Major Events Management Bill

I move, That Supplementary Order Paper 106 relating to the Major Events Management Bill be referred to the Commerce Committee for consideration and that the committee in its consideration of the bill have the power to adopt, if it thinks fit, the amendments set out on the Supplementary Order Paper.

The Green Party would like to speak on this motion, because I think that the Supplementary Order Paper it deals with— Supplementary Order Paper 106—brings this House into disrepute by imposing on New Zealand a law to throw streakers into jail. That is the guts of it. There are so many serious issues before this House, and the world, including global warming, war and peace issues, violence in society, and poverty in New Zealand and around the world. Yet what are we spending Parliament’s time on? We are spending it on legislation to give prison sentences to streakers. It is absurd and laughable, and the Greens oppose the motion.

Streaking has been of amusement both to spectators and to New Zealanders watching events on television since Michael O’Brien started the practice back in Twickenham in April 1974. The police officers there were themselves somewhat amused as they intervened to cover certain parts of his anatomy with a police helmet. Three decades on, streaking has become accepted as being part and parcel of sporting events and sporting culture, and the people participating in the practice are willing to take the penalty for it. Our most recent case was of the woman in the bikini, Lisa Lewis, who streaked in Waikato not long ago. She was had up for disorderly behaviour, fined $200, and had to pay court costs of $130, but she was willing to do that. Of course, we know that she sold the bikini she wore on that occasion on TradeMe for a price of $4,500.

💬 Craig Foss: Free enterprise.

“Free enterprise”, I hear from the back here, so I hope that means the National Party will support the Green Party’s opposition to this motion.

We have other instances, such as Marc Ellis, who is a very strong advocate. He had his National Nude Day, and actually offered a monetary reward to anyone who streaked in front of the Prime Minister. But whether or not we support Marc Ellis on that, streaking is an area of considerable entertainment and amusement for the New Zealand populace. It is not an area where we need to be obeying the dictates of the multinationals and their advertisers, who are instructing the World Cup body to ram this legislation through the New Zealand Parliament. It could impact on the whole New Zealand culture—on the relationship between the fans of sporting events and what happens on the field.

I think one of the advantages of going to a major event these days is that there is a lot of entertainment on the stands and a bit of entertainment with streakers on the field sometimes, as well. Some of the entertainment has been reduced a bit recently. I know it used to be quite entertaining on the cricket terraces at Eden Park, although there were some downsides to that with the sexist and racists comments that sometimes ensued. But there was a whole theatre going on on the terraces for a while, and sometimes streaking was an additional part of that entertainment.

We now have the New Zealand Sevens in Wellington, which is almost total theatre. People go to watch what is happening in the stands and possibly to see a streaker on the field. In some ways the Sevens competition is a bit secondary, although I think people take an interest in and pleasure from the times when New Zealand actually wins.

💬 Hone Harawira: It’s been a while.

Yes, it has been a while. Sometimes it is Fiji that wins, and I think Samoa is doing pretty well at the present time. I can speak from my own experience. When I was a young kid I used to go along to what was then called Lancaster Park—before its name was commercialised—in Christchurch, selling programmes and all the rest of it. The Ranfurly Shield was held by Canterbury for many years. It was a great event to go along to. Towards the end of the game, sometimes the kids, including me, would get a bit excited and run on to the field just before the game ended, to get the players’ autographs. Under this bill, kids like that would be up for 3 months in jail. That is utterly absurd.

💬 Nandor Tanczos: Ridiculous!

It is ridiculous. We are taking away the magic of these events. This is a Supplementary Order Paper to a bill that is being shaped by the advertisers—not the national advertisers, the multinational advertisers such as Adidas, Reebok, and Coca-Cola, etc. They want what they call “clean” stadiums. In fact, the original bill proposed a 5-kilometre zone where people are not allowed to put up other advertising that might be deemed to be supporting an opponent advertiser.

