her is his brother-in-law as well. I know that situation relatively well as a result of other litigation but we will not go back into caveats over houses at the moment because that would be off the topic. 
I have not yet seen any sign of the Minister stirring in order to answer the question but it is a serious question. I think it may well be that my colleague Mr Chauvel needs to look at an amendment in order to clarify this issue because all adverse effects I think will be temporary. If we— 
Jacqui Dean 
: Struggling. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Every now and again we make a serious comment. Where does that member come from? I cannot tell those two members apart. She is the woman from mid-Canterbury somewhere. All adverse effects will be temporary. If all temporary effects are to be ignored what protection do the neighbours have from adverse effects given that they must all be temporary? Again I make it clear that I was a member of the select committee and I looked very carefully at this clause and subclause as it was drafted. It is new. It was previously in another part of the bill but the bill was redrafted and the clause was brought into this part for clarification. I would like some member opposite even if it is not the Minister in the chair to clarify for us what happens around adverse effects. 
On the question of the notices of determinations I think the committee did good work. I think John Hayes did the work on behalf of the New Zealand Fire Service. He is a member who focused on that very carefully. I think it was my suggestion that Rugby New Zealand 2011 also get notices of determinations—in fact notices of the applications—so it is aware of the issues that are being considered and of the decisions. I think some of us assume that we will get there by osmosis or some approach like that. 
There is a question arising from clause 34 in Subpart 4 around the expiry of approvals and declarations. 
JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North) 
: 
 Before I address subpart 6 which is the part of Part 3 that I intend to talk about I need to just discuss the misrepresentation of my position made by Nikki Kaye in her previous address. She stated that I was opposed to the entire bill. She obviously has not been listening very carefully either to my arguments or to those of all the Labour members in the Chamber tonight because we are being quite clear that we are opposed to only one part of this bill. We will get to that part shortly I have no doubt. The problem with that part is that it overrides so many of the other good aspects of this legislation. I just needed to clarify that. 
Ms Kaye also brought up hobbits; I was pleased that she brought up hobbits and expanded the debate a little in that area. Clearly National is trying tonight as it has done in the last few weeks to sow division. It is trying to tell New Zealand that Labour hates rugby that it is opposed to the Rugby World Cup and that we do not want to get the job done. Actually this is complex legislation. Part 3 is particularly complex legislation. It deals with applications paperwork and processes that a number of people in New Zealand will have to go through and it is important that we as a Parliament make sure that it gets the scrutiny that it deserves so that when it is finally enacted it is usable and it makes sense. There is a lot of red tape in here; it is funny that the ACT Party has not actually taken any calls on it. The requests that are made of territorial authorities in Part 2 are again areas that I thought the ACT Party would make a contribution on but it did not. 
National in its contributions this evening has been clear that it wants to drive a wedge between New Zealand as a whole and the Labour Party in its position tonight; it is quite similar to the way it has dealt with  
The Hobbit 
. We can contrast that with the way Helen Clark dealt with securing the Rugby World Cup 2011 for New Zealand. She built relationships. She built consensus. She brought all the parties together. There was even a sense of bipartisanship within the House. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Don Brash’s photo was in the bid document. 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY 
: There you go. That is how much consensus Helen Clark sought to build around putting this bid together—indeed she was successful in securing the bid. We can contrast that with the divisive approach that John Key has taken to  
The Hobbit 
 and the fact that he has now bent New Zealand over in the face of Warner Bros a corporation. We are a sovereign nation yet a corporation is coming to this country and telling us that we have to change our laws. Do members know what? We will bend right over for them. 
Phil Twyford 
: How much? 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY 
: And indeed we say “How much?”. All that money is going directly to— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Some of the members who have now got into a regular barracking will desist. 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY 
: Thank you very much Mr Chairperson. I appreciate the assistance; I did not really feel as though I needed it but I appreciate it. I think it is reasonable given some of the debate that we have heard from National to contrast that approach— 
Jacqui Dean 
: There’s only one thing New Zealanders care about. 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY 
: Yes. Again they are misrepresenting. I think it is Jacqui Dean; it is hard to tell. Jacqui Dean is trying to misrepresent Labour’s position. Of course Labour is in support of having  
The Hobbit  
in New Zealand. Again the Labour Government built relationships and worked very closely with Warner Bros New Line Cinema and Peter Jackson. We got consensus and were able to put  
The Lord of the Rings 
 on in New Zealand without bending over in front of an American corporation. That is what John Key has done: he has bent this country over. 
I come back to subpart 6 of Part 3 of the bill. It refers to appeal rights. Clause 43 states: “A person or body that applied for an approval a declaration a test approval or declaration or a change to the conditions of an approval a declaration or a test approval or declaration and is dissatisfied with the determination of the Authority under section 22(1) … may appeal to the High Court”—they may appeal to the High Court—“but only on a question of law.” Clause 43 is very tight and very specific about what grounds an applicant may appeal on and the process through which they may appeal. But you know what? We may as well not even bother having that clause in the legislation because we have Part 4. A savvy applicant who was not happy with the decision of the authority if they had the right connections—perhaps if they were a member of the National Party—would simply appeal to Murray McCully. That is all they would have to do. They would have to get the Minister on side. It does not matter how out of order their application was it does not matter where it went wrong and it does not matter whether it was destroying a historic building or whether it was outside the scope of the Rugby World Cup—all the Minister would have to do is with one stroke of the pen say that it was approved. 
We may as well just take clause 43 out of the legislation altogether. Although it is a very practical and sensible appeal process it is completely undermined by Part 4—completely undermined by Part 4. Indeed the right of appeal to the High Court may be made only on a question of law against a determination of the Authority made under clauses 30 31 39 or 40(4). So it is a very very tight method by which and area on which an applicant can appeal. Again that definition—that narrowing of the areas in which an applicant can appeal—may as well not be in the bill at all because we have Part 4. It is interesting that the National members have gone awfully quiet. That is why we need to have the kind of scrutiny that we are putting on this bill. We have to question whether there are superfluous aspects of the bill and whether we might be able to make it more efficient by simply trimming out some of the contradictions that lie within it. 
Another area of absolute specificity that is dealt with within Part 3 is the area of test events. I have to agree with my colleague the Hon Trevor Mallard. When I first read it because I was not on the select committee and I have not been involved with this bill up to this point I was a little confused. I thought it was referring to test matches which of course there will be several of during the Rugby World Cup. So it took a couple of goes to read it. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Well all the matches will be test matches. 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY 
: Indeed. That is quite correct although we might not think that some of them rate as test matches. On that matter I have to say I am looking forward to having the test matches involving Georgia the Ukraine and I believe Argentina—and one other team; we are waiting with bated breath to see who it is—played in Palmerston North. I am certainly looking forward to those games occurring in my city and I know the city is gearing up for it. Running a bit of a test event or testing out how we deal with traffic problems and all that sort of thing in the lead-up to the World Cup shows that built in to the legislation is a concern that we need to get the nuts and bolts right. That is why we need to actually go through this legislation with some serious scrutiny to make sure every single little clause is absolutely spot on. National has absolutely rightly said that this will be a wonderful event. It will showcase New Zealand and it will put us on the world stage. If one of these things goes horrifically wrong because we have not paid enough attention to it now we will look worse on the world stage than we do right now bent over in front of Warner Bros. So we need to make sure that we get these things right and it is absolutely appropriate that we pay close attention. 
Aaron Gilmore 
: Oh that’s disgusting. 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY 
: The member Aaron Gilmore is absolutely correct; the situation that we find ourselves in tonight is disgusting courtesy of the acquiescence of the Prime Minister. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Ha! Courtesy— 
Hon Member 
: Another big word. 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY 
: Now Mr Henare is concerned that I am using big words. This is not the first time that National has been upset about big words— 
Jacqui Dean 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. It is about a phrase that the member used a little while ago. I have to say I was a little bit taken aback by it. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Tell me what it is so that I can rule on it. 
