Major Events Management Bill

I appreciate having the opportunity to speak also to Part 2, and I just note with a little irony that most of what the representatives of the Green Party and New Zealand First have been talking about is probably more relevant to Part 2 than it was to Part 1.

I will take the opportunity to share with Mr Mark his love of American history. Twice in this debate he has mentioned Justice Thurgood Marshall. I think that if he checks his history, he will find that Justice Marshall, although appointed to the Supreme Court by Lyndon Johnson in, I think, 1965, never actually reached the top echelons of the Supreme Court. He was simply an associate and never a Chief Justice. It pays to get one’s history right.

Previous speakers have traversed a range of views and interpretations of this legislation, and I wonder what those very fine people at the New Zealand Rugby Union and their business interests must be thinking. Here we are, with a fair degree of unanimity in the Committee, debating very, very important legislation that will lay out the environment for New Zealand to host the Rugby World Cup 2011 very, very well. It is important we do it well, because this sort of activity will be more and more important to our future, not only in hosting the event itself and getting that right but also in enjoying the downstream advantages that come from that, with New Zealand being seen as a destination for doing business, tourism, and that sort of thing. Yet here members are finding themselves almost degenerating into irrelevancies about the way that people might conduct themselves.

I want to make one thing very clear to the Committee: New Zealanders are sick and tired of having their enjoyment of major events spoilt by one or two self-important, indulgent people who think that making an exhibition of themselves is far more important than the game that is under way. I think that many New Zealanders feel a sense of embarrassment that when we are on the world stage, and when so many people are working so hard to make the event go off well, attention is distracted by some clowns who seem to think they are free to make fools of themselves and forget the consequences.

💬 Hon Member: They’re normally drunk.

They are normally drunk. We do not want that; New Zealand wants to move forward beyond that. New Zealand wants to see itself now as a serious destination for world-class major events. A lot of things go with that, and part of it is ensuring that the standard of behaviour in the crowd is up to scratch.

I also want to put on record my very, very strong support for the anti-scalping provisions. Already now in New Zealand when big major sports events are held, it is too hard for ordinary New Zealanders—the men and women who are out on the paddock on a Saturday, coaching children—to get tickets to the big events. As I said, I think, in speaking to the introduction—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: No trouble getting tickets for North Harbour.

Well, as I have said a couple of times before in this debate, I am the principal who hired a hospitality box at North Harbour Stadium, so that teachers, the people who were fronting up week after week, had an opportunity to experience what people who were often making no positive contribution to sport at all were experiencing week after week. I note the irony that the Minister behind this bill had some strong views on my actions at that time. Hopefully, with a little time having passed, he might have reflected on that matter.

It is really important that we protect—

💬 Ron Mark: Who used it the most?

Well, the music teachers actually had it the day we got caught, I say to Mr Mark, but that is another story.

It is not right that ordinary New Zealanders who front up on Saturday after Saturday, on a Thursday night, or whenever it is, to coach teams, to play in teams, or to support teams do not have a fair crack, at a reasonable price, at seeing the really big games. The reality is, of course, that there will always be a limited number of tickets when a ground is going to be sold out, and I accept that and fully understand it. But I am anxious to ensure that ordinary New Zealanders who have a love of sport get a fair crack.

The last comment I want to make at this stage, in speaking to Part 2, is just to reinforce the importance of the high test being put in place in terms of the declaration of a major event. If the Committee takes a moment to look at that test, it will become apparent just how important this legislation is to us and just how important these major events are. There has to be significant international participation and a significant number of international spectators. I am bound to say that although I saw the Minister shake his head, I find it very hard to see the New Zealand soccer team playing England or our team as being in that category. Perhaps if Manchester United were to play England in New Zealand it might be a different matter. The event has significantly—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: Part of a tour. Comes from Australia—you know, 30,000 Poms watching. That would be a major event.

Ha, ha; yes, they will be mostly Poms. The event must significantly raise New Zealand’s international profile and, associated with it, have an appropriate level of professional management and professional coordination. It must attract significant sponsorship and international media coverage. That is probably the significant test: is the event that is to be held in New Zealand big enough to attract international media coverage and international sponsorship? It is a pretty rigorous test. There also have to be substantial sporting, cultural, social, economic, or other benefits to New Zealand and to New Zealanders.

