Major Events Management Bill

I move, That the Major Events Management Bill be now read a third time. The bill provides protection from ambush marketing and certain other issues associated with the running of major events. The presence of such legislative protections will position New Zealand as an attractive destination to host major events. It will enable ordinary New Zealanders to take advantage of the many benefits—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I am sorry to interrupt the member, but would members leaving the Chamber please show some courtesy to the member who is addressing it. Courtesy is contagious.

What are you saying, Mr Assistant Speaker! What are you saying!

This bill provides for a clear, predictable, and fair regime for dealing with ambush marketing behaviour and related major issues such as ticket scalping and crowd behaviour. It accords with the broader Government objectives of maximising the return to New Zealand from Government involvement in major events, and positioning this country as a highly competitive and desirable destination for hosting major events.

New Zealand will host a number of internationally significant events in the near future that will attract large international audiences, and will result in valuable exposure for New Zealand on the world stage. These events include the Rugby World Cup in 2011, the World Rowing Championships in 2010, and the Under-17 Women’s Football World Cup in 2008, and we will also co-host the Cricket World Cup in 2015. Such events attract very large audiences, and organisations will pay significant sums to become official sponsors.

Ambush marketing is a term used to describe the actions of organisations that have not paid for the rights to be official sponsors of an event, but seek to capture the benefits of perceived association with a major event without the authorisation of the event’s organisers. Many major sponsors, in order to safeguard the return from their investment in major events, now insist that there be protection against ambush marketing before they commit to sponsorship contracts. Only events that are of truly international significance will be protected under the bill. The legislation will not apply, for example, to annual or regular events, or to events that New Zealand hosts as of right. The declaration of a major event will also specify the keywords and emblems associated with the event, and the period of time for which the ambush marketing protections will apply.

There are two main protections against ambush marketing in the bill. Firstly, there is a prohibition on any unauthorised representation that would suggest to a reasonable person that any good, service, or brand is associated with a major event. This prohibition will prevent the use of representations by non-sponsor organisations that seek to unfairly benefit from the publicity and goodwill associated with a major event. The prohibition against unauthorised association is subject to a number of safeguards and exceptions, which will ensure that it will not interfere with existing ordinary fair business practices. The second form of ambush marketing protection in the bill is the provision for the declaration of clean zones, clean transport routes, and clean periods. These measures will prevent ambush marketing by intrusion, where an ambush marketer seeks to intrude on the attention of spectators and television audiences for a major event.

The bill also bans ticket scalping, which is the on-sale of major events tickets for a price greater than the original sale price. Ticket scalping can dramatically increase the price of tickets, and can potentially put attendance at major events further out of the reach of many New Zealanders. Also banned under the legislation are pitch invasion and unruly crowd behaviour, such as bottle throwing. This kind of behaviour can disrupt international sporting events, and can create the potential for injury to participants, security personnel, and even pitch invaders themselves. It can also result in adverse media coverage, and can cause international sanctions to be applied to sporting organisations or to venues. This behaviour will be punishable by a term of imprisonment not exceeding 3 months, which is currently the penalty for disorderly behaviour, or by a fine not exceeding $5,000.

I thank the people involved with the bill, especially the people from the Ministry of Economic Development, people from Sport and Recreation New Zealand, parliamentary counsel, people in my office, who have taken a leadership role, and members of the Commerce Committee, who I think it is generally agreed made small but significant improvements to the bill. This bill is an important step in ensuring that New Zealand continues to be seen as a viable and attractive host country for major events of international significance. The presence of such events raises our international profile, and the consequent economic opportunities mean that such events have obvious and real benefits for New Zealand businesses and the public at large. Thank you.

What a splendid speech we have just listened to, from the Minister. All the key points have been neatly missed.

In connection with the Major Events Management Bill, I want to say first that probably two aspects of this bill from a parliamentary process perspective are interesting. The first is that it is one of the few examples of recent legislation where we see the use of examples in the body of the text. That was a change made in the course of the select committee process. They are examples; they are not intended to cut across what is in the actual provisions themselves.