Given the nature of Kiwi culture, I think this whole thing will be a challenge to sports fans. Rather than reducing people streaking and doing other forms of advertising, it will actually increase it. What better challenge is there than to have Tui-type ads and what not within the 5-kilometre zone, or in the stadium? There is no way they can really stop it, because people can wander in with a jacket on, wearing a T-shirt underneath with a humorous advert, and then just pull off the jacket and make a slogan with the letters on each T-shirt, or whatever they want to do—symbols, take-offs of symbols, etc. It is a joke that we should bring in such essentially repressive legislation just on the dictate of advertisers.

There is also a political dimension to it. There are 350 proud New Zealanders who in 1981 went on to the pitch at Rugby Park in Hamilton. My friend Hone Harawira here will testify to that as well. They are now considered heroes in independent, non-apartheid South Africa, because they stopped that game. That was shown on South African television. It was a major impetus, really.

💬 Nandor Tanczos: They were cheering in the streets.

They were cheering in the streets, as my friend Nandor Tanczos has just said. Under this legislation, all of those 350 people would be up for 3 months in jail or a big fine. That is completely off the wall.

The definitions in this legislation as to what constitutes a major event are very broad. It can be anything. Basically, as long as quite a few people are there it becomes a major event, and Cabinet can by Order of Council determine it to be a major event at any time. We are not talking about just one event—the Rugby World Cup—we are talking about legislation that is against streakers and anything like that.

There are books around, such as When Corporations Ruled the World. The legislation that the Supplementary Order Paper is trying to amend is part of that. This is being done—let us be honest—on the dictates of multinationals, which is making it more difficult for New Zealanders to have fun. That is the guts of the whole thing.

It is important that New Zealanders do not see their participation in sporting events as being just marketing fodder. That is how this bill is treating us—as marketing fodder. Overseas, they give the rights to Reebok, Coca-Cola, or whoever the advertiser is for the World Cup or any event—it could be a Super 14 game. Whatever it might be, they give the rights to the advertiser, and from that point on we are just marketing fodder. We cannot be distracted from that product, that advertising logo, being shoved in our faces along the 5-kilometre route to the stadium—because there is that 5-kilometre exclusion zone—on all the fences around the stadium, and on the billboards around the grounds of the stadium. It is a case of bash, bash, bash with the advertisers’ messages. Obviously, it is very hard to avoid that sort of thing in society, given the power of those multinationals, but we should not be encouraging it and reducing our own rights by saying to streakers like Lisa Lewis—who gave a lot of fun to the nation and appeared on lots of TV programmes: “You were wrong.”

Despite the fact that this motion stands in the name of the Hon Trevor Mallard, the National Party will be supporting it. I will briefly explain to the House why that is the case. This motion has the effect of referring Supplementary Order Paper 106 to the Commerce Committee, which is considering the Major Events Management Bill. The reason we are supporting the motion is that were we not to do so, members of the public would be denied the opportunity to make submissions in relation to the proposal the Minister wants to put before the House.

I will make no comment at all on the content of the Supplementary Order Paper that the Minister wants to introduce. I think the select committee deserves an opportunity to look at that, and members of the public deserve an opportunity to make their submissions on it. The only way we can facilitate that is to refer Supplementary Order Paper 106 to the committee by way of this motion. It is clear that the content of the Supplementary Order Paper is some distance away from the main purpose of the Major Events Management Bill. The only way we can make sure the opportunity is there for the Minister’s proposals to be considered is to support this motion.

The Supplementary Order Paper relates to an important bill. Anyone who has looked at the scale of major upcoming events—in particular, the Rugby World Cup—understands the need for some sort of machinery to deal with it. We can talk about that on another day. Members of the public certainly deserve the opportunity to inspect and make submissions in relation to the bill. Accordingly, I support this motion.

Kia ora, Mr Deputy Speaker. Kia ora tātou katoa i te Whare. The Major Events Management Bill is not just about streakers and the like, although I have no doubt that that kind of carry-on will be banned, as well. Supplementary Order Paper 106 is about convicting people for pitch invasions, and that makes me think back to that day that Keith Locke was referring to—Saturday, 15 July 1981—when a few hundred people forced their way on to Rugby Park in Hamilton and stopped the match between South Africa’s ambassadors for apartheid and Waikato.