Really, this bill marks the movement into a new era of events being hosted by New Zealand. This is not the Rugby World Cup of 1987, however much those of us who experienced that look back at it with huge pleasure and satisfaction. We are not talking about an equivalent event any longer; we are talking about what I understand to be the third most significant sporting event in the world—the third. It is huge. Its possibilities for New Zealand are huge. It is vital that we get it right, and it is good to see that the two major parties are able to come together, work together through the select committee process, and put in place the framework that will ensure we get it right.

Kia ora, Madam Chairperson. It is a pleasure to stand to take a brief call on this Major Events Management Bill. During the course of our Commerce Committee proceedings it was good to have a great deal of support and input from the majority Opposition party. There are a few concerns, which our friend from the Green Party referred to, but they will pass as relatively trivial matters in the greater scheme of things.

I make this small contribution on the eve of a departure for great athletic responsibilities, following in the footsteps of the Minister in the chair, the Hon Trevor Mallard, and I look across the Chamber with some sadness that I will not be joined by the heavyweight of the Opposition front bench, Mr Brownlee. Unfortunately, the pugnacious Mr Foss is wandering around spraying apples in Hawke’s Bay. However, other matters require my attention. There is a famous Māori saying in the world of the Ngāpuhi: “The first punch that’s landed had better knock out the opposition, because utu has a very, very strong kickback.”

The legislation, in my view, improves our credentials. The declaration of a major event enables us, and especially the Minister and the Government, to promote our credentials in terms of New Zealand being a safe and secure environment for investors, advertisers, and promoters who will come here knowing that the significant amounts of money they are going to sink into the event will not be frittered away either by weak law or by the inability of the judiciary to arrive at the right decision because of vagueness in the law.

In terms of declaring a major event, and also ensuring that people put their money on the line, those people look with a great deal of anxiety not only at the Minister but also at the relevant ministry to ensure that their proposals and their applications are adequately appraised. I agree with Mr Peachey—a man whom, prior to meeting him, I had formed quite a favourable view of in relation to his contribution to education at Rangitoto College—when he said that lots of families struggle to find the opportunity to see these events at an affordable level. However, these sorts of events will engender a greater level of enthusiasm and may actually shake loose from the corporate world more sponsorship to assist those less fortunate New Zealanders to get their tamariki, their kids, into sport.

This particular event relates to rugby, but there are other events. Unfortunately, the forces of nature and the politics of yachting conspired against us, and the Minister was unable to bring Grant Dalton and other mariners home so we could stage that particular event. However, this event, given that it is focused on rugby—which is very close to a national religion—will have a positive impact on our families and on our young people. I know there are those who might say that rugby eclipses arts, culture, and various other pursuits, but the reality is that it is a major money earner and a major source of attraction for people wanting to come to our country. So why not pass this bill without a great deal of procrastination and put it on to the face of the law, to ensure that our friends in Australia, despite their best efforts to hobble us in recent times, will actually look at us a bit more admiringly come 2011?

Ought this bill give the proposed level of protection to intellectual property or other legal rights? Of course it should. People are not going to invest considerable amounts of money in events, in symbols, or in signs unless they are confident they will get a return on their investment. And, yes, there is now a fusion between commerce and sport, so they have every right to expect that in our country the rule of contract will be observed and that the judiciary will deliver a speedy result in the event of fly-by-nighters and rorters trying to undermine the rights of investors when we host this highly successful event. All going well, our major team, our national All Black team, will emulate the feat that I am sure the parliamentary team will achieve—that is, success.

Before making a recommendation, the Minister for Economic Development must take into account a number of issues. Is it likely that a large number of international participants and spectators will be attracted? That goes without being said, because our greatest brand in the area of sport and recreation is undisputedly the brand of our All Blacks. All around the world young people have been encouraged to identify heroes and icons in the sporting area, and this is an area in which all New Zealanders can take pride. The members of our team will be an additional attraction—something like a cultural rainbow, in the sense that they represent the major groupings that occupy the fields in our urban and provincial areas. They are the tangata whenua, our friends from the Pacific, and the hearty descendants of the original colonists, otherwise known as Pākehās.

Will this event generate significant tourism opportunities beyond cavil? Of course it will. Tourism continues to provide an ongoing source of overseas revenue. That is good, because it enables us to broaden the base of our GDP, and to broaden the base of our international earnings, so we do not rely on just our traded commodities from the pastoral sector and leave everything to the whims of the traders of the dollar.

