Major Events Management Bill

The National Party is, of course, supporting this legislation. National members have been very happy to work with the Government and with other parties in the Commerce Committee to make sure that the Major Events Management Bill is tidy legislation, and legislation that reflects the balance that will be needed to make sure it works.

It is quite a significant step for New Zealand to move forward and think about our ability as a country to actually host major events, and the 2011 Rugby World Cup is, I understand, the third-largest sporting event in the world. So it is a great credit to the New Zealand Rugby Union and to those who work with the Rugby Union to secure that. But it means that we have to do it right, because if we do not do it right, other sporting organisations will not entrust similar responsibilities to New Zealand. That is what this bill is pretty much about. It sets up the right regulatory framework and puts in place the right sort of legislation so that, when the opportunity arises, we can bid for and secure these events, and do them well.

There is a high test on the definition of “major event”, and that is how it should be. There will be a temptation for various groups and organisations that are hosting events to want to elevate their event to the major event level. This bill—passed in its present form—should prevent that from happening. The test of what is a major event must be very high, because balanced against that are some definitions of restrictions on what individual New Zealanders and business interests can do when this Act is applied—so we want to get that right. A lot of the work in the select committee was centred on making sure that the balance was right.

When I considered the purpose of the bill, I reflected on some of the arguments that have been put up against the restriction on ambush marketing, and the suggestions that this sort of legislation is in actual fact anti-entrepreneurial. That is absolute nonsense, of course, and I ask members who have run that argument, and who decide this afternoon to run it again, to just reflect on something. That something is that we will not get events of the size of the 2011 Rugby World Cup in New Zealand if we are not prepared to put in place some protections for those who invest in the venture. In my mind, it is no different at all from the protections that we give to, for example, science or medical research companies that have the opportunity, having invested, sometimes, hundreds—

💬 Ron Mark: Ha, ha!

Well, the member for New Zealand First may think it is funny, but I suggest he reflect on what I am about to say. The incentive for companies to invest heavily in that sort of research lies in the opportunities they have to maximise the returns from the product once the research is completed, the product is tested, and the product goes on the market. That is how it should be, and investment in something like the Rugby World Cup needs to be seen in a similar context. Businesses are not going to make thoughtful, carefully thought-out decisions, in terms of putting up the millions of dollars that are required to underwrite events like this, if they are not going to have a fair opportunity to get a fair return from their investment.

So instead of talking about this bill being in some way anti-entrepreneurial, members need to see it in the wider context of the motivation for business to invest in a venture. Frankly, it does not really matter whether the venture is the 2011 Rugby World Cup, or one of the two or three other major events that New Zealand is hoping to host in the next 10 years or so.

It is rather strange to hear the National Party backing up the Government in this Chamber, and in this case supporting the force of the State being used to prevent businesses from operating, and to prevent competition. That is what this bill is all about. It is about the heavy hand of the State, and supporting it is hardly something I would expect from parties that claim they are in favour of the free market, free competition, and all the rest of it.

When one actually looks at the definitions in this part, one sees that in clause 3, “Purposes”, a purpose is to “obtain maximum benefits from the major event for New Zealanders;”. I do not see how it gets maximum benefit for New Zealanders to, say, prevent Air New Zealand from advertising 5 kilometres out along a clean transport route, as declared under this bill, because, say, Emirates Airline is the official sponsor of the 2011 Rugby World Cup—as Emirates Airline is the sponsor of the Rugby World Cup soon to take place in France. How does it help New Zealand businesses if we stop them from advertising 5 kilometres away from an event venue—be it Air New Zealand against Emirates Airline, or Lemon and Paeroa against Coca-Cola, which is the sponsor of the Rugby World Cup this year and maybe in 2011? I think that is a bit strange.

The clause further states, in subclause (2)(ca), that the legislation “prohibits activities that might compromise the smooth running of a major event, such as ticket scalping and pitch invasion;”. At first sight, I wonder how ticket scalping—whether or not we like it—affects the smooth running of an event. I understood that ticket scalping was the selling of tickets, and that is a bit different from what happens on a rugby field or in the stands. Again, the anti-competitive streak in the National Party and in Labour seems to be motivating that provision.