I was going to say that a few hundred Kiwis forced their way on to Rugby Park, but I also recall that on that day I ran into Gary Foley and a bunch of the Koori brothers, who had come across from Australia to support the anti-apartheid movement. I remember them laughing at a bunch of us who had come down from Ōtara on that morning dressed for action with full-faced motorbike helmets, padding, heavy jackets, and boots. Gary and his mates were in their swish day gear: nice pants, body shirts, and dark glasses. Little did they know that by the end of that day, they would be covered in their own righteous blood and the boys from Ōtara would be having the last laugh.

I can remember the image on the evening news of another lost soul from overseas—a man who clearly did not fit into his world—peering anxiously from under the grandstands at Rugby Park. I knew that his debut would not take place on that day, either. His name was Errol Tobias—the forgotten winger—and he is the man who is never interviewed on sports programmes any more. He is the token black whom the South Africans had picked at the last minute to try to deflect the world’s anger and attention away from the continued oppression of their black citizens at home while their wholesome white Springboks were playing rugby half a world away.

I raise these memories because I have no doubt that a number of people in this House were also in Hamilton on that day—a big day in one of our nation’s darkest times and a time when many MPs rightfully claimed their badge of honour for marching against apartheid. It was a time when 32,000 people signed a petition against the tour, and it was a time when two of the country’s powerful organisations also came out against the tour—the Federation of Labour, and the Labour Party. So I ask whether Labour members’ memories have become so blurred by power that they would deny their own kids the rights they fought for so passionately in 1981. How quickly we can deny our own history if 25 years later we pass legislation to make such actions illegal. And whom does this suit?

To make pitch invasions illegal may be great for the hosts and producers responsible for the timing of sports broadcasts, to keep sponsors like Adidas and Nike happy and to ensure that international broadcast rights and fees are not jeopardised. But it does nothing at all for the right of every Kiwi to voice opposition to the hosting of sports events that are clearly against the national psyche. I raise these memories because 5 July 1981 is an important day in the history of this nation. It is when we said to the world that we were serious about our opposition to a regime that practised terror on its own citizenry.

I also recall a couple of feisty little ex-pat Cuban generals, Rīpeka Evans and Donna Awatere Huata, trying to get everyone rarked up for some serious action, while just down the ranks a bit Father Terry Dibble and Reverend George Armstrong were leading others in that old protest classic, “We shall overcome.” I remember Donna and Peka putting me and a couple of the other brothers from Ōtara into the front line, with clear instructions not to listen to anyone else but them. I do not mind admitting that we laughed at these two little hens telling us what to do, before we realised that we did not even have a plan and that maybe they actually knew what they were talking about. I remember that it was Donna’s father who made me actually listen to Donna. Donna’s father—Colonel Pita Awatere, who had been a commander of the Māori Battalion—had led a march along with others almost 20 years before that. That march had been up Queen Street to protest the New Zealand Rugby Union’s decision to leave Māori out of the team to tour South Africa, just to comply with South Africa’s apartheid regime. I can remember saying to the boys at that time: “Watch Donna, and when she says ‘Go’, we go.”

When I study the 1960 protests, I see that people protested on rugby fields even then. Yet here today, we would think to put an end to that tradition. I say again how easily we forget our proud tradition of protest and demonstration. I recall vividly the cattle trucks surrounding the park, the police on every corner, the protons on their way to the game, and the hatred and filth spewing from drunken ruby supporters. I can remember thinking: “Come on Donna, we can’t wait forever.”, as we marched closer and closer to the park. I remember that 90 percent of the protesters were just dressed normally and that our lot from Ōtara looked a bit out of place amongst all the thousands of keen and happy Pākehā who were marching alongside us, singing and chanting.

