Mallard Trevor: Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill — In Committee 
Mallard Trevor: Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:668;Page:14819] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 Although there was quite a bit of questioning on this part of the bill it is one of the parts that was essentially improved by the very good work of the Government Administration Committee and I compliment David Parker for his chairing of that committee. I say also that as far as this part is concerned useful contributions were made by Government members of the committee. Except in some areas of interpretation there was a degree of unanimity on this legislation. 
I also at this stage thank the officials and parliamentary counsel who were involved in the drafting of the bill—and possibly apologise to them for what they are about to go through. I know that the Minister in charge of the bill Mr McCully is very interested in this debate and I will call the real Minister down to the Chamber soon so that he can answer questions. I am hoping for an indication from him to officials that it is pretty unlikely that they will be required for detailed work as we go through this legislation because it is my understanding having looked on the Table that there are no Government amendments to the bill and the one Opposition amendment is something that is— 
Chris Tremain 
: That’s good. We should be able to be through it quite quickly then. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: No no. I am indicating to the Minister that if he were a kind and generous Minister he would say to the officials that it would be cruel and unusual punishment for them to stay here today and tomorrow dealing with this particular legislation. 
It is fair to say in dealing with Part 1 on a clause by clause basis that clause 3 is now drafted in a way that is much more easily understood than it was earlier. In changing the wording from “seventh quadrennial international rugby world championships tournament” to “Rugby World Cup 2011” the committee in doing its work has the focus back on to tidier legislation that is easier to understand. I think that as the people in the various parts of the Auckland Central electorate study this bill—as they study it in Ponsonby probably late at night with the local member—they will be more easily able— 
Hon Nathan Guy 
: Speak for yourself. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: The only time I ever see the member out is late at night. Having “Rugby World Cup 2011” means it will be easier to understand and I thank the member for her contribution in making that change. 
A lot of clauses were changed by the select committee—and I think it is good to have preliminary provisions describing a bill and making clear to people what is coming later—but clause 2 is one of the few clauses— 
Hon David Parker 
: It’s not in Part 1. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Sorry subclause (2) of clause 3—I apologise to my colleague—is one of the few subclauses in this part of the legislation that has gone through unchanged. It outlines what comes later though probably not in quite the sort of detail that some of us would like especially in relation to the obnoxious Part 4 clauses that I will not get into now. But if we are to be clear in subparagraphs (i) and (ii) of paragraph (2)(c) it would have been better as part of those subparagraphs to make it clear that the Minister although subject to a recommendation of the authority is not really subject to it which is probably an important point to ask about. Subparagraph (ii) of clause 3(2)(c) states that this Act under Part 4: “empowers the Minister subject to a recommendation of the Authority to grant urgent approvals for activities … that for good reason were not foreseen;”. The question I have asks whether the Minister is in fact subject to a recommendation of the authority. The answer is that he is not. 
The question now is whether the subparagraph is false and misleading. In fact I apologise to the Committee: I sat on the select committee but had not really focused on that particular subparagraph as we were working through the bill. But there is a question about whether the Minister is subject to the recommendation of the authority. “Having received a recommendation from the authority” is probably the right wording but I do not think— 
Hon David Parker 
: We like this wording. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Well if it were true the litigation would be interesting but the buildings could be gone. It might make some interesting case law. I am not a lawyer but from memory I think that the specific might override the general. It could well be that the specific in Part 4 overrides the general in Part 1. My learned colleague David Parker is nodding; I think he is nodding because he is agreeing rather than going to sleep. It would be my view that if the legislation got to a court the lines in clause 3(2)(c)(ii) of Part 1 are misleading— 
Jacqui Dean 
: Nonsense. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Well the legal expert from Temuka tends to indicate that she knows better than my colleague who has been a member down there for some time. 
The other paragraph paragraph (d) of clause (3)(2) which refers to Part 5 refers to the “temporary process under which the authority may grant Rugby World Cup liquor licences.” Again I am not certain that that totally covers it because restrictions about gambling arrangements or changes to gaming licences within that part are made as part of that clause. Again it is a question of whether we should be worried about having a description that is short of the full description—of what actually happens—or whether we should go with the flow. For the Minister in charge of the bill Mr McCully; for his Associate Minister Mr Brownlee; and for the Minister in the chair Mr Thompson— 
Grant Robertson 
: Coleman. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: —Mr Coleman—as far as they are concerned it is pretty good to have preliminary provisions to work on there. 
But I think the more interesting parts of this part will be the limitation to applications of this Act and certain other Acts. We will be focusing and I will focus in my next series of calls on this particular part and on whether the limitations to the application of this Act and certain other Acts are in fact appropriate. I think that that is where the debate about override will come.