Ardern Jacinda: Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill — In Committee 
Ardern Jacinda: Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:668;Page:14833] 
JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) 
: 
 I will follow on from what was a completely misleading and disingenuous statement from the previous speaker Nikki Kaye. I am disappointed that it was made by the member who purports to represent the area that will be hosting most of these games. If any petty politics were being played in any contribution it was in that one. Members on this side of the Chamber have been absolutely clear through every contribution they have made that in principle— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. The member made an assertion that Nikki Kaye purports to represent the people of Auckland Central. We have rules around— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: That is a debating point. [ 
Interruption 
] The use of the word “purports” is a debating point. 
JACINDA ARDERN 
: We have claimed consistently throughout the debate on the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill that we support the Rugby World Cup being successfully held and hosted in this country. In fact it was under Labour that we first won the right to host the Rugby World Cup. It is completely disingenuous to claim that we do not support it. In fact we have sought from the Government the right to support this bill in its entirety if it would simply put constraints around powers. 
The Government has been unable to explain to us how it anticipates those powers being used in the first place. There is talk about the unforeseen circumstances that the Government cannot anticipate yet almost every clause in this bill enables to a certain degree dealing with most situations that may arise without the need to have an unchecked and unbalanced free-for-all for the Minister. 
If the Government can explain to me the kinds of circumstances the hypothetical situation that it envisages may arise perhaps I may have more sympathy for its arguments. But the Government has been absolutely unable to do this. We are so close to hosting the Rugby World Cup so what could the Government possibly anticipate going horribly wrong? Either it does not want to admit that it is unsure about where it stands currently in the planning stages or it is unwilling to make sure we have adequate checks and balances. And that is our role. It is hard for us to stand up and put forward an argument against this. We would like to see a bipartisan approach to this legislation but the Government has been unwilling to give us that ability. That is the challenge I extend to the Government. 
The claim is that the check the balance is that Murray McCully has to consult Gerry Brownlee before he enacts any of his unchecked powers. I find cold comfort in that I have to say. If we let Gerry Brownlee undertake— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Come back to Part 1. 
JACINDA ARDERN 
: I guess I can say in my own defence that this is included in Part 1 because it specifically relates to clause 3(2)(c) but I do not wish to dispute the Chair’s ruling. I am happy to move on. 
I have some other significant points to make. Grant Robertson referred more broadly speaking to the fact that these broad-brush powers extend to some quite broad-brush definitions. One in particular that I want to refer to is that the Government Administration Committee has made a change to the definition of “facility”. It means “works a site or a structure”. Previously it had an annotation that meant “undertaken or constructed for or in connection with the Rugby World Cup 2011” That has been removed and I can understand why. But that now means that we have a broad-brush approach to almost any facility that may not have been constructed for the Rugby World Cup but just exists and has some vague connection to it. 
For instance had the debate over the sheds on Queen’s Wharf been happening under these provisions and had it not involved the Auckland Regional Council we may have seen a completely different outcome from the very sensible decision that took into account the heritage value of those buildings. Under this bill I think we would have seen a completely different outcome. The Minister would of course have asked Gerry Brownlee first before he pulled them down. 
There are some different definitions around the way that public notices are being used. I would be interested to hear whether a member of a select committee would be happy to expand on whether they thought that the usual way public notices are used with other legislation was not necessary perhaps for timing reasons or perhaps for the urgency of approvals around liquor licensing for instance. Or is it intended that perhaps in future we do not use daily newspapers for these notifications as much? I am interested in whether we are prepared to set a precedent with this bill or whether this was seen as very tightly constrained and specific to the Rugby World Cup. I would be happy for the Minister to speak to that point. 
The final point I want to make concerns clause 5A “Limits to application of Building Act 2004”. We had some reference from a Government member about the importance of making sure that accommodation is reasonable and accessible. Nothing in this bill as far as I can see does that.