I remember seeing people in the second row of the protest march just behind the lead banner, with wire-cutters, bolt-cutters, and ropes. They were ready to pull some fences down. I remember Donna giving me the old “hold your horses, Māori boy” look as we got up to the park. I could feel the spit, the beer, the abuse, and the cans that were getting thrown at us from over the fences. Then, all of a sudden, we were right alongside a fence.

I raise these memories because they speak of a people galvanised into action. The right to take that action is being denied by this Supplementary Order Paper. I also remember looking at Donna and seeing her pointing at the fence and yelling: “Go! Go! Go!”. Before the poor guys in the second row could even get their wire-cutters going properly, everyone had grabbed the fence, and before we could say “Springboks go home!” the fence was gone, gone, gone. Where, just seconds earlier, hundreds of protons had been hurling abuse at us, suddenly the bank was clear and we surged on to the field behind Wally Te Ua and a bunch of other priests and their Melanesian cross. I remember getting out in the middle of the field and seeing everybody jumping around like idiots, clapping and singing. I looked across the protest ranks and saw that only a few hundred of us had got on to the field. I looked around the whole park and saw that tens of thousands of rabid rugby followers were incensed at us for getting on to that field.

I raise these memories because invading the pitch on that day was like putting a poultice on the national obsession for rugby at any cost, and saying to the world that there were deeper meanings for Kiwis than just a game of bloody football.

I can remember the howls of drunken fury from the protons in the grandstands—it was quite funny, really. I can remember them hurling empty cans of beer at us and watching their cans fall short. They then threw full cans of beer that came raining into our ranks and poleaxed those without helmets. I can remember the Pākehā protesters throwing the cans on to the ground in front of us. I can remember the boys from Ōtara grabbing the full cans and taking a swig before hurling them straight back into the grandstands again.

I can remember that people were proud to be on the park on that day, yet today we would make that pride a sin by accepting this Supplementary Order Paper to suit the Rugby World Cup. I can even remember that one of the really, really great memories I have from after that day was knowing that in the whole of racist South Africa people were riveted to their screens on that day—they were all watching TV, waiting to see their beloved Springboks take the field—and that 400 Kiwis ruined their day. I heard stories come out of the “Republic of Rednecks and Racists” that people there were calling their television stations and demanding that the New Zealand Police shoot us so that the game could go on. I raise these memories so that we are wary of sneaky Supplementary Order Papers that give greater weight to the timing of sport than to hard-won civil liberties.

Last week I spoke out against the paranoia and the racist assumptions that drove the overloaded Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill. Today I link that same paranoia to this Supplementary Order Paper—“SOP” could be an acronym for the suppression of protest—and I warn the House that if we do not have the courage to start opposing these insidious little pieces of creeping fascism, then we will one day soon find our own children charged with treason for daring to oppose a game of football. The process for connecting the dots is already there.

Steve Biko once said: “The most potent weapon in the hands of the oppressor is the mind of the oppressed.” The Māori Party will not vote for a Supplementary Order Paper to satisfy the oppressive demands of sport and television producers and advertisers, and we will not support the demand to set aside valid protest. Kia ora tātou.

I acknowledge the member who spoke before me and say that I respect his comments about the Springbok Tour of 1981, but I believe that his speech is somewhat wide of the mark in respect of what we are here to discuss today. Supplementary Order Paper 106 does not deal with the issues the member spoke of. There will still be the right for anyone in this country to protest and to invade a pitch, if that is what protesters ultimately end up doing. This particular Supplementary Order Paper deals with another form of pitch invasion—invasion by marketers who choose to take over from marketers who have paid for the rights—

💬 Nandor Tanczos: You’re reading the wrong bill.

I will come back to that; I just wanted to touch on the main bill itself, because the Supplementary Order Paper comes into it.

This is ambush marketing. I will just talk about Nike’s ambush marketing in 1996. Adidas had put up a $50 million campaign for the Olympic Games of that year, but Nike used the opportunity to overtake the whole Olympic Games. So at the end of the Olympics, when a survey was done of who had been the major sponsor of the games, it showed that Nike had managed to overtake Adidas in the minds of those surveyed.