I take as an illustration an example from page 22 of the bill as reported from the Commerce Committee, which reads: “Existing Business A carries on its business from a private building situated on private land on Stevens Street. Although the land is located within the overall parameters of the clean zone, because it is private land it has not been declared to be part of the clean zone. Existing Business A has a large billboard on the roof of its building advertising Existing Business A’s services. This billboard has been there for many years. The advertising on the billboard is clearly visible from within the clean zone. Existing Business A does not have the written authorisation of the major event organiser for this advertising.”—and the answer—“This is not a breach of section 18 because of the exception in section 21(a).” So the use of examples is helpful, and is to be encouraged as a matter of drafting technique.

The second thing, which I believe is appropriately made by way of comment in respect of this legislation, is that the select committee did not make a lot of changes. That is in marked contrast to so many bills, which after a first reading go off to a select committee and come back with changes on virtually every page. Here we see many pages where there are no changes at all; and, where changes are made, they are minor.

This bill is also interesting and significant from a quite different perspective in that it looks at aspects of competition law that have not been fully explored in previous legislation. I am speaking specifically about the rules that have been inserted in relation to ambush marketing. The reality is that in the modern world of sport and events, many major sponsors now insist that there be protection against ambush marketing before they will commit to sponsorship contracts for major events. It is common practice for organisers of major events to require appropriate ambush marketing protections to be implemented by jurisdictions as a condition for hosting the event.

During the Committee stage some members suggested that there was something novel and new about ambush marketing legislation, but that is not so at all. Legislation containing ambush marketing protections has been introduced in a number of overseas jurisdictions, such as the nine nations of the West Indies for the 2007 Cricket World Cup; South Africa for the 2010 FIFA World Cup; China for the 2008 Beijing Olympic Games; the United Kingdom for the 2012 London Olympic Games; and Australia for the 2000 Sydney Olympic Games, the 2006 Melbourne Commonwealth Games, and the Australian Formula One Grand Prix.

New Zealand set about its now successful bid to host the 2011 Rugby World Cup and to co-host the 2015 Cricket World Cup. The Government, supported by National, gave assurances to the International Rugby Board and the International Cricket Council that ambush marketing protections would be in place. So it was that the bill was introduced. Other events are in the pipeline. I need only refer to the World Rowing Championships in 2010 and the Under-17 Women’s Football World Cup in 2008.

The essential elements of the bill are contained in Part 2, and I want to talk about that for a moment because it is in that part that one sees the detailed provisions relating to ambush marketing and two other aspects that drew comment in the course of the Committee stage. Those two matters are, first, the issue of scalping, and second, the creation of an offence for pitch invasion.

I will deal first with ambush marketing and what that is all about. It is a reality in the modern world of global sport and major events that some people seek to take clear advantage of those events to advance their own commercial interests. If we take just some examples, ambush marketing is things like, first, arranging aerial advertising over a major event venue immediately before or during the event so as to suggest sponsorship or association; second, the placement of billboards displaying the ambush marketer’s name near the venue; third, the unauthorised sale of goods or services at or in connection with a major event; fourth, the registration or exploitation of domain names; fifth, the unauthorised on-sale of tickets, which is scalping; six, the giving away of free merchandise such as caps or t-shirts bearing the advertiser’s logo, with the aim that where there is a sufficient collection of such material it will be picked up by television coverage or still photographs. That is why there are provisions in Part 2 relating to what is called ambush marketing by association, and ambush marketing by intrusion. It is also, as the Minister has commented, what leads on to declarations of clean zones, clean transport routes, and clean periods.

I would like to say something about scalping, because that did occupy some time in the House last night. There is a policy question as to whether there should be appropriate controls over scalping. The problem really is that individuals who genuinely wish to attend a popular event may well find themselves unable to get tickets as they have already been sold to ticket resellers. What happens is that the ticket resellers sell the tickets at market value with no effective loss because they had no intention of attending the event in the first place.

