Ardern Jacinda: Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill — In Committee 
Ardern Jacinda: Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:668;Page:14825] 
JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) 
: 
 It is my pleasure to follow on from John Hayes in particular on the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill and point out the irony of his statement accusing the Labour Opposition of getting into the detail and losing—I do not know what it was— 
Grant Robertson 
: The big-picture focus. 
JACINDA ARDERN 
: The big-picture focus. On one hand it is obviously the Committee stage and it is incumbent upon us to get into the detail on this occasion. But also I think that perhaps his statements are indicative of why this bill has far too many broad sweeping powers entrenched within it. It is because that Government has been unwilling to iron out the detail in the here and now. I am sure the Government Administration Committee may have tried and I know that my colleagues would have tried to rein in some of the powers that have been granted to the Minister for the Rugby World Cup to try to make them perhaps more appropriate but obviously we can all count we know the numbers and back here we are again with the Government trying to avoid a discussion about the detail. It is not good enough to simply gift broad sweeping powers as a default or a fall-back for an unwillingness to get into the detail. 
I refer specifically to Part 1 because that is the part that we are debating despite John Hayes’ contribution. The statement there in the explanation of Part 4 states that Part 4 “empowers the making of regulations subject to a recommendation of the Authority to declare an activity facility or class of activity or facility as a Rugby World Cup permitted activity in circumstances of urgency that for good reason were not foreseen;”. I wondered whether the Minister could take a call and explain to the House what kinds of things we might see classified under Part 1—what kinds of events or subjects. Surely with the term “not foreseen” there has to be a level of anticipation as to whether something is going too far or whether it is necessary. I simply do not believe that there has not been some discussion on the kinds of circumstances where such a power would be acceptable and necessary. The Minister simply refers to something being unforeseen and if that were the case in all of our legislation then we would have a very broad brush indeed in our laws—in some of them we do have that and that has been under this Government in particular. 
The second part of the explanation of Part 4 points out that it “empowers the Minister subject to a recommendation of the Authority to grant urgent approvals for activities and facilities in circumstances of urgency that for good reason were not foreseen;”. 
The one other point I want to make is that we are currently in October. We are in very close proximity to the Rugby World Cup being upon us. If we cannot currently encapsulate in this legislation all of the circumstances that we might deal with then obviously something is going badly wrong in our planning. So if that is what these clauses are about then we need a little bit of honesty from the Minister about the fact that we might be a bit behind and we need to have some enabling legislation. Let us at least have some honesty about that. If that is not the case let us at least have a discussion on some of the hypothetical situations that the Minister sees as being consistent. We know that those using this legislation will interpret it by looking back on the discussion that was had in this Committee and on the words of the Minister to find some kind of guidance as to what is acceptable. Some really subjective language is used in these clauses and I think people will seek some guidance from the Minister and from this Parliament. So I think in that regard it is important that the Minister take a call. If that does not happen within Part 1 then I know that my colleagues are very keen to discuss those particular clauses at greater length. 
I want to move on to some other changes that the Government Administration Committee made. I was not a member of that select committee and I look to those members for guidance as to some of the interpretation over what has been included and the changes that have been made. I think it makes very good sense for the committee to have separated out some of the definitions and in particular to have split off those events of the tournament that are very specific to the matches themselves from the ancillary events that will take place. I wonder whether the Minister or other select committee members could talk about some of the differences in the way they expect those two different activities to be treated.