The Green Party spoke today about new section 25A, “Offence to invade pitch at major sporting event”, proposed for insertion into the Major Events Management Bill by Supplementary Order Paper 106. Green members talked about streakers and how it was an offence for streakers to invade the pitch. I want to bring members back to a couple of other incidents that did not involve streakers but that were incidents where match officials were required to take people off the paddock. One was in a Tri-Nations game in August 2002 in South Africa, when 43-year-old Pieter van Zyl tackled the referee to the ground just a few minutes into the second half of the match, which was won by the All Blacks, 30-23. Members will remember that particular incident. Pieter van Zyl had evaded 419 security officials to launch—

💬 Hone Harawira: So who kicked the last goal?

—good question—an assault as the All Blacks scrum half Justin Marshall was about to feed the ball into the scrum. People will remember that Richie McCaw dealt a blow to the invader and it took him a while to get up. But that was one example where this sort of Supplementary Order Paper becomes quite important.

Another example was where a steward was hurt back in June 2001 in a case of cricket chaos when literally hundreds of people invaded the pitch. The only protest in that instance was that the Pakistanis were losing the game. Did those people have a right to invade the pitch in that instance? I would say that they did not, in that situation. So there we have a couple of examples of situations where pitch invasion is illegal and does need to be dealt a blow to—it really does.

I wish to make one other point before sitting down: National does support this Supplementary Order Paper. There are two points that I wish the Minister in charge of the bill to consider. The offence in the Supplementary Order Paper attracts a $5,000 fine, but I want the Minister to consider pitch invasion by spectators who are paid by ambush marketers. There was the example of someone who invaded a pitch with a Vodafone sign painted on his back. Once again, if Vodafone was not a major sponsor of that particular event but was using ambush marketing tactics to have someone invade the pitch, then I think we have every right to find that person and to get him or her out of there. But I would suggest that giving a $5,000 fine to a sponsor that has not paid one cent to be at a World Cup final, but that still gets its brand in front of millions and millions of people after an incident at that final, is nothing. We need to consider that when protecting the rights of sponsors that have put up millions of dollars to have their brand put in front of the public.

The second point I make is about the definition of the word “propels” in proposed new section 25A(2). We have to consider only the likes of Mexican waves that traverse around stadiums. The definition of “propels” in the Supplementary Order Paper is “intentionally setting an object in motion in any manner, including, for example, throwing, kicking, dropping, or rolling.” In a Mexican wave situation any number of people could be liable to be fined for throwing items into the air that end up on the pitch. So that is just something to consider with regard to that matter.

Those are a couple of points that I would like members to consider. National will be supporting the Supplementary Order Paper.

Previous speakers to this motion have taken the opportunity to range quite widely over the issue of control at sports venues, and I would just like to indulge myself for a little bit and do the same. I just pass the observation that one of the disappointing changes that has occurred in New Zealand life is that a dad can no longer wander on to a rugby pitch with his son at the end of a big game just to look at the turf, to go and stand at the spot where the first five kicked the winning goal, and that sort of thing. It was so much a part of the upbringing that I had, and that other members of the House would have had. People can no longer wander on to the cricket ground at lunchtime and impress their sons with their understanding of the nature of the wicket and its little indents, and point to where the fast bowlers’ prints were made.

The National Party is supporting this motion at this stage, as part of a process to enable the select committee to hold hearings and hear what the public have to say. We will do so because the provision of this Supplementary Order Paper 106 is a long, long way away from the original intent of the bill when it first came into the House and we debated it. We will support the bill to give the public the opportunity to have their say.

I will make one final point, though. I have just been watching the clock. A good half an hour of the time of this House has been taken up—and it is disappointing that it has—simply because the Minister responsible for this bill, as usual, did not get it right in the first place.

💬 Hon Murray McCully: He’s not even here.

He is not even here. He did not get it right in the first place. We have come to expect that from this Minister. If he had really been on the ball he would have realised that this was a critical issue that needed to be considered, and it should have been included in the original bill so that we would not have wasted half an hour in this House. Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.