Jacqui Dean 
: Well “bending over for Warner Brothers” I think it was and I do not believe that that is a parliamentary term. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I have been thinking about that phrase and it could mean bowing or it could mean something else. My mind is on higher things. I think the member should not transgress the laws of debate in a way that makes me think of lesser things. 
Jacqui Dean 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. For a party that prides itself on its inclusiveness I really think a phrase like that is offensive and— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: No I have ruled on it. 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY 
: I will simply come to the end of my— 
Jacqui Dean 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. The problem that I have is that I found that phrase offensive and I have taken offence to it. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I have ruled on it and I have listened very carefully to the debate all night. The issue is whether an offence has been created. I have to say that the member was probably skirting around an area where there could be an offending interpretation but he has not crossed that line. 
Jacqui Dean 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: No I have ruled on it. 
Jacqui Dean 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Is this a separate point of order because I have ruled on that matter. 
Jacqui Dean 
: Mr Chairperson I have taken offence. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: And I have ruled that there is no offence. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I am not sure that this will be helpful but I will hear the point of order. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I am actually speechless. I do not think I have ever heard such blatant prejudice from the Chairperson before. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I am sorry; I apologise. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Mr Chairperson I think the tradition in this Chamber is that if a member takes offence then you have to rule on it. Just saying that you are not offended is not enough. The Chairperson can say that something is not an offensive comment but I think the way you put that member down was a bit unfair. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I am sorry I did not mean to. There is a ruling that says that the test is in whether the Committee itself is offended. That in essence is what the Speaker’s ruling says. You see someone could say for example that someone’s cat is overweight and someone else could take offence at that. So the test is really whether the Committee itself is affronted and that is what the Speaker’s ruling says. I am sorry if people have been offended by the way I have put that but I have ruled that the member is skirting close and I have warned him not to cross that line. 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY 
: I have no intention of crossing the line or crossing you Mr Chairperson. I have no intention of doing that whatsoever. In summary a test event as I said was something for which I was appreciative of the clarification contained in the bill which under clause 17(5)(b) is “an event whether or not a sporting event that is not organised and held as part of the tournament but for which an approval or a declaration may be sought under this section to enable the testing of a particular activity or facility that is or is likely to be required for the tournament.” 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I just want to quote for the members Speaker’s Ruling 55/7—there have been additions and things moved chronologically back. A word is judged to be appropriate based on whether a word will bring disorder as well as an affront to the House. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
: 
 Mr Chairperson I begin my remarks on the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill by complimenting you. It is quite moving to see a person of your monumental physique in the Chair. I would warrant a guess that you yourself are a fan of the golden game of rugby and I would warrant further that you have played the odd game or two and what is more in the position of lock. As a former lock I count it a privilege to rise to speak on this bill. In fact as a former lock I find it a privilege to rise to speak on any subject at all because we all know that locks do not get much of a say buried as they are at the bottom of the scrum. But on this occasion joined with you by an invisible bond of lockhood I rise to take a call. 
My main reason for taking this call today constrained though I am by my former position on the team is that I wish to say this: Labour loves rugby. Labour loves rugby! It is the national game. It is the game where if our national team does not win we want to know why. It is a great thing when the All Blacks win and it is even greater when they win under a National administration because National needs all the help it can get. Labour loves rugby. Labour loves rugby and Labour dearly wants to support this bill because we love the Rugby World Cup tournament. It would not be coming to New Zealand if it were not for the former Labour Prime Minister Helen Clark who flew all the way to Dublin on her way to South-east Asia to procure this monumental event for future generations of New Zealanders—and it was not due just to the fact that one of our former colleagues was making the travel bookings! Helen Clark made sure New Zealand got to host Rugby World Cup 2011 and it behoves members all around the Chamber to be in a position to support this bill. Were it not for another part which the Committee will shortly be debating Labour members would be absolutely unanimous and unequivocal in our support for the bill and it would be heartfelt too. So one can imagine the pain it brings upon Her Majesty’s loyal Labour Opposition to be somewhat conflicted in our support for this bill. We are at one in spirit with the rest of the Committee in wanting to see this grand tournament proceed but we are somewhat hamstrung by the fact that Part 4 conveys extraordinary powers potentially on a Minister. 
As one looks through the report one is struck by the fact that the drafters and indeed the Government Administration Committee have left no stone unturned to bring to New Zealand an extraordinary event. My personal favourite although strictly outside the part under debate is on page 5 of the commentary where we learn to our relief that pain has been taken to separate advisory from administrative staff on the administrative secretariat. There can be few matters more troubling to Aucklanders and I am sure all New Zealanders than to think there could be some co-mingling of administrative and advisory staff in carrying out the functions of the secretariat for the Rugby World Cup. 
Charles Chauvel 
: God forbid! 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: God forbid that that should be the case and it is a matter of relief to us that it is the usual decision maker who may comment upon applications. 
Ambush marketing has been a great concern. We hope the ambush will occur every time a foreign lock forward is treading the wing towards our try line. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Where’s Phil Twyford? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: He is sitting right behind me. He is another great fan of the great game I tell Mr Henare and we are all looking forward to his contribution. But I deign to say that I convey the heartfelt greetings of all my colleagues on the Labour side in wishing the Chairperson Mr Roy and the Rugby World Cup the very best of luck. 
It is timely that we should be debating this bill tonight of all nights because we have heard today that New Zealand has secured yet another extraordinary event: not one but two Hobbit films shall be made upon our shores and for $15 million—a mere trifle it would seem upon the exchequer. We would warrant that were it not for the extraordinary contortions of the current Government—and of the Prime Minister in particular—that sum might have been somewhat greater. The Government might have had to exchange a somewhat larger fiscal offering had it not been prepared to sacrifice workers’ rights on the altar of Warner Bros. 
Hon Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Helen Kelly’s to blame and you know it. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: While the member opposite is mentioning the name of the esteemed president of the Council of Trade Unions we might reflect on the fact that that self-same president found herself in the role of peacemaker in this dispute. We offer shared congratulations to Gerry Brownlee who upon the advice of the self-same president reached an accommodation we understand with Sir Peter Jackson the actors’ union and all other parties some 2 weeks ago. We can only ask what happened. As I hear tell it is possible—indeed it was the case—that the supposed worldwide boycott of this movie had already been lifted only for certain demonstrations to spring up around the country after the fact. 
Could it be that the party opposite was trying to position Her Majesty’s Labour Opposition in this matter as somehow unpatriotic in the same way that it tries to position the Labour Party as opposed to the Rugby World Cup? We will have none of it. I have not yet revealed to the Committee my other life. My other life is as the patron of the Suburbs Rugby Football Club in west Auckland. As the patron of the Suburbs Rugby Football Club I would like to commend all members of this Chamber to ask Mr McCully to make one or two slight amendments to Part 4 so that we could all join together in unison to get behind our team get behind this bill and make sure that the Rugby World Cup is executed flawlessly in this wonderful country of Godzone. 
Chris Tremain 
: Part 3 buddy. He doesn’t even know what it’s about but never mind. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Well it is a little hard to tell by a cursory glance at the commentary. That member did not sit on the select committee—a member who I am sure had one or two good rucks in his day. 
Phil Twyford 
: One too many I think. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: That could be but we could not possibly speculate on that. 
Jacqui Dean 
: Read the bill. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Yes. I take exception to the fact that certain members opposite have tried to impugn the honour of our party in respect of the country’s great game. I am sure that this game is as dear to those members as it is to us. Perhaps the one thing about Part 4 when we come to it that will be of some interest to the Committee and the public is the selection process for precisely which Minister will find gainful employment as the Minister for the Rugby World Cup. My personal bet is that it will be Gerry Brownlee practised as he is in suspending the rule of law having done so for Canterbury admittedly for good reason. 
Aaron Gilmore 
: You all voted for it. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Yes indeed Mr Gilmore because as I said it was for good reason in extraordinary circumstances and on the basis of good-faith consultation which usually but not always happens I observe. 