There is a fine line to be drawn between individuals who genuinely wish to attend a popular event and those who buy tickets in large quantities in order to resell their tickets for a hefty profit. Maybe one could defend the practice of reselling tickets on free-market principles, but if we look at what goes on around the world, we see that most countries have outlawed the unauthorised resale of tickets, usually with exceptions where the reseller does not profit from the transaction. That is what has been done in this legislation, and I commend that approach. There have been egregious examples of reselling occurring at significant disadvantage to consumers, and I spoke last night of what happened at the 2004 Glastonbury Festival.

I want to say something now about pitch invasion, because, as I have said, it attracted comment last night. The provision in respect of pitch invasion was inserted by a Supplementary Order Paper proffered to the select committee. It is all in one short clause—clause 25A—which creates an offence punishable by imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 months, or a fine not exceeding $5,000. In New Zealand there have been some celebrated cases of pitch invasion. Probably the most significant of those was in 1981 during the Springbok Tour of New Zealand. At Rugby Park in Hamilton, 350 people pulled down a fence to invade the pitch, and after arresting a number of people police cancelled the match as they got word that a protester was piloting a light plane to fly around the stadium. Those of us who were at the last test at Eden Park witnessed an amazing disruption as a protestor dropped flour bombs on the pitch to disrupt the game. Images like these give the impression that New Zealand is on the brink of civil war. So pitch invasion is not new in New Zealand, and legislation in respect of it certainly has its place in other jurisdictions.

I commend this bill. It has only a short further distance to go before it is enacted.

I have just listened with great interest to the previous speaker, Dr Richard Worth. I cannot recall seeing him in Auckland in 1981, along with myself as a very peaceful protestor—

💬 Dr Richard Worth: Oh, really? We were on different sides.

Oh, really? I am sorry. I was trying to envisage a very young and youthful Richard Worth holding a placard.

💬 Hon Judith Tizard: At least he knows which side he was on; his leader doesn’t!

Judith Tizard is totally correct. At least with Richard Worth we know exactly where he stands and which side he is on. I say with due respect that he is clear and concise, unlike his leader. But let us turn to a very positive note. I want to compliment very sincerely the previous speaker on his analysis of this legislation, in what was a very impassioned and focused speech. I compliment him on that, as I compliment the Minister Trevor Mallard, who spoke first in the third reading debate. Also, I think it is appropriate that we should all thank the members of the Commerce Committee for their excellent work on this bill.

I will take the opportunity in this third reading speech to note the key points of the bill and state why it is important to have legislative protection for what are incredibly important international events. The reason we have legislative protection for such events is that we want them to go so well, and we are aware that in the future there is enormous potential for other similar events to come to these shores. We are also aware of the enormous potential for economic benefit.

I could not let this contribution go by without paying a compliment to our Prime Minister, the Rt Hon Helen Clark, for her eleventh-hour flight in the middle of the night to Dublin to help secure the Rugby World Cup. What a magnificent effort that was, and what a magnificent effort it was from the team of the Rugby World Cup—the promotion team—and the New Zealand Rugby Union for their wonderful result in bringing that event to us. But let us also note that in my own region we are going to be blessed with the World Rowing Championships in 2010. Also, New Zealand is to be blessed with the Under-17 Women’s Football World Cup in 2008, and, of course, we will co-host the Cricket World Cup in 2015. These are all major events that will keep New Zealand on the map and will have huge, huge significance in terms of international coverage—television coverage, etc—and the number of visitors and tourists who will come to New Zealand as a result of these very important events.