Is the event likely to boost our international profile? Well, we pride ourselves on punching above our weight. We enjoy seeing our young men and women don our uniforms and represent our country’s interests in relation to international obligations in areas such as the Sinai peninsula and throughout the Pacific. This is another way in which our international profile can be both maintained and extended. Of course, it has ongoing spin-offs for younger people, and we should think about that in this House because not every young person is going to listen to a parliamentarian telling them to go to university or polytech, especially those who are endowed with physical prowess. This provides them with an opportunity to enter networks whereby they can go overseas, to Europe and other places, earn a living, and actually broaden their own life experience by applying their skills on the sports field, and in particular on the rugby field. All of these can be spin-offs of this successful event. But the event will not be successful if the people putting their dough on the line are not confident they will be able to get a return or protect their investment—Economics 101.

Will this event require a high level of professional management and coordination? That is without doubt. We had a host of people from the Rugby Union come and address us—indeed, if my memory serves me correctly, we had an English lawyer arrive who came, if not from the Rugby World Cup company, then certainly from the International Rugby Board. He gave us a clear sense of confidence that our own rugby administrative infrastructure is up to the task. However, the levers of the State had to be applied in a reasonable manner to ensure that the administration could go and provide ongoing confidence to the people who have the rights to the Rugby World Cup.

Is the event likely to attract sponsorship and international media coverage? That is also without a doubt. The media will be in New Zealand in their droves, and the fact that they are here means they will go to places beyond the rugby field. That is good for the provinces, and that is good for all the shades and colours of New Zealand, because we need at all times to boost the desirability of our country and to ensure that the attractiveness of not only our nature but also our people and our landscape eclipses some of the blighted commentary that comes our way over internal problems to do with whānau violence, etc. Let us accentuate the positive.

Will the event attract large numbers of Kiwis as participants or spectators? Well, I have already said, without offending the bishop that Mr Barnett took to a strip club, that rugby is akin to New Zealand’s religion. So I have no doubt that people will flock from the Bluff—from the tail of the fish—and that some will even come from Magpie country, and they will be great participants and spectators. But as my fellow parliamentarian the former principal of Rangitoto College said, unfortunately not enough of them will have an opportunity to actually grace the stands. But I look forward to our Rugby Union being able to come up with some sort of innovative proposition to enable more of our young people to go and watch Piri Weepu, who hopefully will not have abandoned Aotearoa for rugby league in distant climes, grace the field in the place where he ought to be at the moment—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: Come on, Wainuiōmata.

Yes, OK, I accept that the Minister, as the “member for Wainuiōmata”, had a large degree of input into Piri’s—no, I will not say form—development. Thank you very much.

I do not think that anyone in this Chamber wants the Rugby World Cup and major events like that not to be very successful. But the Green Party viewpoint is that this over-the-top, heavy-handed legislation will not help us to have successful international events like the Rugby World Cup. In fact, it will put off New Zealanders if this Parliament seems to be just dancing to the tune of the big multinationals that are sponsoring events like this. In France that is Heineken, Coca-Cola, McDonald’s, and, I think, Adidas. Are we serving them or are we serving the New Zealand people? It is true, and I take what Allan Peachey says, that we want to be true to those who go along, play sport, and coach sport—the ordinary people—but I do not think that this legislation will help. This is not the Kiwi way.

In relation to what the member said about ticket scalping, I agree that the requirement is for a proper distribution of tickets. I think that it is the case, pretty much, that tickets will go out through rugby clubs, through the Internet, and through various ways. That spreads the tickets out. If people get sick, want to onsell tickets, or get one or two extra tickets, then why should we abandon the normal procedure of having a second-hand market and come down with the heavy hand of the State? The San Francisco Giants, a baseball team in the United States, accepts that there will be a second-hand market and that there will be onselling, so it provides a whole Internet site for that to happen under its own auspices. It is just so strange that we have parties in this Parliament trying to clamp down on a second-hand market.

I have two lots of amendments to Part 2 on my Supplementary Order Paper 138. Most of them are related to the clean transport route, and the theme of one of the amendments is to knock out the provision for a clean transport route up to 5 kilometres from a stadium. I think that that is one of the most silly, over-the-top bits of the legislation—that somehow some New Zealand firms cannot advertise 5 kilometres out. That area would cover virtually the whole of Wellington, down the routes that would be defined. The distance is a long way out from, say, the Westpac Stadium, or whatever, and a long way out from Eden Park in the case of Auckland. So I would ask members to support my amendments, in order to knock out the reference to clean transport routes in the bill.