Aaron Gilmore 
: It’s going very well. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Yes the earthquake reconstruction is going very well; that is right. My personal bet is that Mr Brownlee experienced as he is in such matters will swoop to the rescue and play the same role for the Government in respect of the Rugby World Cup. 
Jacqui Dean 
: Shame about Labour. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: It is a shame about Labour winning the 2011 election. As it is likely to occur before the Rugby World Cup Prime Minister Phil Goff will be there to receive the winning team which will be of course the All Blacks. My earnest word in conclusion to the Committee and to the public is that they back the All Blacks and they back Phil Goff to be Prime Minister on the day that the Rugby World Cup is bestowed upon our national team. We should get behind rugby and we should get behind this bill but we cannot get behind the bill until Part 4 is amended to reduce and remove the extraordinary suspension of liberties that New Zealanders have fought and died for over many generations. 
CHRIS TREMAIN (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand Labour 39; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendments in the name of the Hon Murray McCully be agreed to: 
to omit from clause 20(d) “19(4)” and substitute “19(2)(d)”; 
to omit from clause 32(1) “or if a hearing is not conducted under section 29” and substitute “(whether or not a hearing is conducted)”; 
to omit paragraph (a) from clause 32(3) and substitute: 
(a)in the case of an application which is not publicly notified— 
(i)not later than 5 working days after notice is given under section 2A(2); or 
(ii)not later than 10 working days after the end of a hearing if one is conducted; or; and 
to omit from clause 32(3)(b) “to which subsection (2) applies” and substitute “that is publicly notified”. 
Amendments agreed to. 
Part 3 as amended agreed to. 
Part 4 Procedures available in circumstances of urgency 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 We have come to the most substantive part of the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill. Certainly it is by far the most contentious. With due respect to my colleague from the Greens I say that from a Labour perspective it is by far the most contentious and the part we have undertaken to oppose. Our support for the bill depends on my amendment being agreed. Part 4 outlines procedures available in circumstances of urgency. The nub of what it does and I will get to the detail of it is that it grants the Minister appointed by the Prime Minister—in this case almost certainly Mr McCully—the ability to override a large number of pieces of legislation of his own accord. That is something that he or she would be able to do— 
Charles Chauvel 
: Sovereignty at last. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Well I think describing Mr McCully as a sovereign is probably not an appropriate way of putting it. 
It is impossible to overstate the anger on this side of the House at this unconstitutional arrangement. We were pushed very hard over the Canterbury legislation and I think there is debate now as to whether we were more flexible than we should have been in the granting of powers to the Government. But what is clear is that these powers which go to one Minister in this case are much more extensive than those in the Canterbury situation. As an example the decisions of a Minister made under Part 4 are not regulations. There is no requirement to gazette them. They cannot be examined under the order— 
Charles Chauvel 
: The Regulations Review Committee. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: They cannot go to the Regulations Review Committee because they are not regulations. A decision could be made to set aside a whole body of case law—years and years and years of case law. An authority that is being specially set up to consider that particular question could hear evidence and hear the experts and make the decision to say no but the Minister could still say yes. I will get to some examples soon. I want to make it clear that I am not happy about any power being given to a Minister to override the decision of an authority headed by a judge. My view is that Parliament should have those rights but individual Ministers should not. 
I have offered a compromise to the Minister. The compromise is that the Minister can be a brake on the decisions. If a positive decision is made by the authority that the Minister on the advice of other Ministers decides is wrong he or she should have the ability to say: “No we won’t proceed with that.” That is the compromise. I am uncomfortable with a compromise but that is the compromise I have put on the Table. The thing I think makes New Zealand look like Nigeria is that a Minister can grant his mates approvals after a judge in a properly formed authority has said no. 
John Hayes 
: That’s not true. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: That member sat on the Government Administration Committee and it is absolutely true. There can be a hearing there can be a recommendation on the part of the authority to decline an application but a Minister can override that and can approve that application—for one of his friends for consideration; we will never know. That sort of approach will make New Zealand look like Nigeria. Part 4 is the most important part of the bill and one on which there will be the most discussion. I will be interested in the contribution from John Hayes in particular who denies that the Minister for the Rugby World Cup has the right to overrule a tribunal. 
John Hayes 
: You’re right; I do. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: He does. He denies the right. Well I say to Mr Hayes that it is in the bill and he sat on the select committee. He was there for the hearings and he was there for the deliberations. Frankly if it is the understanding of Government members that the Minister does not have that power then they will have no problem voting for my amendment. If it is their understanding that such a power does not sit in the hands of the Minister then the appropriate thing for them to do is to vote for my amendment or in fact to question whether Part 4 is needed at all. 
I would like to challenge members opposite to give us just two examples of where they think it is appropriate for a Minister to override a decision of the authority—case-like examples. I say to the former deputy leader of ACT that I am shocked at the position that ACT is taking on this legislation. I am surprised that the party that stands up for property rights is allowing the property rights of neighbours to be overruled like this. If a proper application on which evidence has been given is rejected the Minister can say that yes that old villa that historic place or that building that is subject to a protection order can be bowled over. The Minister can make that decision under this legislation and neighbours’ property rights are just wiped. They do not have any because of this approach. 
I thank the Maori Party for the fact that it has looked carefully at this issue and decided to support the amendment and quite rightly so. Under this legislation the Minister would have the right to bowl over a marae to dig up a wahi tapu and to put bulldozers through a burial ground. All of which would be stopped by ordinary law but the Minister has the right to do that under this legislation because he is not subject to any of the normal laws or any of the normal protections that pertain to this area. 
I know that Government members will vigorously defend the Minister and I want them to give us an example or two. I am not breaching the confidentiality of the select committee in talking about its meeting this morning because it was held in public. One of our members asked Mr Maarten Wevers whether security issues could be a reason whether security issues could be dealt with using Mr McCully’s powers under this legislation and she was told no. There is a separate process a proper process involving a judge whose decisions cannot be overturned by a politician and security issues will be dealt with in that way. So I want to know why a house that cannot be demolished under current legislation that cannot be demolished under the Resource Management Act that cannot be demolished under the non-urgent provisions and that cannot be demolished under the urgent provisions under a decision from the authority can be demolished if the Minister claims the right to have that property demolished against all of the evidence. There can be no good reason for that and I say to members opposite that they should feel ashamed as they grant this power. 
JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) 
: 
 Trevor Mallard has just shown the weakness of his argument in arguing that the Minister for the Rugby World Cup has unbridled powers. He has done that by the very example that he brought up saying that the Minister would demolish a historic building. Well leaving aside the fact that very few historic buildings are left in Auckland anyway after 9 years of the previous Labour Government I ask members just to think about the circumstances in which a Minister wanting the best for a Rugby World Cup would demolish a historic building. Is that an argument that carries any weight at all? Is that an argument that in the wildest realm of possibility holds any kind of weight? We just need to go through the scenario. 
Here is my scenario for Trevor Mallard: we are 2 days out from the Rugby World Cup there is a match on and somebody walks into the boardroom and says that such and such a road’s traffic has not been stopped—we need some real example so we will use road closures. Fifty thousand people are coming to watch the game but a road has not been closed to traffic. What will be done about it because there might be the need for some bollards? Under the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill as proposed a decision is made to get by without the road closure. But it is not the panel of judges and commissioners who have to wear the consequences of that decision. The people who have to wear the consequences of that decision are the members of the Government. We have to ask ourselves whether we want appointed people or elected people making those big critical decisions—and that I suggest to the member opposite is absolutely the nub of the argument here. 
I also argue that there is no unbridled unfettered power in this bill as described by Trevor Mallard. In fact if Trevor Mallard had decided to take a calm look at clause 4 he would have seen that rather than having unbridled powers to demolish historic buildings in fact a number of protections are described in Part 4 for the urgent powers to be given to the Minister. 