It is very important to have what we call “clean” events, so that no other parties and forces will try to piggyback inappropriately on such major events. I am very pleased that there is an Order in Council declaration of what a major event is in terms of this legislation. Indeed, there are some very clear clauses around ambush marketing protections that seek to prevent the use of representations by non-sponsor organisations that seek to unfairly benefit from the publicity and goodwill associated with a major event. We know that that is a requirement of the international bodies that are behind the allocation of these events to New Zealand. The interesting thing in terms of the issue of clean transport zones is making sure that where there are going to be transport zones—for the team to go to the ground, in areas where there will be the potential for high television coverage—there are very clear and tight controls on advertising that is not appropriate and is not associated with that event.

The previous speaker, Dr Richard Worth, as did the Minister, talked about ticket scalping. I note that the bill bans ticket scalping, which is the on-sale of a major event ticket for a price greater than its original sale price. To state the obvious, in terms of the law of supply and demand, I say that ticket scalping can dramatically increase the price of tickets and can potentially put attendance at major events out of reach for many, many New Zealanders. I think it very good that there is that particular clause in the bill.

The issue of pitch invasion, which the previous speaker alluded to, is interesting. It is quite interesting that he should draw parallels with significant events in our country’s history of long, long ago. Dare I say what a blessing it is that our country is not faced with that kind of division, and that the world and our country have moved on from those events. Indeed, it is timely to remember what a blessing it is that we can welcome to our country, particularly from the Republic of South Africa, truly multiracial teams that are selected on merit, and that we have managed to move on and can enjoy things like the Super 14 contest, etc. But the bill is very much focused on the one-off event: the so-called streakers, people who are unruly, people who harass the referee, and bad behaviour. Obviously, there will be very clear penalties, because that kind of unfortunate crowd behaviour or individual behaviour will damage our reputation as the host of these internationally significant events.

I take this opportunity to reflect that this bill gives us cause to ponder the importance of many sporting events of an international nature that are not covered in this bill, because they have not been classified in terms of the Order in Council in respect of the bill. I am referring to repeat events. One would obviously expect the member for Hamilton West to make very favourable and passionate mention of the V8 Supercars rally that will be held in his city next year. Obviously, that event is not covered by this bill, but it highlights the incredible economic importance of events such as that one in terms of attracting tourists and visitors from overseas.

We in Hamilton are certainly looking forward to a whole swag of visitors coming over from Australia in particular as part of the circuit, and from other countries, as well. We are looking forward to extensive international television coverage. Again, I can only encourage Tourism New Zealand and other bodies to get behind this major event. A huge bouquet must go to the Hamilton City Council, and in particular to its chief executive, Michael Redman, who at that time was the mayor of our city, for his initiative and for the way in which he put the event together with a small team; we are all the beneficiaries of that. Of course, as Hamiltonians we are hoping this will lead on to other major events. I think it will be of major benefit to our city. Although I acknowledge that this is not the type of event covered in this legislation, it is an example of events around the country that have huge social and economic benefits for New Zealand. I think it is an example where central government, through agencies such as Sport and Recreation New Zealand and Tourism New Zealand, needs to work very, very closely with local authorities and other event organisers of this nature.

To return to this legislation, I say that the bill focuses us a nation on the need to ensure that any major international event is done to a standard of 100 percent—just like our “100% Pure New Zealand” brand. Just like any product we export around the world, we cannot have it 98 percent or 99 percent; it must be 100 percent plus. These events will be of major significance to our country. I thank the Commerce Committee, and I think that all members of this Parliament will agree that this bill will assist in ensuring that these are 100 percent wonderful events for our country.

It is a privilege to speak on the third reading of the Major Events Management Bill. Although I was not a member of the Commerce Committee that considered the bill, I have had the opportunity of speaking at each of the stages. I will take a little bit of my time to reflect on the debate and the discussion as the legislation has moved through the Parliament.

I am very, very pleased, for example, to learn that Mr Ron Mark shares my passion for American history. I was delighted in being able to assist him in his understanding of the role of Justice Thurgood Marshall. I take the opportunity to urge Mr Mark to use his influence with his party’s coalition partner in order to temper some of the anti-Americanism that comes from that side of the House. I was also very pleased to give the Minister in charge of the bill, Trevor Mallard, a mathematics lesson last night and to point out to him that 1962 came after 1960.

