Clendon David: Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill — First Reading 
Clendon David: Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:664;Page:11927] 
DAVID CLENDON (Green) 
: 
 Kia ora koutou. The Greens like all other members and parties in this House are eager to see a successful event in 2011. The Rugby World Cup will be the largest sporting event this country has ever hosted. It is large even on an international scale. There are significant opportunities to showcase the country its businesses its tourism opportunities; all of those things. 
We had quite an engaged debate about this bill the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill and about our support for it or not. The outcome of the debate was that we were not entirely convinced of the need for a bill to facilitate what is apparently needed though I have listened with interest particularly to Mr Mallard’s comments. What we are quite clear about is that we cannot support this bill in its present form. When we look at this bill effectively what we see is the construction of a large rubber stamp that will give extraordinary powers to the Minister for the Rugby World Cup to override normal processes of resource management through liquor licensing and various other consenting and licensing approvals. 
When the news broke in 2005 that we had the rights to the Rugby World Cup somewhat unexpectedly at that point clearly we had a 6-year window of opportunity to make this thing happen. We are now 5 years into that; we have another year ahead of us before kick off at the first game. If we think it through what is this cup effectively? It is a series of rugby games with a number of hospitality and other events that will be organised around it. The scale is new but after all we have significant experience in this country of organising sports tournaments—in particular rugby tournaments. 
I take Mr Mallard’s point that we do not know what we do not know. There is the possibility of something entirely unforeseen but we fail to see that there is a need for the extremely wide-ranging powers given to the Minister in this bill to deal with these unforeseen circumstances or so-called unforeseen circumstances of urgency that would necessitate overriding the standard Resource Management Act processes and other processes to ensure that activities or facilities can be made available. We have had 5 years and we have another year ahead of us to plan and to prepare for this event. I have perhaps more faith than others in the ability of the people charged with organising this series of events to have got it substantially right. 
Mr Brownlee in presenting the bill suggested the example of erecting a marquee. I acknowledge that Auckland in particular has not always been faultless in getting through these various processes but I cannot believe that anybody would fail to get resource consent to erect a marquee in under a year. That simply would not happen. It is quite a nonsensical suggestion to say that we need special empowering legislation to erect a marquee where people can eat drink and party for an evening or two. 
I ask why there is a need to overhaul the Sale of Liquor Act provisions. There will be drink—rugby and drinking go hand in hand in this country—there will probably be a lot of it. We are aware of the Law Commission’s recent report that indicated that perhaps we need to remove sport from liquor to a more significant degree than we do. But none the less many of us probably have had the experience of applying for a special liquor licence. I have done it personally for events around community groups. I was on a board of trustees. We had cabaret nights. It is actually not a complicated or a difficult process to get a special licence for an event to serve liquor to sell it or to supply it. We fail to see why we need to override a piece of legislation the Sale of Liquor Act that seems to work reasonably well reasonably quietly and that we have had in place for a very long time. 
It is interesting to note the executive summary in the regulatory impact statement that accompanies the bill. At the time of writing of that document the police were opposed to the idea of creating a whole new regime for licensing but clearly according to announcements in the last week or so the police have come round to the position of saying that it is OK. Clearly their primary focus is on public safety preventing disorder and so on but the fact is that taking away the sale of liquor provisions significantly reduces the opportunity for people to participate to have a say to appeal and generally to be heard. 
There is a provision in the bill that is quite concerning. It specifically prohibits the authority from considering the impact on existing licence holders either people getting special licences under this proposed legislation or under the Sale of Liquor Act. We think it is unfortunate that hospitality providers who have invested and who are investing heavily in providing venues and services for this event could potentially be undermined if one-off facilities if you like are allowed. If I was the owner of a hospitality venue at the Viaduct Basin for example I would be very concerned that somebody might put up a marquee add a bar some music some big screens and take business away when I have been investing heavily in that business. 
The regulatory impact statement under the heading “Risk Assessment” states: “The purpose of the legislation is not to supplant existing resource management liquor licensing and other consenting processes but to support the existing regime with additional measures that the unique circumstances of the cup may call upon.” I hope that the author of those words had the good grace to blush as he or she wrote them because exactly what this proposed legislation does is supplant resource management provisions. It supplants the existing and quite satisfactory and adequate Sale of Liquor Act. So I wonder again about the perceived necessity for this legislation. I acknowledge that there may be a requirement for something for the extreme genuinely unforeseen emergency circumstance but this bill goes many steps too far for us to support at this point. 
We are told that the provisions of the bill could reduce compliance costs perhaps streamline processes and increase the level of national consistency. Potentially it could do that; it is always easy to streamline to make things happen more quickly and more cheaply. Whether we would get desirable outcomes however is a moot point. We certainly would be doing that at the cost of allowing reasonable opportunity for public participation the public’s right to know and to be heard and for rights of appeal to be carried through as they would. 
So on balance with the best will in the world towards the event itself and acknowledging that there may be a justifiable argument to be made for some modest degree of power or extra power to be given to the Minister we cannot in all conscience support this bill with its extremely wide-ranging powers. Effectively we cannot and will not support the notion of a rubber stamp. Kia ora koutou.