It is also worth noting just while I am at it that the Government Administration Committee did not recommend any significant changes to those powers nor did the Labour members on the committee choose to put in a minority report. That is very telling; that says to us that the committee considering this bill was happy with its provisions and it was just Trevor Mallard—just the former Minister for the Rugby World Cup—who was unhappy with this provision. Even then that former Minister for the Rugby World Cup Trevor Mallard had the opportunity to put in a minority report—such a report was discussed within the select committee—but did he? He did not. Trevor Mallard was asked whether he wanted to put in a minority report on the issue that concerned him so much. At the select committee I asked the member whether he wanted to do that. The answer was “No. I do not wish to put in a minority report.” It was up to him to put it in; he declined to do so. This issue in relation to Part 4 is merely Labour members saying: “We can’t have what we want. Therefore New Zealand can’t have it either.” If the Labour members on the Government Administration Committee really valued democracy they would have taken the opportunity given to them to put in a minority report and give their view but they decided not to do that. I think that is particularly telling. 
In reference to Part 4 I think the only thing the people of New Zealand care about tonight is that the Government supports the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill. That is what people see. They see that the Government is fully behind this bill. The people of New Zealand understand that this Government fully supports the Rugby World Cup not just for the big games but also for the tournament and the opportunities that will be there for all of us throughout New Zealand. 
But what about Labour? It is filibustering on this bill because it does not want the Rugby World Cup to be a success. That is very telling. In speech after speech Labour members have been pulling holes in this bill which at the select committee they were in full agreement with. I wish the members of the select committee not just the ring-ins would stand up and give a view on the bill because I have to say that throughout the course of the select committee consideration there was broad agreement on it. But once the former Minister for the Rugby World Cup Trevor Mallard got hold of this bill everything went downhill. The Labour select committee members have been taken down a path of filibustering on the bill. 
The other thing that the people of New Zealand are thankful for tonight is that Prime Minister John Key has saved the film industry for New Zealand. That is a great success for New Zealand. So there are two things that this Government is achieving for New Zealand: the Rugby World Cup and the New Zealand film industry. This Government is focused on success for New Zealand.  
The Hobbit 
 is one part of that—no thanks to the unions no thanks to Helen Kelly and no thanks to the Labour Party—and the other one is the Rugby World Cup which thanks to this Government and the hard work of the Government members on the Government Administration Committee will be a raging success despite the poor efforts of Trevor Mallard. 
PHIL TWYFORD (Labour) 
: 
 Tonight we were subjected to Nikki Kaye breathlessly announcing that the Prime Minister had saved  
The Hobbit 
 for New Zealand. She was preening and strutting around and telling us that the National Government has` single-handedly rescued the New Zealand film industry. It is very appropriate that that is part of the debate this evening because underlying the whole debate about the Rugby World Cup and in fact the public debate about the future of  
The Hobbit 
 is the question of Brand New Zealand. This Government in the way it has handled the dispute about  
The Hobbit 
 and in the way it is ramming through Part 4 is sending a very powerful message. The message is that this Government will bend over as my colleague so eloquently put it and do anything that is required in order to satisfy itself that it will get the deal. 
Tonight we saw the Prime Minister John Key basically announce that he will race any other country to the bottom. He is sending the message to international investors that he will do whatever they want him to do. He has written a cheque to Warner Bros for the amount the Government cut out of the budget for adult and community education. What will happen when New Line Cinema comes knocking? What will happen when Disney comes knocking? What will happen when any other investor comes knocking and says: “We want a cash handout. How much will you give?”. Not only is the Prime Minister willing to do that and to sell our national self-respect down the river but also he is willing to sell our sovereign lawmaking to any foreign investor who comes knocking. 
We have had a very broad-ranging debate on this issue. Successive speakers have discussed the saving of  
The Hobbit 
 and it is relevant to the Rugby World Cup because in Part 4 we see a willingness to compromise the democratic process and to hand over in this case to the Hon Murray McCully unfettered urgency powers. It shows a disregard for our constitutional and democratic processes. 
Jacqui Dean 
: The member should read the bill. 
PHIL TWYFORD 
: That member should read the bill because the only thing that was more galling than listening to Nikki Kaye explain how the Prime Minister saved  
The Hobbit 
 was hearing Jacqui Dean’s legal argument. She is the Rumpole of the National Party; the Perry Mason of the Government benches. 
I will never forget Jacqui Dean’s explanation of why these powers should be handed over to the Hon Murray McCully. Let me rehearse the argument for members in case anybody has forgotten Jacqui Dean’s explanation of why those powers should be handed over to Murray McCully. The argument goes like this: it is ultimately the elected politicians and the Ministers of the day who will be accountable to the public of New Zealand for whether the Rugby World Cup is the success that it could be. That is her argument. It is the elected members of Parliament and the Ministers who will be accountable to the public. 
If that is the argument if that is what it comes down to if that is Jacqui Dean’s justification then we might as well shut down the judiciary and the legislature. Why do we not just hand over the entire governance of our country to the Ministers of this Government? Frankly under Jacqui Dean’s reasoning it is only Murray McCully and his Cabinet colleagues who are accountable to the New Zealand public so we might as well just give them a free hand. Every other piece of democratic process every other piece of our constitutional history is an impediment to this Government’s aspirations so we might as well just get rid of it. That is pretty much what Jacqui Dean had to say. 
Let us talk about Part 4. As my colleague Trevor Mallard has laid out very eloquently Part 4 gives the Minister for the Rugby World Cup extraordinary powers to override the recommendation of the Rugby World Cup Authority which is constituted by this bill. It is the contention of members on this side of the Chamber that that is unnecessary and damaging to our democratic process. It essentially makes the Minister unaccountable in the exercise of those executive powers. 
The great irony in this whole situation is that Murray McCully is the one member in this Parliament who has demonstrated by his actions why a Minister should not be given unfettered powers to behave in an unaccountable way. We have only to go back as far as 1999 when Murray McCully set up two unaccountable groups of officials in his tourism portfolio because he did not like the advice he was getting from the Tourism Board. Then after meddling and interfering with the Tourism Board he sacked three members of the board and paid out $900000 of taxpayers’ money to keep them quiet. That was all validated in the report of the Auditor-General and ultimately Murray McCully was forced to resign his portfolio because of those shenanigans. 
If anyone has demonstrated that we should not give Ministers the kind of unfettered powers that this bill gives them it is Murray McCully. Yet the members on the Government side seem perfectly willing to hand over those kinds of powers even though as we have said for the last few hours of this debate this bill sets out a comprehensive set of processes and a properly constituted authority—it will be headed by a judge or a lawyer of 7 years’ standing with a deputy chair who is a lawyer of 7 years’ standing—with all the powers in the world to recruit and commission. It has an administrative secretariat—it is all there. 
The system is set up yet we have not heard from Government members any justification any scenario as to why they cannot trust the Rugby World Cup Authority to do the job that this bill asks it to do. Government members insist on handing over executive powers so that this Minister can act in an unaccountable way. It is wrong it is inappropriate and the House should not allow it. 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North) 
: 
 Throughout the debate this evening members on the Government benches have been throwing around a few labels and I think that Part 4 of the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill gives us an opportunity to perhaps introduce a few labels for this Government. “Undemocratic” is a label that sits very comfortably on this Government. It is thoroughly undemocratic. “Dividers” is another label that sits very comfortably on this Government. “Arrogant” is a third label that I think sits very comfortably and it is all here in Part 4. 
The Government is undemocratic because it sets up perfectly good processes in law in other parts of this bill—perfectly good processes—for dealing with applications. It sets up an authority that can hear representations and can hear all sides of the story. It has more than one member so its members can offer different views and advice to one another. The Government sets up that democratic robust system and authority and then in Part 4 it completely undermines the whole thing and invests all the authority in one person—a Minister. It will probably be either the Minister for the Rugby World Cup or the Minister for Economic Development and the current Minister for Economic Development is well versed in undemocratic processes. 