The other amendment is to knock out the provision about the new offence of pitch invasion. As I explained previously, there is no need for that. Any people wandering on to pitches for whatever reason they may have are covered already by offences listed in the Summary Offences Act or the Crimes Act—that is, by provisions about disorderly behaviour. Do we really need to get so hot and bothered as to bring in a new offence for that?

But I take the point, and in some ways Shane Jones is quite correct, that rugby needs all the support it can get at the present time. I went along to a league game a couple of weekends ago, and the Warriors actually had more people along at that game then there were people at the Auckland-Waikato game. So I think that rugby is in a bit of trouble, but I do not think that this bill will help. Piri Weepu may well go to league if those spectator figures continue.

It is just stupid and impractical to try to control ticket scalping in the way that this bill proposes. If people have spare tickets, then they will rustle around and find someone to buy them if it is a big international event, and they will generally sell them for more than the cover price.

At the Commerce Committee representatives of TradeMe came along and said: “Look, this is going to be a bit hard for us to work out how to stop this. We will do our best, of course, as we do to implement any law that Parliament passes.” But that company and others have pointed out that people can go on to eBay or somewhere else and still make ticket transactions. We cannot suppress a free market in second-hand goods just by passing a law, and no argument has been raised in this Parliament as to why we should do that.

It is in Part 2 that the substance of this Committee debate is to be found, and as Madam Chairperson herself commented when she started the debate on this part, there are five subparts. I just observe that it is a legislative drafting strategy sometimes to seek to constrain Committee debate by including a number of subparts in a particular part. Certainly, the issues in this part are discrete issues in themselves, and could well have been the subject of separate parts. Why do I say that? Because the subparts are about declarations of major events, they are about ambush marketing by association protections, they are about ambush marketing by intrusion protections, they are about ticket-scalping protections, and they are about pitch invasions. They are all discrete topics in themselves, and I hope there is an opportunity to contribute separately to at least some of those separate issues.

I want to pick up an issue that has been referred to only fleetingly in this ambush-marketing concept, which finds its place in Subparts 2 and 3, and to make some short observations in the time available. Two main varieties of ambush marketing are currently recognised in the context of major international events. The first is ambush marketing by association, and we have a subpart on that. It involves an advertiser misleading the public into thinking that the ambush marketer is an authorised partner or is somehow associated with the event. Often the association can be quite subtle. The other type of ambush marketing is ambush marketing by intrusion. Mr Locke has made some comment on that. I judge it not to be informed comment, but he has commented on it. Ambush marketing by intrusion occurs when an event is used to provide the ambush marketer’s brand with exposure or publicity to which it is not entitled, by intruding on the attention of the audience gathered for the event. In such instances there may be no claim of association with the event, but it is a commercial reality, as Mr Jones has said, that sponsors make huge financial commitments, and both types of ambush marketing focus on commercial activity that free rides on the publicity surrounding a major event.

So, what is the consequence? The value of the official sponsorship is undermined, and that has an impact on the viability of obtaining sponsorship for events in the future. That is why this argument is so critical, and it is why I would very much like the Green Party to understand the importance of this legislation. Ambush marketing can affect the financial viability of major events, the building of event brands, and goodwill for the future. It can also affect the ability of event organisers to fulfil contractual obligations to sponsors. That is why it is, and I explained this in my first call, that many major sponsors now insist that there be protection against ambush marketing before they will commit to sponsorship contracts for major events.

I say to Mr Locke that there is nothing new in this legislation, because legislation containing ambush-marketing protections has been introduced in a large number of overseas jurisdictions—for example, in Australia for the 2000 Olympic Games, the 2006 Commonwealth Games in Melbourne, and the Australian Formula One Grand Prix. Those are Australian examples. Other examples are in the UK for the 2012 London Olympic Games; in China for the 2008 Beijing Olympic Games; in South Africa for the 2010 FIFA World Cup; and in the nine nations of the West Indies for the 2007 Cricket World Cup. I urge Mr Locke to contemplate whether he should consider withdrawing the amendments he apparently seeks to advance at this stage.

Finally in this call, I would like to say something about ambush marketing by intrusion, in the context of what has already been briefly adverted to, and it is that in connection with clean zones, the Minister for Economic Development may declare tightly geographically limited clean zones consisting of the venue and the area directly approximate to the venue. The clean zones cannot include private land, with one exception. In essence, the clean zones represent those areas where spectators will be gathered solely for the purpose of attending or gaining access to the major event.