I have a problem, with which yourself, Mr Assistant Speaker, and this House may be of assistance. I hope the House realises that last night there were many people out there listening to the debate—and I made reference to that in one of my Committee stage addresses. When I got back to my office at 10 o’clock last night, I found a message on my phone. I think it was one of those messages that smart young people send with their thumbs and fingers. The message asked who the muppet was. I am not sure of the significance of the word “muppet”; I am not aware that it is unparliamentary, so I feel free to use it. I get the impression, though, that that generation of young New Zealanders who were fortunate enough to get through the schooling system before the previous Labour Minister of Education got his hands on the portfolio, use the term to describe somebody whom they consider may be less intelligent than themselves. Anyway, the question in the message was: “Who was the muppet who did not know that 1960 comes before 1962?”. I have not answered that question, because how do I tell that person—I assume a constituent of Tamaki—that it was actually the man who was the Minister of Education for 6 years? It may be a good idea if the Minister and I get together after class and I can take him through a few routines that will assist him to understand that 1960 came before 1962. I have made my point.

I will come back to being relevant about the bill. I particularly compliment the very, very fine member for Napier, Mr Chris Tremain, who went out there and won a seat that had been handed on a platter to a Labour member, and who will be in this House for a long, long time. What a privilege it must have been for that member to pay his respects to his late father in his speech. The point that Mr Tremain was making is one that I want to reinforce. This bill, shortly to be passed into law, is not just about a future. It is not just about a world in which major sporting events take place today, with all the commercialism and that sort of thing; it is also a very significant acknowledgment of the past of New Zealand and the role that sport has played in that past. One thing that Mr Tremain may not be aware of is that the very match he was talking about where his father scored the winning try for New Zealand in a gale was also the Saturday that the Millard Stand at Athletic Park was opened.

💬 Christopher Finlayson: I was there.

Mr Finlayson is old enough to remember actually having been there. All credit to Mr Finlayson.

💬 Christopher Finlayson: I was five.

He was five years of age. I had the great good fortune to become an acquaintance of Mr Millard in the 1970s, when I was a very young and junior teacher at Hutt Valley High School. Being a young and junior teacher at Hutt Valley High School in those days was a bit like being a backbencher stuck in the corner in this Parliament. We spoke when we were spoken to, and we did what we were told. Mr Millard visited Hutt Valley High School one day and he recognised me. He said: “Oh, you’re Mr Peachey, the coach of the first XV.” I said: “Indeed, sir, I am.” We engaged in conversation. It was one of those conversations that people more important than me came and interrupted, and I got shunted aside. When it was time to sit down, I quietly disappeared with my tail between my legs, as one does, out to where more of my level were gathering.

As I sat down Mr Millard—“Pasty”—came across and said: “Mr Peachey, why did you walk away from me?”. I said: “Well, Mr Millard, you’re up there with the important people. I am just a junior teacher.” I have never forgotten what “Pasty” Millard said to me. He said: “Mr Peachey, you are not just a junior teacher. You are a teacher. What is more, you are the coach of the first XV of a fine school. You will have more impact on this school than those flash people over there. Are you going to come over and sit with me over there, or am I going to sit with you here?”. That man, like Joe McManemin whom I mentioned last night, goes right to the core of the concept of community service in this country.

That is why I was so insistent at the Committee stage, and I remain persistent, in my support of the anti-scalping provisions in the Major Events Management Bill. In the tradition of those fine men, those men who went before, who could never have envisaged a bill like this being necessary and passed in this Parliament, it is an absolute insult to think that any person, through good fortune, or knowing somebody, or luck, or devious means, should be able to command tickets to sport that New Zealanders love with a passion, and therefore make a financial profit from that, and deny other New Zealanders the opportunity to be part of the event. Scalping is a most un - New Zealand thing to do. It is distinctly unfashionable, and it is great to see in this Parliament legislation that will make that message very clear. In doing that, we are not only acknowledging the realities of the commercial world that future great sporting events will take part in, but we are also paying respect and deference to those fine men and women who, over 100 years, have built a tradition of sport, participation, and respect in this country.