Jacqui Dean tried to say it was more democratic to vest all this authority in one elected representative as opposed to a group of appointed officials. Well in that case I ask why we do not just do away with the judiciary. Why do we not just do away with courts judges the judicial process natural justice and the rule of law? We could get rid of all of those things and rely on vesting all power in a single albeit elected person. I think people call that a dictatorship. That obviously is where the Government would like us to go and if we have more examples of what we have here in Part 4 then that sort of undemocratic process is where we will end up. 
The second label that sits comfortably on this Government is “dividers”. Government members have been incredibly divisive throughout this debate tonight. They have sought to label the Opposition and bizarrely they have not been prepared to even countenance the Hon Trevor Mallard’s one amendment to Part 4. There are numerous clauses in Part 4; there are a huge number of clauses in here. The Hon Trevor Mallard wants to make one addition to clause 51 that puts a small handbrake on the Minister’s power. It is an opportunity for there to be consensus; it is an offer of a compromise position. 
I think that amendment is a very mature response from the Opposition benches yet Government members just absolutely refuse to engage in an intellectual debate. They refuse to tell us why they are opposed to the amendment offered up by the Hon Trevor Mallard. They refuse to tell us why they have so much confidence in Part 4 as it is written at the moment without making that amendment. They simply sit there and hurl abuse at the Opposition for trying to offer an option that we could come to a compromise on and build a consensus on. We could move on as Government members want us to do. We could move on with this legislation right now—right now—if Government members would just get down off their high horses drop their arrogance for a second and countenance the idea that the Opposition can put up a good idea and make an offering to this bill that is useful. 
It is just one clause. Jacqui Dean asked why there was no minority report. Well putting to one side the fact that Sandra Goudie the member sitting next to Jacqui Dean does not actually take kindly to minority reports—she likes to trample on democracy and votes them down—there probably was not even a point in putting forward a minority report on Part 4. Clause 51 is one singular clause. I ask what the point is of having an entire minority report for one amendment to one clause which can simply and efficiently be dealt with in the amendment that we have put forward this evening. That would be the mature response from this Government but instead we have had childish insults hurled across the Chamber tonight in an effort to try to paint Opposition members who are simply saying this part vests too much power in one individual. 
It is pure arrogance that the Government is not prepared to look at the amendment that Mr Mallard has offered up. If it is not adopted we may as well cut almost every other provision in this bill. We could probably get rid of Part 3 altogether most of Part 2 could go and frankly Part 5 could just about be cut out altogether if we leave Part 1 as it is—sorry Part 4; Mr Mallard is looking at me oddly—because that basically overrides everything else that is in the bill. [ 
Interruption 
] Yes I was getting there. The good solid processes that are already in the bill are thoroughly and completely undermined by Part 4 and it could be so so easily fixed. It could be easily fixed. We could finish this debate tonight if the Government could get down off its high horse for a second and deal with that issue. 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: They’ve dug in. 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY 
: Steve Chadwick is absolutely right. Government members have decided to dig in and take the difficult option rather than seeing sense and just working with the Opposition for once. Part 4 is in dire need of amendment and the option is still available for the Government to see sense and join with the Opposition in reaching a consensus position. 
Of course I suppose it is not really a particularly great surprise that Government members have taken the undemocratic approach. We have seen it down in Canterbury with regard to Environment Canterbury. There is also a question mark over the powers that have been vested in the Government following the earthquake. That was an emergency situation— 
Aaron Gilmore 
: You guys voted for that. 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY 
: —and we voted in favour of the legislation because it was an emergency situation but there are certainly some question marks around it. But again what actually happened with regard to the Canterbury legislation was that the Government engaged with us to a certain extent and we were able to reach a position where there was some handbrake on that unbridled power. 
Why does it not do the same thing this evening? I ask that of the Minister in the chair the Hon David Carter. We have not had a single call taken by any of the Ministers who have occupied the chair this evening. I ask what the reason is for not engaging with the Opposition on this amendment. That question lies before the Minister in the chair and before any member on the Government benches who wants to take up that challenge. Government members have not been able to articulate in any meaningful way whatsoever this evening why they are so opposed to a mature and sensible amendment that would simply modify the legislation in a way that would make New Zealanders comfortable with it and make the Opposition comfortable with it so that we could actually make some progress on this bill. 
JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
DAVID SHEARER (Labour—Mt Albert) 
: 
 I have spoken on the other parts of the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill but Part 4 is the crux of why we are debating this bill. We largely support the other parts of the bill as my colleagues have made very clear. There are some technicalities but it is Part 4 that we find abhorrent. The reason for that is very simple: the Minister has unbridled power to basically run roughshod over all of the procedures that would otherwise be in place. 
We went through Part 2 which sets up the Rugby World Cup Authority. This authority comprises a senior judge of some 7 years’ standing; other members of the authority are also senior. It has the ability to hear in a very very short time concerns and applications that may arise. We support that. We are setting up a special authority to enable those applications to be heard. Nevertheless we believe it is important for the Rugby World Cup to have that facility just in case it is needed. Part 3 sets up all the procedures. The procedures are set out in some detail as well as the difficulties that could arise to make sure that the authority is able to hear the submissions—again so that the proper procedures and the proper democratic process can be followed. 
We come to Part 4 and we are more or less throwing Parts 2 and 3 out the window. We are giving the Minister pretty much unbridled power to do whatever he or she likes. We have to ask ourselves why we need Parts 2 and 3. Why do we not just have Part 4? Part 4 could have done what was essentially already there without the need to go through this debate. This debate is about Part 4 and the ability of the Minister to exercise that power. 
We have an alternative. Mr Mallard has put up an amendment. It is a reasonable suggestion and would remove that power. We would be able to go back to an authority that has our full confidence and has full standing and to a set of procedures that are tight and robust even given the short time span in which the authority would be able to hear a case. I do not quite understand why we need to give a Minister that sort of power. 
As my colleague Iain Lees-Galloway said this is not the first time. We have had this situation with Environment Canterbury. We had it with the earthquake which we supported. In some ways we uncomfortably supported it but we nevertheless supported it. But this is part of a long list of things that we are finding progressively undemocratic such as the number of Official Information Act requests that we have submitted that take weeks to be answered and the number of times we have had to appeal to the Ombudsman to ensure that those requests are responded to. We are still waiting weeks for those. This is perhaps a step too far. 
John Hayes 
: Welcome to Opposition. 
DAVID SHEARER 
: John Hayes may try to interject but it is true. During the lunch break today I was talking to a number of journalists who are having the same problem as we are. We want to get information. It is our right as an Opposition to be able to do that. It is our right as an Opposition to delay this bill. We believe that Part 4 is essentially undemocratic and it is not in the interests of New Zealand. 
Just to rub salt into the wound Labour is the party that brought the Rugby World Cup to New Zealand. This is the party that had the vision to get out there and argue to get the Rugby World Cup brought to New Zealand. Then we hear a whole bunch of members on the other side of the Chamber saying that somehow we are unpatriotic because we do not support Murray McCully having unfettered power through this bill. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I say with a bit of risk that I do not entirely agree with all of the comments the preceding speaker David Shearer made notwithstanding the fact that he is on my side of the Chamber. It is my view that Part 4 of the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill is necessary. There is no doubt in my mind that there has to be an approach for granting urgent approvals. I have given the example of a building. There might well be an occasion when it is appropriate to have a building bowled quickly. There is also the transport issue. As a result of a foul-up at the opening of the Rugby World Cup the decision might be made to implement some road closures later on for the semi-finals and the finals and an urgent process would be necessary. I do not think there is a debate about the need for having an urgent process; it is just about the way that it is shaped. 