I also wish to comment on a provision in the bill that relates to clean transport routes during a defined clean period. The Minister may declare motorways, State highways, and railway lines within 5 kilometres of a clean zone, and the areas directly approximate, to be clean transport routes. Quite clearly, some submitters to the Commerce Committee wished that this legislation went further. Other submitters wished us to draw back. All of that material was the subject of evidence and evaluation by the Commerce Committee. We have had to strike a balance. We believe that the balance we have struck in respect of clean zones, clean transport routes, and matters of that nature is a balance that has been appropriately struck in the context of the arguments we heard.

No argument has yet been raised to justify the anti-scalping provision in this bill. I ask Parliament to think about the precedent that it sets. Essentially, it sets a precedent that the State can control second-hand markets, and that it can control people who are making a profit in a second-hand market. Why do we need to go down that track? I ask someone in this Chamber to explain whether there is such a huge problem with the distribution of tickets by the organisers of sporting events that, say, 1,000 tickets end up in the hands of one person, and that person makes a huge profit out of them. If that is the case, surely the organisers would improve the distribution of tickets the next time around. There is no problem that really needs to be addressed here.

The Commerce Committee added a provision, which is the heavy-handed thing that Richard Worth talked about. The select committee was worried that at the edge of the clean zones, someone may stand on private property and trade a few items from a competing provider—that is, a provider who is competing with the goods of an official sponsor may trade off his or her own front lawn—and said that a provision needed to be brought in to control that. Why do we need to get as heavy-handed as that? Why can the major event organisers not just control things in their own stadium? They are quite entitled to do that. Why do we need this legislation? Why do we have to have a 5 kilometre clean transport route?

Emirates Airline, which is an official sponsor of the Rugby World Cup in France, is of course backed by the same people who are trying to take over Auckland International Airport, our key transport hub. The same outfit that is behind Emirates Airline is behind the Dubai firm that is trying to take over our international airport. If Emirates Airline sponsors the Rugby World Cup again in 2011, do we really want Air New Zealand to pay a fine of $150,000 if it happens to have a sign 4.5 kilometres out from Eden Park, along the declared clean transport route? Why do we need to go down that track? New Zealanders will think it is stupid. In fact, the Kiwi spirit is that if we are ordered around, we come back in a satirical way. So all kinds of people, in their Tui T-shirts or whatever else they may be wearing, will try to stick it up the bureaucrats. This Parliament is giving powers to those bureaucrats to jump on the rights of people to do what they want.

I do not think the argument for that measure has been made. Someone is just saying that because the big overseas advertisers say we must do this, therefore we must. It was not a requirement in order to get the right to host the Rugby World Cup. When we got that right, nothing came to this Parliament to say that if we got that right, we would have to pass this legislation. It was only a year later that we were told we needed to do this. Obviously, some of the big advertisers tapped someone on the shoulder and said we had to do this, or our future might be in doubt. I do not think we want to bow down to those advertisers in that way.

The bill contains a number of onerous provisions. As I said, there is the anti-scalping provision. I do not have a particular amendment on that, but I think we should be against that provision. I do have two specific sets of amendments on Supplementary Order Paper 138 in my name. One is to knock out the clean transport routes, and the other one is to knock out pitch invasion. Again, no one has really answered me as to why we need to have a whole new offence for pitch invasion and why it could not be handled, as it has been in the past, by imprisonment under the disorderly behaviour offence. It is very bad lawmaking to bring a whole new offence, when it is unnecessary. Exactly the same behaviour can be caught under an existing offence with, in practice, the application of a lower penalty. Sure, both the offences of pitch invasion and of disorderly behaviour have a maximum penalty of a 3-month prison sentence. But when one looks back through the cases at the application of prison sentences for disorderly behaviour, one sees that what was behind the crime was often very serious and involved provoking violence or being involved in violence or another crime. Simply wandering on to a football field is not covered, and it has never been even thought of as being covered, by the disorderly behaviour offence.

I will take up the challenge that Mr Locke has thrown down and explain why the Commerce Committee was influenced to include the anti-scalping provisions. I do not think that his argument gains any greater merit just by being repeated, as he has done on three occasions now. We are talking about Subpart 4 of Part 2, and it is entitled “Ticket-scalping protections”. Clause 24(1) states: “No person may, without the authorisation of the major event organiser, sell or trade a ticket to a major event activity for a value greater than the original sale price of that ticket.” There is an offence-creating provision in the next clause, which Mr Locke has already referred to.

