Robertson Grant: Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill — First Reading 
Robertson Grant: Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:664;Page:11925] 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) 
: 
 I rise to join with the Labour Party in supporting as Trevor Mallard has already noted the referral of the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill to a select committee. [ 
Interruption 
] It is very important to note that it will be referred to the Government Administration Committee where I will look forward to Mr Hayes’ normal constructive contribution throughout. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: He should have been Minister of Foreign Affairs. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: He could have been. He could have applied all the diplomatic skill and tact to that role that he brings to the Government Administration Committee week in week out. 
The Labour Party is supporting this bill to a select committee but as Mr Mallard said we want to reserve our position beyond that point because there are a number of quite significant and important decisions being taken here that deserve closer scrutiny by the committee. We want to make sure we retain the balance between enabling the tournament to take place and to be a fantastic advertisement for New Zealand and protecting the rights that we already have in law for people to have their say about developments and for developments not to detrimentally affect the environment or the places where we live. 
One of the reasons I personally feel comfortable about supporting this bill to go to a select committee is that the other options we have in front of us for managing the quite large amount of work that will need to take place are not processes that we have the ability to do now and be confident that we can host the cup in the way we would like. The regulatory impact statement gives us those two options. The first of those listed in the regulatory impact statement is to amend district plans through the Resource Management Act to allow the urgent works and additional activities to take place. It is quite clear to any of us who have had any involvement in the amendment of district plans that that would be a slow process. It would not be one that would enable us to be confident that we would have all the i’s dotted and t’s crossed in time for the World Cup itself. That would have been the process that provided the maximum public input into how the cup would be hosted but I do not think it could be done in a timely manner. As Mr Mallard said perhaps if we were discussing this a year ago we could be looking more seriously at that option but we cannot do that now. 
The second option listed in the regulatory impact statement would involve amending the Major Events Management Act in order to do this and effectively do it through an Order in Council. The bill makes a pretty good case that specific legislation is required rather than generic legislation like the Major Events Management Act. The examples Mr Brownlee mentioned in his initial remarks from the Commonwealth Games in Victoria or indeed the Olympics in the UK give us a good guide to the fact that specific legislation is very useful in this situation. It means that everybody is clear about what the powers are and how they can be used. I think this is the option we need to pursue. It needs to be referred to the select committee to be analysed and to make sure we have got that balance right. 
On this side of the House we are cautious about going down a path that limits people’s ability to have their say on developments resource consents and issues in their community. We have some reason on this side of the House to be cautious about what the Government might do in that regard because we have seen several examples where people’s democratic rights at a local authority level have been undermined. We stood in this Chamber and a number of us took calls as we watched the people of Canterbury lose their right to even have an election. We watched with some sense of horror as an election was cancelled for the people of Canterbury and their council was taken away from them completely. I think members will understand why we are cautious on this side of the House about a bill that will limit people’s rights in terms of how they interact with their local authorities. 
We have also seen that in Auckland and I am sure my colleague Phil Twyford when he speaks later in this debate will speak a bit more perhaps about how in Auckland there is deep concern about the way in which democratic rights are being undermined as the super-city is created. 
Phil Twyford 
: And in Franklin. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: In Franklin and Rodney that is right. Both of those districts are very concerned. Overall on this side of the House we operate in a very cautious way when it comes to looking at how this Government approaches local democracy. This bill really is about local democracy in many ways. On the surface it states that we want to protect people’s rights in terms of how resource consents are granted and how major events are dealt with but it also puts in place an infrastructure that will speed things up and if need be potentially circumvent that protection. As Mr Mallard has already stated the basis of the decision making for the local authorities will still be the same but there are now in this bill a number of processes that will move around that protection and potentially circumvent it and we need to be cautious about it. 
I will speak briefly about a couple of specific issues within the bill. On the establishment of the Rugby World Cup Authority in Part 2 it is obviously important to have a group that can oversee the measures but I am a little concerned about the relationship between the authority and the Minister for the Rugby World Cup. Again as Mr Mallard has already said the authority has a certain set of powers. It will have people appointed to it by the Minister in consultation with some other Ministers including for instance the Minister for the Environment which is a good thing but it means that at the end of the day the Minister will be put in the position of possibly making quite specific decisions about matters to do with resource consents liquor-licensing issues and so on. I think we need to be very cautious of that and I note too that the Minister for the Rugby World Cup said he would be consulting with the Minister for Economic Development. I want to pause for a minute and say in all seriousness that with Mr Brownlee fulfilling both of those roles we have to be careful about that in this situation. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: McCully’s actually the Minister. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: Oh he is the Minister for the Rugby World Cup. Mr Brownlee is the Associate Minister for the Rugby World Cup is he not? 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Gerry’s the Associate Minister but he does all the work. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: Right that is obviously the cause of confusion. It is that Gerry is doing all the work. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Hard to believe I know. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: Well between those two Mr Brownlee and Mr McCully it is a tough choice is it not? I think we have to be very careful about the accountability between those two Ministers. 
I also want to pick up Mr Mallard’s point about leverage. As a country we knew when we got the right to host the Rugby World Cup that it offered a huge opportunity not just for 70000 people to show up here travel around here and enjoy the games but also to showcase New Zealand. I remember in the very early days discussions about things like a New Zealand film festival that would tour the country where the major teams were playing and a touring New Zealand music festival that would also tour the country where the major teams would play. I do not get a sense that we are hearing those kinds of innovative ideas coming out of the Government now. The leverage is where New Zealand can really benefit from this event. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: It’s not worth having economically without it. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: That is right because otherwise it will not deliver the benefits that everyone hoped for. I hope we will hear more about that. I know there are people beavering away in the Ministry of Economic Development on those ideas but I am not sure how far that has reached out to other parts of New Zealand’s creative sector or indeed other parts of the economy. It would be good to see a greater amount of leverage a more focused amount of the leverage that the Rugby World Cup can give us. I hope that Ministers McCully and Brownlee will be able to deal with that. 
It is important to have a bill such as this one because issues will arise as we prepare for the World Cup that we have not foreseen. Right now in Auckland the staff of the Rendezvous Hotel have been locked out. That is a 4½-star hotel with people on the minimum wage. Obviously I and many colleagues would like to see a lockout like that end quickly but we will see more things like that. People are putting up tariffs in the hotels to exorbitant rates and I do not think we are seeing much in terms of wage increases commensurate with the increased charges that will be coming through. Obviously this bill does not deal specifically with those sorts of matters but it highlights that urgent matters and difficulties will arise and we need a mechanism to be able to deal with those. What we should not do is throw out the processes that are good for New Zealand in terms of allowing people to have their say and protecting their environment. When this bill comes back from the select committee I hope it will provide a balanced approach that allows us to host a brilliant Rugby World Cup but continues to allow New Zealanders to have their say.