In particular we can look at the differences in approach between clauses 52 and 53. Clause 52 is “Effect of declaration made by Order in Council” and clause 53 is “Effect of urgent approval granted by Minister”. They are quite different clauses. I see no problem. I cannot remember whether you Mr Chairperson Barker were involved while you were a Minister but on occasion I was part of very hurriedly put together Executive Council meetings to pass Orders in Council; statutory management is the obvious example. There is an ability for a Government if necessary to get three Ministers together in order to form an Executive Council to pass Orders in Council. But I think in undertaking that process we ensure a sense of collective responsibility and make sure there is a check and a balance on a particular individual Minister rather than letting them run without the checks that are in this bill. 
I point out that some useful changes have been made in this bill especially around the terms and conditions including the payment of a bond. Unlike the deposits for the Part 3 declarations the bonds for the Part 4 declarations are such that there can be a deposit not only around the cost of the hearings but also to secure the costs of any remediation of work that is done and to make sure that the conditions of the urgent approval are met. That is relatively unusual in New Zealand law; it occasionally happens with oil companies. Because this is a very unusual power I think the Government Administration Committee did a good thing in making sure there was a bonding arrangement and therefore some of the rorts could not occur. 
The Rugby World Cup Authority in making its recommendations and the Minister in granting an application—as happens—have to look to a number of factors. One factor is the need to secure public safety as well as to avoid control or mitigate any adverse impacts of a permitted Rugby World Cup activity on the environment. Those additions were made by the select committee. The select committee saw that it was exceptionally important in these urgent cases which will be irreversible. This is the key part of the legislation. With everything else in the legislation there is time for appeal there is time for a reversal and there is at least on points of law an ability to get to a court. But clause 51(4) makes it clear that a decision of the Minister under this section is final. Using the example that we have used on a number of occasions a decision could well be assigned by a Minister at 11:59 and at 12 o’clock the bulldozers start to move. There is no ability to intervene or to use court processes in order to review or hold the decision. That provision therefore is very very serious. 
I think we need to focus as well—and I would be interested in the opinions of Government members and possibly the Attorney-General’s—on clause 53(2). That clause is designed to make clear that any right that is based on one of these approvals does not give any right based on the use of the land after the expiry of the approval. It is all very well and good to say that a right does not give someone any rights afterwards but if one has demolished a building in order to make a fan space then there obviously cannot be if it is a historic building a requirement to replace the building in the form that it was. So a lot of these decisions end up being very very final. 
I also say that I think the Minister got it right in the introduction of this legislation after discussions with the Labour Opposition in having requirement under clause 51(1)(a) and especially (b) to consult relevant Ministers. When a Minister gets a declaration from the authority there is then a requirement on the Minister to go to their colleague the Minister for Economic Development in this case Mr Brownlee and then to go to any relevant Minister of the Crown. I think that would generally be the Minister for the Environment or the Minister of Conservation. They are the two who I think are most likely because they are the Ministers who hold the powers. There might be occasions where the Minister for Biosecurity might become involved; I would again be interested in the view of the Minister in the chair the Hon David Carter as to whether the Minister of Agriculture might be consulted if there is a biosecurity issue. In other cases there might be a commerce question or a competition question. I would be interested in the views of Mr Power on whether he envisages becoming involved in this consultation. 
There is the question of whether in Subpart 2 “Miscellaneous Provisions” clause 52 is misplaced. I wonder whether this clause should be earlier in the legislation. The implication is that it relates to Part 4 when in fact it relates to Part 3. There could well be confusion with the Act later on. I would be interested in opinion on whether it would be better drafted in an order where the regulation explanation clause—it is not the regulation-making one; that is in clause 48 which is earlier in the bill—sits in the appropriate place. 
This is the second of my sets of calls. I finish this call on the same basis as I did my first and that is with a challenge to Government members to give us a specific example of where they think a Minister of the Crown should have the right on his or her own accord against the view of a judge and a panel—it is not just a judge; it is also an expert panel—to override those decisions. 
PHIL TWYFORD (Labour) 
: 
 I will pick up on the whole question that Trevor Mallard spoke about in relation to the checks and balances on Ministers. Those checks and balances are a really important part of the conventions of accountable government. The conduct of the Minister responsible for this bill the Hon Murray McCully and the Minister who in all likelihood will be the Minister for the Rugby World Cup is an affront to the conventions of accountable government. I will give members a couple of examples that I think are relevant to this whole debate about the granting of urgency powers. This Minister as the Minister of Foreign Affairs has in recent times appointed a former National MP Mark Blumsky to a position. The Minister intervened to award a contract worth $78000 and he awarded it to a former National MP Mark Blumsky. 
Jo Goodhew 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I am looking for relevance to this part and I fail to find it. [ 
Interruption 
] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: No we are not going to have that thank you. I say to the member that although members have said this is a wide-ranging debate it is not. People have strayed and I guess it is going backwards and forwards. However I suggest to the member that he needs to concentrate on Part 4. There may be other examples that he can tie in by way of example but they cannot be the main thrust of the member’s speech. We are on Part 4 and I invite the member to continue. 
PHIL TWYFORD 
: Thank you Mr Chairman and as you have said we are discussing Part 4. We are discussing in particular the granting of what we regard as excessive powers under the urgency provisions of this bill that allow the Minister for the Rugby World Cup to make decisions that override the recommendations of the officials who are empowered under this bill as the Rugby World Cup Authority. That calls into question the commitment of this Government to the normal conventions of accountable government. 
My point right now is that this Minister has demonstrated by his own ministerial record the very reasons why those conventions of accountable government must be respected. It is very easy to imagine situations where this Minister under this legislation could ignore the advice of officials and override them in the way that he has consistently as Minister of Foreign Affairs ignored the advice of foreign affairs officials. He has a track record of making decisions on a whim without any kind of policy basis. He has cut major multi-year funding contracts without any kind of evaluation or analysis being undertaken about the effectiveness of those projects. He has a cavalier approach and has systematically ignored and disregarded the advice of officials. That is relevant; that is utterly relevant to the matter that we are debating in this bill because it formalises the right of this Minister to make decisions in complete disregard of the advice that he receives from the officials and the Rugby World Cup Authority. We have seen that consistently in his conduct as Minister of Foreign Affairs. It has not only been about disregarding the advice of officials in the management of the aid programme but he has a reputation for cronyism. 
Hon Christopher Finlayson 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I have listened carefully to this member’s contribution; it could only be described as emotionally incontinent. Why does he not concentrate on Part 4 instead of indulging in personal abuse? [ 
Interruption 
] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: No I do not need that. [ 
Interruption 
] I am on my feet; there will be no interchange. The point is I was listening to the debate and I would say that the member in my view is sailing close to the wind. But the point of this legislation is that it does concentrate powers into the hands of certain people. It is not in my view outside the realm of the debate to say there might be some concerns about how these people exercise those powers. The point is that the member must concentrate on the bill and make points by way of example. I invite the member to continue. 
PHIL TWYFORD 
: Thank you Mr Chairman. Part 4 puts certain powers in the hands of the Minister for the Rugby World Cup although there are some caveats. He is required to do certain things. He is required to secure public safety and to avoid control or mitigate any adverse impacts of the event on the environment. But those caveats are minor and trifling compared with the powers that are being put into the hands of the Minister for the Rugby World Cup. It is a concern to me and to members on this side of the Chamber that the very person who will be exercising those powers under this legislation has a track record and history of disregard for the basic conventions of accountable government. We saw that back in the 1990s with regard to the Tourism Board and we see it now with the management of the foreign aid programme. 
SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand Labour 39; Green Party 8; Progressive 1. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Trevor Mallard to clause 51 be agreed to: 
to add the following subsection: 
(5)Despite section 4 if the Authority’s recommendation is to not grant an urgent application the Minister may not override that advice and grant the application. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 53 
New Zealand Labour 39; Green Party 8; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 4 be agreed to. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand Labour 39; Green Party 8; Progressive 1. 
Part 4 agreed to. 
The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 69 Noes 49. 