I would just say this. The bill has a number of purposes. The two that are most relevant in the context of the anti-scalping argument relate to the provision for declared events—that is, major events—to “obtain the maximum benefit from the major event for New Zealanders;” and to “prevent unauthorised commercial exploitation” of events “at the expense of either a major event organiser or a major event sponsor;”. If one looks at what has gone on overseas, one will see some really egregious examples of cases where scalping has actively worked against the interests of consumers—and the bill aims to deal with that.

I will give the Committee an example of that. Probably one of the worst examples was in 2004 at the Glastonbury Festival in the UK. It was a case where tickets were initially offered for sale online and were sold out within the first few hours of availability. However, afterwards large numbers of tickets started to appear on eBay and other online market places. Not only were professional ticket sellers involved but many ordinary concert-goers had apparently purchased twice the number of tickets that they required and then sold the unused tickets at double the original price, thus effectively getting their own tickets for free and further clouding the already fine line between ticket reseller and concert-goer.

Ticket scalping—as Mr Locke may know—is very much a business in a number of overseas jurisdictions. We actually use the word “scalper” in this legislation, which is an American English term. In the UK such people are generally called touts. But there are also established companies called ticket brokers in the business of reselling tickets. If one looks around the world, one finds a lot of literature on criticisms relating to reselling. It is the case that individuals who genuinely wish to attend a popular event may find themselves unable to get tickets, as they have already been sold to ticket resellers in the way that I have just described. That means, of course, that ticket resellers can sell the tickets at market value with no effective loss, because they had no intention of attending the event in the first place. Although one can say—and I am surprised that Mr Locke would espouse this view—that the practice of reselling tickets may be defended on free market principles, most countries have actually outlawed the unauthorised resale of tickets, usually with the exception of situations where the reseller does not profit from the transaction.

That is what we have endeavoured to do in this legislation. I think, if we are to go into the area of anti-scalping protections, that the way that the committee has set the balance is the way that best meets the interests of New Zealand consumers. I do not believe it is appropriate that one should look at the opportunity to purchase tickets for major events as a way for the ticket purchaser to secure gain. That is not what it is about; it is about providing an opportunity for as many New Zealanders as possible to attend particular events at a reasonable cost.

I commend my colleague Dr Worth for the analytical legal mind that he brings to the issue of scalping. Everything he said is, of course, quite correct, and I endorse it. But I am a little surprised at the line the Green Party is running. I want to bring a little bit of passion to the subject. It is my view that millions of New Zealanders love their sport; they love it passionately; it brings purpose, direction, and enjoyment to their lives. Those New Zealanders would see any suggestion at all of scalping as a most un - New Zealand type of thing to do. There is one thing about scalping that we need to be very, very clear about. One can only scalp tickets if one can secure access—through good luck, good fortune, using the system, one’s mates, or whatever it is—to more tickets than one needs for one’s use. The more tickets that fall into the hands of the sorts of individuals who do not plan to use them for themselves, the more difficult it is for the millions of New Zealanders—those people with the passion and the love for sport—to get their hands on those tickets.

I will make one other comment about that, also with a degree of passion. It does not matter whether it is Rugby World Cup 2011, the Commonwealth Games, or an age-grade world championship; I ask members to remember that a lot of the work to make it happen will have been done by volunteers: ordinary men and women who love their sport, and who have a concept of service to their community. We have a responsibility to see that those people are not insulted by those who would take unfair commercial advantage of their efforts, which is what scalping amounts to.

As my colleague Dr Worth said, scalping is now widely unaccepted in many countries of the world. It is unaccepted for the reason that I mentioned before, when I said that it is a most un - New Zealand thing to do: it is an ungenerous act, it is a selfish act, and it is actually an act that demonstrates qualities and attributes that we do not associate with the great New Zealand commitment to serving the community, serving one’s sport, and serving the activity that one loves. Frankly, to me, any defence of scalping is an insult to that type of New Zealander.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 138 in the name of Keith Locke to clause 15 be agreed to.

I notice that there has been a pattern to the voting, and the amendments to clauses 18, 19, and 21 are all on the same issue. I ask for the leave of the Committee for those three questions to be put as one.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Is there any objection to that course of action? There is not.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 138 in the name of Keith Locke to clauses 18, 19, and 21 be agreed to.