Robertson Grant: Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill — In Committee 
Robertson Grant: Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:668;Page:14827] 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to follow on from Nikki Kaye the hard-working MP who is always in her office burning the midnight oil. The lights might be on but there is no one home—no one home. Jacinda Ardern is out in the Auckland Central electorate meeting constituents talking to business associations and the lights are on in Nikki Kaye’s office but no one is home. 
I am happy to take a call on Part 1 of the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill and in particular on the purpose of it. I think all members on this side of the Chamber want the Rugby World Cup to be a success. I was working in Helen Clark’s office when the bid was successful and it was a hugely encouraging and great time to be a New Zealander when New Zealand won the right to host the Rugby World Cup. There was a huge amount of work done by people in Rugby World Cup Ltd in the Ministry of Economic Development and in towns and cities around New Zealand to get New Zealand ready for the Rugby World Cup. On this side of the Chamber we are more than happy to support legislation that will make the Rugby World Cup a successful event. For the large part this bill does that. 
But in some critical ways it does not. In Part 1 and in the purpose and overview clause clause 3 we can see where those problems emerge. Although Mr Hayes might not want us to look at the detail of this bill it is important. That is our job in this House I say to Mr Hayes: to look through pieces of legislation and to ensure that they are appropriate laws to be passing. This is serious legislation and I want to credit the Government Administration Committee for the time it took to get this bill right. It is important to know that if we are giving additional powers or changing powers under different Acts of Parliament we are seriously considering what those changes will mean and much more important than that what safeguards are required in order that New Zealanders’ health safety and well-being are protected. 
That was my concern when I first took a look at the purpose and overview clause—clause 3. Clause 3(1) states “The purpose of this Act is to enable applications to be determined expeditiously for activities or facilities reasonably necessary for the proper conduct of the Rugby World Cup 2011.” The key phrases in that clause are “expeditiously” and “reasonably necessary” and they need to be in balance. Of course we want things that need to happen to happen and happen expeditiously if we find ourselves close to the Rugby World Cup and not able to put on the event that all New Zealanders want us to put on. But it must be what is reasonably necessary to be done and it is quite clear that the select committee has worked its way through the rest of this bill and asked whether we have that balance between expeditiousness and reasonably necessary right. The concern I and a number of members on this side of the Chamber have when we come to Part 4 of this bill is whether the process that has been set up to look at things that need to be done urgently has those rigorous safeguards in it. The conclusion we reached was that as the bill is written it does not. 
At this stage the bill puts in the hands of the Minister Murray McCully an amount of power that is out of proportion to what is required for what is reasonably necessary under the purpose of this bill. We have already heard from some members opposite that Mr McCully will have to consult with Mr Brownlee and possibly with other Ministers but despite having set up a whole process under Part 2 and Part 3 to have an authority that will look at applications at the end of the day the Minister can still do whatever the Minister wants under this legislation. On this side of the Chamber we are not prepared to let that kind of overarching sweeping power take hold. Members on the other side of the Chamber need to be able to answer why it is that a single Minister—admittedly one listening to the authority if he feels like it or if he feels like it listening to another Minister—has such power over the additions and alterations to legislation. Although the purpose of the bill is reasonable when we work our way through to clause3(2)(c) in particular we have major issues about whether there are sufficient limitations on the powers of the Minister. 
I will pick up on a number of other clauses within Part 1 as well. I accept that the Government Administration Committee as Nikki Kaye has just said did reasonably extend the definition of the Rugby World Cup to take in ancillary events. But again that is all the more reason to make sure we have sufficient safeguards in place because now we are talking about a wider scope. That is good because the Rugby World Cup is more than the games that will take place on the field. But it therefore behoves us even more to be clear about the bill’s restrictions and the safeguards. As I said before in relation to Part 4—which we will come to later in more detail—we on this side of the Chamber do not believe those safeguards are there. 
As Jacinda Ardern said it would be good to hear from members opposite of some examples where they believe sweeping powers placed in the hands of one individual will be necessary. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Even two examples. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: Two examples would be all right. 
Phil Twyford 
: How about knocking down a heritage building? 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: That is right. That is the concern on this side of the Chamber. What will it extend to? We have not heard from the Government at all about what that would be. 
I do not want to make this about personalities but the Minister in this situation is Murray McCully. Mr Hayes does not like people to meddle in the detail. Well Mr McCully is known for meddling in the detail—goodness is he ever! Whether it is from the Ministry of Tourism or the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade there are a few stories to be told about Mr McCully meddling in the detail. There are legitimate concerns on this side of the House about the extent to which Mr McCully will be down in the flax roots trying to change things around. 
The other parts of Part 1 that are interesting in that regard are the limitations to various Acts in clause 5. My colleague David Parker has already talked about the inclusion of a number of bits of legislation that this bill does not limit or affect. That is good. It is a useful thing. But it begs the question of the Acts that it does affect. When we look at the lists we see that the select committee included the Burial and Cremation Act the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act and the Coroners Act in addition to things like the Food Act the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act and the Health Act. These are important Acts to protect but there are a lot of things that are not there. A lot of power is being placed in the authority and then in an overriding way the Minister has the ability to limit or affect that. 
It is all very well for members on the other side of the Chamber to say to us that we are not supporting the Rugby World Cup and that they are getting in behind it. We are all getting in behind the Rugby World Cup but we need legislation that effectively enables that event but protects the health and safety of New Zealanders and upholds the whole reason why we are in this House: to make laws that are good for New Zealand and to protect the rights of New Zealanders. We have seen from the Government a few times in its term in Government the overriding of this House be it in Auckland with the Auckland governance legislation or even with something as simple as national standards which it rode roughshod through the House. We will be analysing this bill in detail because we want to make sure that an event is held that is not only good but that New Zealanders know takes place with their health and safety in mind and with the health and safety of those people who come to New Zealand to visit in mind also. 
Mr Hayes said earlier tonight that up to 85000 people would be coming to New Zealand. That is a huge influx of people. We obviously have to make changes to enable that to happen. We can support those changes. But it also means that it puts more pressure on New Zealand and on our laws. We need safeguards in place that make sure those laws are working. 
I do not have much more to say about Part 1 at this time except to note that I think the select committee has done a good job on parts of Part 1 in updating it extending out the definition of the Rugby World Cup and making sure there is some clarity around other definitions in this bill. But what really concerns members on this side of the House is clause 3 the purpose and overview clause because although we certainly support the idea of moving expeditiously on what is reasonably necessary we do think that the process that has been put in place which has been outlined in clause 3(2)(a) (b) and (c) unfortunately does not give us the balance we are looking for. It puts too much power in the hands of the Minister and it takes power away from the authority that has been set up specifically to advise the Minister. On this side of the Chamber we want to see change to Part 4 as noted in clause 3(2)(c) for us to be able to support this bill. 
But that is in no way an indication of our support for the event. That remains unstinting from when it was first awarded to New Zealand. We have continued to support that. We worked cooperatively on this bill at the select committee but we are not prepared to sit here in this Committee tonight and give Mr McCully the kinds of powers that Part 4 of this bill does.