Robertson Grant: Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Robertson Grant: Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:668;Page:14879] 
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.