Major Events Management Bill

The debate on this part, clauses 26 to 32, includes debate on the schedule.

I would like to take what I expect will be a brief call to speak in support of Part 3 of the Major Events Management Bill. Madam Chair, I crave your patience and that of the Committee for a moment if I appear to wander off in terms of relevance. I assure you that I will not.

I would like to reflect for just a moment. Last Friday night I had the great privilege to attend a dinner of an outfit called the Carbine Club, in Ellerslie. This is a group of noted former and current sportspeople who get together from time to time to enjoy each others’ company and to assist a charity. It is the sort of organisation in which somebody has to pass on before a new member is admitted. We observed the passing of Ron McGregor, that great man of rugby league. I had the very great privilege to have as my dinner companion that night a man whose name I hope members in the Chamber will recognise—Joe McManemin. He was the manager of the New Zealand athletics team at the Rome Olympics, way back in 1960. I had a delightful night talking to him—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: Didn’t have this legislation then.

No, not in those days. We did not need it in those days, I say to the Minister. We had this marvellous conversation about Snell and Halberg, winning those two gold medals, and subsequently going on to Perth, and Doreen Porter winning that silver—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: No, Perth was before then.

No, Perth was 1962, I assure the Minister—I am old enough to remember. The point I want to make is that men like Joe McManemin have given their lives to athletics, and to organisations like the former Olympic and Commonwealth Games Association. The symbols that this bill seeks to protect are the result, in the case of Mr McManemin, of over 40 years’ work. I think it is important that the Committee acknowledges that, in a way, those men and women own the symbol. They made no financial gain at all from their voluntary effort over 40 or 50 years. Cynics can say: “Yes, but look at the trips they had.”, but let me tell people from my own experience that those trips are hard work. They are not junkets. They are hard work.

I reflect on another member of the Carbine Club, a good friend of mine, Murray McKinnon, who is currently in Osaka with the New Zealand athletics team at the World Championships in Athletics. To the best of my knowledge, he is the only New Zealand journalist there who will be reporting back to New Zealand on the efforts of our athletes. He has paid his own way, and that is the sort of commitment that, in Part 3, we talk about protecting.

I do not believe any organisation, any smart, clever business person, or anybody seeking to make a financial gain for themselves has any right to be able to do that using things like the symbol of the Olympic Committee. I am pleased that this House is protecting that, because we are saying that we acknowledge and respect the years and years of voluntary effort that has gone into this brand, this symbol, and what it represents. So much of what it represents is the very, very best of New Zealand.

I am honoured to speak in support of Part 3.

This is a relatively simple part of the bill, and I am sure there will not be any objection to it. When I was in Opposition I took part in the original work that amended the Flags, Emblems and Names Protection Act 1981 by way of, I think, two statutes amendment bills. There was unanimity that these emblems should be protected at the time. I think at the time it was a little bit of a rort to put them in with flags, names, and emblems, because they were designed for things that were not, effectively, privately owned in the way that the Olympic and Commonwealth symbols are. I see no reason why the Committee should not just tick this and move on.

I would like to join in the words that have been offered by the previous National speaker, Mr Peachey, the MP for Tamaki, in saying that the contribution that Joe McManemin has made should not go unremarked. After all, I well recall, as a young schoolboy and a quarter-miler, having my involvement in team racing run under his direction, and his contribution, which continued across a range of fronts, was truly remarkable.

But I just pause to say that the Flags, Emblems and Names Protection Act 1981, to which the Minister in the chair, the Hon Trevor Mallard, has referred, is much-amended legislation, and this may not be the most tidy amendment that is being proposed. It is curious legislation, because the principal Act is in four parts. It deals with the New Zealand flag and ensigns, it deals with royal, vice-regal, State, and heralded emblems and names. There is protection of the Girl Guides Association in Part 3, and then a raft of miscellaneous provisions. If one looks at the amendments that have been made to the legislation over time, one sees that a schedule was introduced and a number of particular entities and emblems were protected: the New Zealand Commonwealth Games symbol, the New Zealand Commonwealth Youth Games emblem, the New Zealand Youth Olympic Festival emblem, and the Commonwealth Games Federation emblem.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: That was my fault.

It might well be the fault of the Minister, and I suppose that in the context of the egregious offences he has committed in his lifetime, this would not be seen to be a particularly significant one.

But we come to Part 3, which is the topic of this legislation. I think it is no more complicated than this. Part 3 is basically a re-enactment of sections 20A to 21 of this particular principal Act, and the schedule of this bill is a re-enactment of schedule 2A of the Act. For some reason, the draftsman considered that it was appropriate to include this provision in the Major Events Management Bill, and that was probably unnecessary. [Interruption] The Minister is making a contribution that I cannot hear; he needs to repeat it so I can respond.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: The Minister asked him to include it because he thought that the old system was a rort.

Well, yes; that may well be. But I think the reality is that little has actually happened in terms of the change from that legislation to this bill. Probably two things have happened, and those things are that the test in clause 26 has been changed to use the word “confused” instead of “mislead”, as it was used in section 20A, and the penalty provisions in clause 29 have been changed quite significantly. In fact, the penalty is very substantial. The penalty is now $150,000 for breach of these provisions. I think that what is being thrown up in any discussion on that sort of change is how these penalty provisions—fixed through a stream of legislation—are consistent or inconstant, and I am not sure, at all, that it is appropriate the penalty should sit at that level in the context of other penalty provisions.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: Too high or too low?

It is hard to say, really. It seems a very significant amount, at $150,000, when one is looking at what is involved here, but more particularly because significant civil remedies are now to be given, and the criminal consequences of breach are, obviously, less significant for the affected organisation. So I would say, with some reluctance in endorsing Part 3, that it may appropriately be included, but I would not wish that Mr Peachey’s words, in connection with the encomium he offered Joe McManemin, should ever be forgotten.

Part 3 agreed to.

Part 4 Enforcement