Of course we do not like people to make huge fortunes out of onselling tickets, but do we really want to put in a whole bureaucratic procedure to stop what is, effectively, a trade in second-hand goods? Any decent organiser of a major event will distribute the tickets quite widely, and some people may end up with one or two extra and may make a bit of a profit out of them, but is that really such a huge problem in society? With regard to the Rugby Sevens to be held in Wellington next year, the tickets go on sale next month. People can get them on the Internet, and there will be a lot of competition for tickets. I do not think anyone is going to end up with a huge number of tickets to onsell, so how will that affect the running of the event?

And how will inventing a whole new offence of pitch invasion help with the smooth running of the event? Disorderly behaviour is already an offence on the law books. So far, anyone who has disrupted a sporting event by running on the field has been charged with disorderly behaviour; we do not need that new offence in order to allow the smooth running of events. I think that this bill is completely unnecessary.

The bill also defines what a major event is. The previous speaker said it would have to meet a high test, but as I understand it, the event—and there is flexibility about this, in terms of the views of the Government of the day—has to have international visitors of some substance and have international advertising associated with it. That would apply to the Bledisloe Cup, and to a Super 14 final if it had a foreign team and a lot of Aussies coming across the Tasman, say. It would certainly apply to the Rugby Sevens, which comes up next year.

I turn to the definition in the bill of a clean transport route. Why do we need clean transport routes? That is the heavy hand of the State, and I will be moving a Supplementary Order Paper to remove that. I hope to get support for it from other parties. I know several other parties will be supporting the Greens on that, and I just hope that either Labour or National will, too.

I rise to speak to this Major Events Management Bill in the Committee stage, noting that we are talking about the purposes, the interpretation, the status of examples, and the fact that the Act binds the Crown, as set out in Part 1 of the bill. I wish to keep my comments to those matters.

This bill is quite straightforward in its aims and purposes. It states quite clearly that its purposes are to obtain the maximum benefit for New Zealanders from major events held in New Zealand, to prevent unauthorised commercial exploitation of major events through ambush marketing activity, and to ensure the smooth running of major events. I think the comments that we heard from the previous speaker, Keith Locke, absolutely underscore the purpose of this bill. In respect of the example of pitch invasion, yes, there has been a move from using laws around disorderly behaviour to using a particular offence of pitch invasion.

Notwithstanding the comments from Mr Mark in a previous reading of this bill about those of us who may have worn such activities as badges in our past, it is important when a country is running and hosting a major event of the nature that is defined in this bill that the purpose of it is maintained and the running of it is orderly. This is in order that the event may proceed, first of all, without damage to the event itself; secondly, without damage by ambush marketing to the integrity of the sponsorship that has allowed the event to be held in the first place; and, thirdly, without bringing our own reputation into international disrepute at events that are major international fixtures.

I think the purposes of this bill are admirable. I am pleased with the way the Commerce Committee members from across the parties have supported the purposes and the interpretations of this bill. There is one further comment I make. I may be wrong in this, but it seems to me that inserting examples into legislation is novel. I find it an extremely helpful practice. When we are talking about such things as ambush marketing by association or intrusion, it is extremely elucidating to be able to point to an illustration or example in the text of the legislation that makes it patently obvious what is intended by those terms. Although I consider the interpretations to be adequate in themselves, the fact that there are examples included within the body of this bill makes it eminently accessible. I think that is a very desirable trait, particularly as this Committee moves to try to introduce legislation in plain English. I commend the drafters and the Minister for the introduction of such examples into the text, because they make the bill very, very accessible.

This is legislation that will not only facilitate the running of events but, as it says in the purpose clause, facilitate the benefits for New Zealanders and, in fact, allow for some integrity to be maintained around commercial sponsorship and therefore increase the attractiveness to sponsors of events such as the Rugby World Cup. Thank you, Madam Chair.

I am very happy to make a contribution on the purpose part of the Major Events Management Bill. The speaker before me, Maryan Street, outlined what the purpose is, and I do not want to reiterate those words, but in essence the purpose is also to advance New Zealand’s wider interests by hosting events in areas where we are particularly prominent. The Rugby World Cup, of course, is one of those events, the Cricket World Cup will follow, and I am sure there will be other big international events that will be able to avail themselves of the provisions of this particular law and these particular arrangements for their events to be equally successful.