Part 5 Rugby World Cup liquor licences 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: We are now debating clauses 56 to 87 and schedule 2. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 We have now reached not the most party-based politically contentious part of the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill but the bit that is actually contentious among members. I indicate that on Part 5 and on the amendments that will follow Labour will be having a conscience vote because this part concerns liquor licensing which has traditionally been subject to a conscience vote for Labour members of Parliament. There will be the ability of course for Labour members to table amendments to this part on which there will be a range of views. It is fair to say that my younger—half my age—colleague Iain Lees-Galloway and I have some views on this part that differ. 
My view is that overall between the work of the Minister for the Rugby World Cup and the work of the Government Administration Committee a pretty sensible regime has been put together. There is not much doubt that the intention of this part is to liberalise a set of rules and to make it easier to get liquor licences and in my opinion it will be easier to get a more coherent system for dealing with liquor licences on a temporary basis within particular areas to get some logical planning and some flow around not the big fan zones but the smaller areas and to ensure that that happens all around the country not only in places where matches are being played— 
Jacqui Dean 
: Even in the South Island. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Even in Temuka or wherever it is that the member comes from. Applications for those licences will be made under this part. 
Further to that although I do not have the expertise of the Attorney-General on the definition of “extraterritorial” this legislation will affect ships at sea certainly ships within New Zealand’s territorial waters. Those ships will be able to have liquor licences under clause 57 “Interpretation” and the new interpretation of “ship”. I say to the Rugby World Cup people that although I myself was not there for the presentation I believe that Therese Walsh gave a cogent presentation on behalf of Rugby World Cup 2011. She made an argument for cruise ships to be able to have liquor licences issued under Part 5. What surprised me is that it became clear to members of the committee that there is a theoretical ruling—I am pretty certain it does not actually happen—that cruise ships while in New Zealand waters cannot have their bars open. It is a really interesting concept but we need to consider wider legal change if we want to make New Zealand an attractive place for cruise ships. Those of us who have cruised know about the consumption of alcohol on cruise ships—[ 
Interruption 
] I make absolutely clear to my younger colleagues who have different interpretations of that word that I was quite surprised to learn that generally cruise ships within New Zealand waters do not have liquor licences. Clearly the ferries and some of the ships that ply the coast do and that is important. 
I thank John Hayes as he and I worked together pretty well on subclause 59(3) to make sure that clubs with permanent charters would not be adversely affected and would be allowed to apply for this sort of special licence. I am sure that the Petone Working Men’s Club which is the biggest chartered club in the Wellington region and one of the biggest in the country will be pleased about this. 
But we also recognised that in granting these applications there was an element of risk; there was a danger to the community from the less than scrupulous. [ 
Interruption 
] I do not want to comment on what I am looking at Mr Chairman but I am not sure it is entirely appropriate for you to be addressed in that manner by that member! To return to the bill the question is what we do with people who breach their special licences made under the Rugby World Cup legislation. We have made clear that if they lose that licence they lose their general licence. They cannot just revert back to one of their old licences if they have a breach. And it is easier for a licensee to lose a licence under this legislation than would normally be the case so I sound a warning to people out there who will be running bars under this legislation. People do not have to do that. If they want to they can continue operating under their current licences with one exception and that is venues. If you are a venue with a current licence you will be required under this legislation to apply for a Rugby World Cup licence. That requirement was introduced at the request of the Rugby World Cup company in order to make sure there was consistency. 
I also know that my colleagues as members opposite do have different views about the containers in which liquor should be delivered. I am relatively old-fashioned in these matters and I just hate drinking beer out of paper cups. I know that the Chairman has a different view; the Chairman has drunk quite a lot of beer out of paper cups— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I say to the member that it is not appropriate to bring the Chair into the debate. What the Chair has or has not done is immaterial. I am here merely to facilitate the debate. The member sets high standards on the rules in the Chamber and I want to make sure he maintains his own standard. By the way I am not a venue. You said “you are a venue”; the Chair is not a venue. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: That could be interpreted in a number of ways. I think some pretty exciting games have been played there. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: There has been a ruling. The member cannot go back to comment on it. The matter is closed. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: If it was it would have been even more exciting! 
I thank the Chair for that intervention. The point I am making is that experienced members of this House have been to a number of American football matches and they have been discussing them with me recently. There have been large paper cups of beer there and they have consumed them. I am relatively old-fashioned. I do not mind a tinny but I prefer—[ 
Interruption 
] Not a tinny house; the can. The generation gap here is awful. I do not mind drinking beer out of a can; that is the point I am making. I prefer to have it from a glass but I certainly disagree with those members including Judith Collins who wanted to force people to carry around paper cups of flat beer provided from pourers. I think that would make us look like a pretty Mickey Mouse operation. I say well done to Murray McCully because he stood up to Judith Collins. Not many people have done that. Not many people have stood up in that way. 
I now refer especially to clause 73 “Other conditions of licences”. Clause 73(1)(a) makes it clear that the licences must specify the days on which liquor can be sold—that is important—the hours and conditions relating to the sale and supply of low-alcohol beverages and the provision of food for consumption. But there is something missing here and it is one of the few things Iain Lees-Galloway and I agree on. It is the question of transportation—notices around transportation and the importance of that. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Before I call the next speaker I want to make an amendment to the vote. There was a mistake in the addition of the voting on the question that Part 4 stand part. The vote should have been announced as 68 for the Ayes 48 for the Noes. The record will be corrected. 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North) 
: 
 I have been positioned by a number of members this evening and now I am even being positioned by a member on my own side which is a little bit concerning. I suspect that there is a generation gap between the Hon Trevor Mallard— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Or two. 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY 
: Yeah maybe but I suspect that Mr Mallard and I may end up finding that we agree on more; there will be more that binds us than separates us on this matter. 
It is fair to say that in my role as the Opposition’s associate health spokesperson working in the drug and alcohol treatment area a number of the people whom I work with and discuss policy with have expressed their concerns to me about Part 5 of the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill because it liberalises liquor licences and superficially at least makes it easier to acquire a licence for the period of time that the tournament is occurring. It could cause a proliferation of liquor outlets and that would be occurring alongside a massive influx of people who are looking for entertainment looking to go out and drink and will be out in the cities that are hosting test matches across the country. That is a potential cocktail—pun intended; the member should not look at me like that—for trouble and will be a lot of work for the police hospitals emergency departments and community organisations. 
There is a lot of potential for damage harm and mess—in all senses and all definitions of the word “mess”—during the world cup. Yes out there amongst certain sectors of the public there are some concerns about what Part 5 actually sets out to achieve. However having looked reasonably closely at Part 5 I think it does a fairly good job of recognising the fact that we need to respond to a large number of people who will be seeking entertainment at entertainment venues. 
Some of the points raised in the previous speech were interesting. I have heard bodies referred to as temples; I have even heard one former Prime Minister refer to his body as a warehouse. But to refer to someone’s body as an entertainment venue is a whole new area that perhaps we should not traverse too much tonight. 
This bill responds to the fact that a number of people will be looking for entertainment and that our cities will need to be able to respond to that. It does so in I think a reasonably responsible way. One of the best provisions in the bill is that those who have acquired a licence under this legislation—they have applied to the Rugby World Cup Authority rather than having a standard Sale of Liquor Act licence—will be required in law to provide free water. That is a significant advance and perhaps it is leading the way in terms of changes that we might be able to make to our regular legislation. It is a very sensible provision within the bill; I think it makes a lot of sense. 
I am concerned about the liberalising and opening up of alcohol consumption on cruise ships. My colleague seems quite excited about this but the concept of a booze cruise and people conglomerating on a cruise ship with the one purpose in mind of becoming intoxicated is concerning not least because they are on water and one can fall off a ship. The potential consequences of that are somewhat more dramatic than losing one’s balance in a bar. It is concerning also because of the fact that people are concentrated in an area and there are few options especially once the ship is offshore. Once people are out there they are out there and their options in terms of walking away from the situation are minimised. 