Anyone who looks at the effect that the Rugby World Cup can have on our economy, not only in the year or the month that the event is held but in the years leading up to it and the years subsequent to it, would agree that it is appropriate that we make arrangements to ensure the event’s success. It is interesting to note that much of New Zealand’s economy in the last couple of years has been somewhat insulated from the decline in the rest of the world’s tourism markets, and that this is apparently attributable to the success of the Lord of the Rings films. I do not doubt that that is a fact, and I congratulate all those people who were involved in those films. But it needs to be recognised that the number of people who will watch any one or all three of the Lord of the Rings trilogy pales into insignificance compared with the number of people who will watch one or more games during the Rugby World Cup.

I recall last year going to an office not too far from here where a large number of people had gathered to watch the Tour de France, the bike race that happens in France each year.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I’m surprised you got up that early, Gerry.

Actually, it was a replay. The Minister has said that he is surprised I got up as early as that. In fact, I was up as early as that; I work very long hours. In the small part of the day that I normally reserve for sleep I was watching a replay with a group of people who, interestingly, were not making comments about the race itself but were constantly commenting about the beautiful background and the scenery through which the race was happening. A similar thing will happen with the Rugby World Cup. More eyes will look at this country, more eyes will see what we are about, and more people will make a decision to come here and, effectively, bring their import dollars into this country. Given that we have such a big reliance—around 40 percent of our domestic economy—on tourism, it is an appropriate focus.

I want to pick up on a couple of remarks made by Keith Locke. The first thing is that things like the Rugby Sevens will not be affected by this bill, at all. The Rugby Sevens event is not a major event, and is unlikely to be declared so. It is a very major event for this part of the world, but it is not a nationwide event, and therefore would not be caught by this legislation. Secondly, I want to send a bit of a message in that regard to the organisers of the Rugby World Cup. It is pretty depressing for me, standing here today, supporting this bill and wanting it to be successful, to have read in my local newspaper that my city of Christchurch is unlikely to get to host a semi-final of the Rugby World Cup. I think that this is serious, because the promotion around this thing has been that 4 million fans—in other words, the whole country—are getting in behind this. It is unacceptable to simply say: “Well, you know, for the sake of 20,000 seats we are going to move the semi-finals and the final to Auckland.”

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: It’s logistics.

Do not give me the logistics argument. This is a small country. Auckland is an hour away from Christchurch by plane, and I am sure it not too hard to organise that. Given that Christchurch is the largest centre in the South Island, the reality is that the stadium could easily have been filled by locals anyway. So some of the thinking there needs to change if people expect this event to still be considered New Zealand’s Rugby World Cup rather than Auckland’s Rugby World Cup. So there is a small message there.

Around the issue of pitch invasion, Mr Locke appeared to make the case that this should be perfectly acceptable. I recall Mr Locke walking down Queen Street in his underwear, and I would hate to see him repeat that sort of activity at any one of the Rugby World Cup games, because that would be the wrong image for New Zealand. Similarly, having the pitch invaded by anyone creates a poor impression of this country. We had a very interesting submission at the Commerce Committee from a young woman called Lisa Lewis. She was a very intelligent young woman, and she advanced the view that we should enable some form of pitch invasion. She went on to say that Wikipedia attributes the invention of the art of bikini streaking to her; therefore, it is a New Zealand first—no pun on the party, of course, I say to Mr Mark, but a bit of that may help with the votes. She was saying that this sort of thing should be allowed.

But as the conversation progressed it became evident that what she was really saying was that at the start of a match, the conclusion of a match, and half-time there needed to be some form of entertainment, and that maybe this form of entertainment could be considered. Under this provision, if the event organisers chose to have those sorts of promotions, that would be their prerogative, provided that whatever they were doing was within the law and was, I suppose, tastefully presented, if I could put it that way. The reality is that all these games these days have pre-match entertainment, they have entertainment at half-time, and I suspect that they will have something at the conclusion of these games, as well. Pitch invasion, though, is the opportunity for people to impinge on the activity that other people have paid a lot of money to see. No one has a right to do that. We should just simply codify that so the whole world knows where we stand on that particular issue.

When it comes to clean transport zones, I think there is a whole lot of misunderstanding about what is actually meant. Essentially, they are about trying to protect the interests of sponsors, who put up a lot of money to make these events fly in the first place. I do not think it is appropriate that people should be able to engage in ambush marketing activities that, effectively, see them get the credit for the sponsorship. At the select committee we were given a very good example of how this works. The example involved Germany, where the football world cup was played. The major sponsor for that event was an airline. It put up a very, very significant amount of money to make it work. It tied up its own promotion around the event. But a competing airline carried out the simple exercise of putting on its aeroplanes a decoration that conveyed the clear message that it was the sponsor of that event.

At the conclusion of the event a large number of people who had participated as spectators or otherwise were of the view that the competing airline had been the main sponsor. So the poor old airline that had put all the money in and made the event happen was robbed of some of the benefit. I think we have to be realistic about this. It really did fascinate us to see the breadth of creativity that people can engage in in order to ambush the marketing around one of these events.

So in response to Mr Locke, I say we need to be very relaxed about the provisions in this bill. They are not about destroying business in this country. This entire bill is about giving business in this country an enormous opportunity to grow its activities and to do so for the benefit of the whole country. I am sure that at some stage the Minister will want to share with the Committee the value that New Zealand got out of the recent yachting event at Seville. Was it Seville?

💬 Jill Pettis: Valencia.

Well, I knew it was the name of an orange, so I was halfway there. The America’s Cup was very successful for New Zealand businesses. They were able to spin off the back of that. We should not be frightened about the Government actually backing New Zealand. In many ways, anyone who argues against this bill argues against that premise.

This is a good bill. I think the Committee will make very few changes to it, because of the way in which it was dealt with by the Commerce Committee. The committee dealt with the bill on a very, very positive basis in order to try to get a bill that was fair to all those who were likely to be affected, and to ensure that when it was put in place there would not be too much of a need to go back second-guessing.

I conclude by saying that at some point New Zealand might want to consider whether some of our very good local events, like the Rugby Sevens, should come under these provisions or provisions like them. Perhaps there could be a lesser test. Perhaps it is something that might be devolved to local authorities. Good evidence was put in front of us that there is some need for this, particularly around the issue of scalping.

I will take just a short call. I want to make it very, very clear that New Zealand First supports this legislation. We have spoken on this bill, and although we have noted with interest the rather curious situation we see unfolding in front of us here as we reflect on the past and on the history of this nation, we support the legislation. We told the Minister, Trevor Mallard, that quite some time ago. He has our absolute and whole support.

We believe that the arguments Mr Brownlee has just concluded making are all valid, but it would be remiss of this Committee not to pass comment on some rather curious developments, would it not? To not pass those comments would leave the people of the mind that we had totally ignored history and ignored reality, and that we were not considering in full what we were doing—and we have. I ask the Committee to consider this. Let us take Mr Brownlee’s last comment about what we may consider as major events in the future. His suggestion that the Rugby Sevens could be classed a major event is, I think, a very valid sort of observation to make at this point in time. It might well be that should there be a grand soccer match—just one game—there could be an argument that that could be a major event. Let us suppose, for example, that New Zealand was to meet England in a match to be played here in Wellington at the Westpac Stadium. There could be an argument, given the huge popularity and the huge viewing audience internationally, that that one game could be considered a major event.

Imagine an event, such as the Rugby Sevens or even the Rugby World Cup, where Zimbabwe entered a team. What might be the reaction amongst normal New Zealanders? It might well be that a bunch of former Zimbabwean citizens, now New Zealand citizens, might decide to protest and picket that match because of their hatred and loathing of the dictatorship led by Robert Mugabe. What this legislation brings to mind is that any pitch invasion of a Zimbabwe versus New Zealand game would be breaking the law.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: As it is now.

That is what we are saying. Right now that is illegal, and we are seeking to close the loophole so it is absolutely possible to control that, contain that, and deal with it.