I think it is fair that we discuss this matter a little further. I am certainly open-minded to other members’ opinions on it and I will be in the Chamber to listen to them. I think it is important in a conscience vote that— 
JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) 
: 
 It is my pleasure to take a call on Part 5 of the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill which I have not had an opportunity to speak on. I think the comments made by my colleagues reflect the importance that this part has within the bill. It refers specifically to liquor licences. My colleague Iain Lees-Galloway who has specific responsibility for alcohol matters for the Labour Party has outlined some of our specific views but I will touch on a couple of elements that may not have been raised in the debate thus far. 
Clause 56 makes a reference in subclause (1)(a) to “the significance of the Rugby World Cup 2011 … the scale of the hospitality that is needed”. It is unusual to have such language in a bill but I think it demonstrates the different situation that we are dealing with when it comes to the provision of hospitality specifically for the Rugby World Cup. I wish to outline two concerns. We are expecting anywhere between 70000 and 85000 visitors as a consequence of the Rugby World Cup. It is a considerable ask for our existing providers of hospitality particularly within our city centres like Auckland central to cover the demands of that huge influx of people. Although as required under our contract as hosts for the Rugby World Cup fan zones will be specifically set up to deal with this huge influx we are also expecting existing hospitality providers to cope. From the conversations I have had with business owners in for instance the Ponsonby area which is very close to central Auckland they are telling me that they are booked out via corporate functions and corporate hospitality by domestic fans already. Their services are already in demand to the extent that they have no capacity to deal with the additional international guests that we will be hosting. 
I guess for me that has highlighted a separate issue when it comes to hospitality which is that we really need to make sure that the city council and the Rugby World Cup Authority which is established by this legislation work really closely with our business associations and not just the Ponsonby association Heart of the City and the loosely formed West Lynn business association but also the association out in Mount Albert as well. Not only does the city council need to liaise with them in a more coherent way—because my understanding is that the transition to the super-city has really acted as a barrier to that happening—but also the authority needs to as well. The businesses will be our interface with our international guests. Although we may put in place all that is necessary to allow additional licences to be granted we will be asking existing licence holders to deal with this huge event. I do not believe that we have included them in our planning enough to date. That is just a request if anything to involve them and perhaps a word of caution as well. 
I am pleased to see that under clause 56 the purpose clause in this part of the bill we have highlighted that priority is to be given to “matters of public health and safety” and also to “the minimisation of harm to persons and property.” 
I wonder about the Minister currently in the chair the Hon David Carter. I think this is the third call in which I have asked the Minister to respond during the Committee stage. I do not think that a response has happened once and it has been quite a lengthy Committee stage so that is unfortunate. The request that I make is for the Government to perhaps outline whether it has any expectations about how harm minimisation will occur. Helpfully Iain Lees-Galloway has pointed out that an unprecedented requirement will now be that some of the suppliers—those who hold licences—will need to provide water. That may seem to be very simple but people who have been to a very large event will know that they have to hand over their first-born to buy one bottle of water and will know what a significant change that will be. I wonder whether the Government could outline its other expectations in that area. 
I am pleased as well that scattered through this part and also through other parts of the bill we have significant references to public health. I find that to be ironic given that in every other aspect of health care generally the Government has slashed and burned. 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North) 
: 
 I will pick up where I was cut off just before. I am looking for clauses in Part 5 of the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill that can give me some reassurance about this part. I was looking at clause 60(6) which says that when “the administrative secretariat forwards an application to the Authority the administrative secretariat must provide a copy of each application to—(a) the constable in charge of the Police station nearest to the premises or area in respect of which the licence is sought; and (b) the Medical Officer of Health of the district within which those premises or that area is situated; and (c) an inspector; and (d) the chief executive of the New Zealand Fire Service.” It is extremely reassuring that all of those organisations and individuals will be consulted about and will be aware of liquor licences that have been applied for under this legislation. Again I think this clause is another example of how this part does a reasonable job of balancing the need to make venues and alcoholic beverages available with the need to have a focus on public health and public safety as well. 
As Jacinda Ardern picked up on it is somewhat unusual that this legislation has a fairly good public health focus. That leads me back to the comments made earlier in the debate about which vessels should be used as containers for alcoholic beverages. I believe that the Government should have been a bit bolder resisted the influence of the liquor industry and actually said yes it was OK to have alcoholic beverages in paper cups or in something other than bottles and cans. There are numerous examples of fans having become intoxicated in a group and of a pack mentality starting to set in. People do things that they would not ordinarily do and they probably feel quite ashamed about them the next day. Those vessels quickly become missiles and they can become dangerous not just to the other people who are watching the matches but also to the players themselves and potentially to people out in the streets as well. 
I think that the Government should have taken a tougher line on that. It is not unusual for this Government to—I think I should be careful with the words I use given the warnings that I was given earlier in the night but when it comes to corporations especially multinational corporations this Government is not inclined to stand up to them. It certainly does not say we have a Kiwi way of doing things and that is the way we will do things in this country. It pretty much just says yes to anything that any corporation says. 
Jacinda Ardern 
: It’s not unparliamentary language. 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY 
: My colleague Jacinda Ardern is assisting me by saying that the phrase that I used earlier was not unparliamentary. That is true but I do not really want to trifle with the Chairperson any more than I did. I certainly would not want to see Jacqui Dean need to take any more points of order because I offend her in some way. 
I would like to move on to the amendment that is in my name. It is to make a small amendment to Subpart 3. Subpart 3 specifically subclause 72(1)(a) deals with the signage that licensees are required to place in their venues. I saw this as a practical opportunity to improve health and safety for partygoers and people who are at the venues by requiring the signage to include details of transport options that are available near the premises for patrons to encourage them to choose safe transportation. There is a reason why I chose that particular method of mitigating the harms related to alcohol: because a lot of the other ones are already well and truly on display and available to patrons. Low-alcohol and non-alcoholic beverages will be clearly visible in the premises. The food that will be required will be clearly visible on the premises as well. Even though venues will be required to make available to patrons transport options to assist them and ensure their safety there is no requirement— 
CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South) 
: 
 With regard to Part 5 of the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill which provides for the temporary process for licensing the sale and supply of liquor in the context of the particular hosting responsibilities related to the Rugby World Cup I would also like to mention what a number of my colleagues have talked about regarding the vessels the containers or the receptacles that contain the liquor. Although my colleague Trevor Mallard expressed his pickiness about the receptacles I would like to say I am not particularly picky about the receptacles in which the liquor is held; personally I am more picky about the liquor itself and the quality of that liquor. 
I think on a more serious note that this is an important issue. As my colleague Iain Lees-Galloway has pointed out a number of issues are associated with that as we know from past experience. Some of these issues I have witnessed myself where people have had liquor sold to them they became inebriated and they got into such a state of excitability that they used the receptacles as missiles. This is an important issue and it is certainly something that needs to be taken into account. 
I also note what my colleague Trevor Mallard said about the liquor issue being subject to a conscience vote and certainly that is important. The whole of New Zealand is having a lot of discussion at the moment on the wider issues of liquor and its effects on our society. 
I will comment about two particular aspects. One aspect is the venues which I do not think have been talked about very much—the kinds of venues in which liquor will be sold and for which licences will be sought to sell liquor during the Rugby World Cup. I make particular mention of some of the discussion that has been happening in Dunedin around where the rugby fans could be watching the games—and this is an issue not just in Dunedin but right around the country in centres where games are not being held. The issue is about the venues in which people will be watching games and for which liquor licences will be sought. There is quite an interesting discussion about the possibility that Dunedin rugby fans could be watching the Rugby World Cup final in 3-D on a big screen at the new Forsyth Barr Stadium in Dunedin from the comfort of a cinema seat. I note also that there is discussion about cinema lines around the country looking to screen some of the matches in cinemas. Members have to ask whether liquor will be sold in those venues. Presumably it will be. 
Progress reported. 
Report adopted. 
The House adjourned at 9.55 p.m.