Some of us would say it is a good thing that those people should not be allowed to disrupt a match or to impinge on people’s rights to freely associate with whom they wish, and that their rights to protest should be constrained, contained and protected as much as other people’s rights to associate with other rugby teams and other rugby playing nations. In fact, Judge Thurgood Marshall, the pre-eminent black American who became the most senior member of the judiciary in the United States, and who was widely regarded as a leader and a campaigner for civil liberties and for the rights of black Americans, argued that when he dealt with the case involving those who protested against the Springbok American tour in 1981 and wanted it stopped. He made sure that the rights of those who protested were looked after. They could protest near the venue but not in the venue. He made sure that the rights of those players to play whomever they wanted to play were not interrupted. No one was permitted to invade those pitches, as he had seen, from the television footage, had happened here in New Zealand in the months prior to the Springboks tour of the United States. Of course, the Eagles got hammered, but the games were played.

I think that is the fundamental thing we need to recognise. Everybody has their rights—the right to associate and the right to express a contrary opinion. It is a question of striking that balance through the middle, to ensure that nobody’s rights are impinged on and that everybody is given the opportunity to do what they should be entitled to do but without adversely impacting on others. I think that is what New Zealand First likes about this legislation. We seek to protect the interests of both. The people who wish to protest can do so, but not on the pitch, not at the expense of people who have bought tickets and paid good money to go to see those games, and not at the expense of the investors who are bringing the event to this nation. That is why we support the legislation.

But we notice the delicious irony when one looks at these things as they have been presented right now. Mr Mallard, the Minister, I know on many occasions has told the nation that he was one of the protesters during 1981. I actually recall that time as being quite a difficult time, because our family was split right through the middle between those of us who just wanted to watch the two best rugby playing nations in the world compete, and those who wanted to stand and champion the cause against apartheid. Obviously some of us still feel to this day that the fact that matches were not played was a direct impingement on our right to see those matches played.

“Innovative” and “insightful” would be epithets that can appropriately be applied to the workings of the Commerce Committee under the skilled chairmanship of Mr Brownlee. I can illustrate that in a number of ways, but let me just content myself with one illustration—it reflects badly on the Minister and that is why I have chosen it—and that is the use in this Major Events Management Bill of examples. I completely agree with what an earlier speaker has said: that it is wholly consistent with the new drafting style that this Parliament has adopted to use examples and diagrams. We have done it in tax legislation in the past. Here we see through this legislation examples of examples. It should be noted, in dealing with this particular part, that the status of examples is made clear in clause 4A. An example, it is said, is only illustrative of the provisions to which it relates. It does not limit those provisions. If there is an example and an inconsistent provision, then it is the provision that prevails.

The background to this legislation is reasonably simple. It is a matter of history that, in association with New Zealand’s bids to host the 2011 Rugby World Cup and co-host the 2015 Cricket World Cup, the Government has given assurances to the International Rugby Board and the International Cricket Council that certain protections will be put in place for those fixtures. Those protections include ambush marketing protections. More events, of course, are contemplated. New Zealand is to host the World Rowing Championships in 2010, and my understanding is that we will host the Under-17 Women’s Football World Cup in 2008.

In Part 1 of the bill—which, as others have commented, contains preliminary provisions including purpose provisions—there are a raft of definitions in clause 4, “Interpretation”. I just pick up on a couple of those definitions for the purpose of developing an argument around ambush marketing. There are definitions of “clean period”, “clean transport route”, and “clean zone”. A very substantial part of this legislation is around the concept of ambush marketing. It is quite a sophisticated phrase and quite a sophisticated concept that describes the actions of companies or advertisers who seek to associate themselves with major events, or to draw a connection in the public’s mind between themselves and major events, without the authorisation of the event organisers.

There are a number of things that ambush marketers do. The types of things would range from arranging aerial advertising over a major event venue immediately before the event or during the event, so as to suggest sponsorship or association, to the placement of billboards displaying the ambush marketer’s name near the venue—or, if there are several venues, near the venues—or on key routes to the venue. Within the realm of ambush marketing there are other issues, such as the unauthorised sale of goods or services at the event. There are issues associated with the registration and the exploitation of domain names. The aspect of scalping is also within ambush marketing. Scalping is the unauthorised on-sale of tickets—and I know we will look at it in some detail when we get to Part 2—but it is also all about the circumstance where tickets are packaged with travel and hospitality offerings. The subtlety of ambush marketing extends to the circumstance of giving away free merchandise such as caps or T-shirts bearing the advertiser’s logo, with the aim that large groups of spectators will wear that gear and the television cameras will pan on to them or perhaps still photographs will be taken that hint at that association.

There are—and this is picked up in the legislation and starts in this particular part—two main varieties of ambush marketing currently recognised in the context of major international events. I will return to that issue later.

I think Ron Mark was right to bring in the honourable tradition of political protest in New Zealand sometimes involving a presence on sports fields. He mentioned the possible situation of people protesting the situation in Zimbabwe, and we had the 1981 anti - Springbok tour demonstrations. Generally, the people taking part in this civil disobedience, as it were, do not expect not to be prosecuted; no one is saying that. But one does not need to put in a whole big penalty on it. Up to date it has fallen under the offence of disorderly behaviour. Sure, disorderly behaviour has a maximum penalty of 3 months in jail, but there has never been any thought by judges of imposing a prison sentence on streakers or people involved in this activity.

What happened to the political protestors was that they actually got a lower penalty in the courts in 1981, or more recently in Britain they have completely got off for their civil disobedience around the Trident programme. The judges said: “Well, because you were well motivated and you weren’t doing it for selfish reasons, we’ll reduce the penalty.” That is effectively what has happened. But this bill is going totally in the opposite direction, and saying that this is such a bad offence that we have to get beyond just a small fine under the heading of disorderly behaviour, and put in a whole new offence with a maximum penalty of 3 months in prison, and get all hot and bothered about it. That is completely the wrong way to go.

I reject what Gerry Brownlee says, that somehow I am encouraging pitch invasions. That is not the case at all. But let us face it—if someone does a little streak on a field, that may not disrupt the game more than the average injury stoppage. Historically, a lot of the time, streakers have been a welcome extra element for many spectators. I am not encouraging streakers, but I am just saying that we do not need to think that we, the Parliament, have to bring in a whole new offence to get around a problem that really does not exist.

Gerry Brownlee went on to say we were encouraging New Zealand business. In fact, if members look at the sponsors of the Rugby World Cup in France this year, I do not think they will see any French firms amongst the major sponsors—there may be sponsors, but the major sponsors are not French. I do not expect that a single New Zealand firm will be a major sponsor in 2011 at the Rugby World Cup. The sponsors will be the same as at the present time—McDonald’s and Coca-Cola, etc., who are the sponsors at the Rugby World Cup in France. New Zealand businesses will be out of the picture, and this law will be used against them if they advertise even several kilometres from the venue.

In terms of the definition of a major event, I think under the definition here it could apply to a number of events in addition to the 2011 Rugby World Cup, because one needs, in terms of the definition as printed, a large number of international participants or spectators, therefore generating significant tourism opportunities.

We could interpret that as a Bledisloe Cup match, or possibly a Waratahs versus Auckland Sevens final, or the International Sevens, if it gets the tourist traffic that the Hong Kong Sevens gets. That could apply to those events. They attract significant sponsorship and media coverage. I think that would already apply to a number of the events I have mentioned, and it would raise New Zealand’s international profile. It could apply to a number of events, including the Rugby Sevens. Most of the action is actually in the stands, at the Rugby Sevens. There is good action on the field too, but it is quite conceivable that, come early next year, the odd dressed-up spectator will wander on to the field. That could happen in future similar tournaments, including the Rugby World Cup. But I would ask why we really want to jump all over such people with a heavier penalty. Do we not have better things to do?

Sure, The Lord of the Rings attracted a lot of international attention to New Zealand, but the difference between that and the Rugby World Cup is not just the number of people who might watch the TV feed of the Rugby World Cup—and I agree with Gerry Brownlee that it may be greater than the number of people who watched The Lord of the Rings—but is also that The Lord of the Rings did not impinge on the human rights of New Zealanders. This bill does.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 138 in the name of Keith Locke to clause 4, to omit and substitute words, be agreed to.