I also want to take just a couple of minutes, in the time remaining, to make a quick comment about ambush marketing. Again, I reiterate what I said at the Committee stage. Any person or any organisation that is prepared to invest large sums of money to make sure that an event occurs is entitled to some protections and is entitled to make a commercial benefit from that. I compare this to the great investments that drug companies, for example, make in new medicines and the opportunity that they have to gain a return from that.

The only other comment I want to make is to refer to pitch invasion. I think it is indicative of how far New Zealand has come that today ordinary New Zealanders, like the members in this House, find that sort of behaviour unnecessary and, frankly, unpleasant. The days when somebody, probably tanked up on alcohol, thought that his or her fellow New Zealanders or our international guests were more interested in a quick look at a bit of flesh than they were in watching the game have long since gone.

I appreciate the opportunity to have contributed at each stage of this bill. I congratulate everybody involved with it, and I look forward to its being a success.

There is not a lot more that can, or possibly should, be said about this bill at this point in time. I know that we have speakers lined up to go, but pretty much between the Minister and the speakers that have gone before me, particularly on the National Party side, most of the aspects of the bill have been rehashed, as they were pretty heavily and extensively last night through the Committee stage. New Zealand First will put it on record again that we support this legislation. We have supported it since its concept, since it was first envisaged. However, it seemed appropriate to us to make clear to the House that the areas on which we did have some discussion and some debate were the ones that also concerned, interestingly enough, the Greens, as they naturally would. They were questions of civil liberties surrounding pitch invasions—and the passing of the legislation will seek to make them an illegal activity—and the questions of ambush marketing.

Probably our deliberation over the ambush-marketing aspects was pretty short and sweet. New Zealand First is a party that unashamedly believes there should be limitations and restrictions placed on some commercial activities. Not every commercial activity is for the good of everybody and the community as a whole. We did say that we welcome this new era of enlightenment from some political parties that, up until this point in time, have championed radical and free-marketeering activities. They wrap it up in terms such as “global economy” and “entrepreneurialism”. Here we have, in the passage of this bill, an acceptance and a realisation from them that some people’s investments have a right to be protected. If we had suggested such a thing in 1990 when Ruth Richardson was in this House, we probably would have been damned out of the building for even daring to suggest an interventionist law change such as this. People like Roger Douglas from the Labour Party would have probably sided with her and thrown people out for daring to even consider that some sort of regulation or limitation through legislation should be imposed upon the entrepreneurial nature of business people who see it as their right to exploit any and every commercial opportunity that is presented to them.

The passage of these particular clauses in the bill shows the acceptance and pragmatic realisation of the fact that people who have invested huge amounts of money, and who have undertaken the responsibilities to their shareholders that come with that, have a right to conduct that business and continue to accrue the advantage of their work—their risk taking—without other people coming in from the side and exploiting it, to the extent where they are even seen by the public, incorrectly, to be the main sponsors and funders of the event and the organisation. New Zealand First agrees that such activities can only damage New Zealand’s reputation in the eyes of others internationally, and make it more difficult for us to secure major events of this type.

I reflect again on some of the comments from Gerry Brownlee last night, when he was considering and pondering what might be considered major events in the future. Of course, the bill deals with how those determinations will be made. It probably does us well to think about that, because although most people will focus on World Cup events and world rowing events, it might well be that that is not the case; it could well be that one single V8 race could be classed as a major event. One simple soccer game, if it were played between the right nations, could also be classified as a major event, given the massive international coverage and interest in soccer. So a little bit of forethought and a little bit of vision is always a good thing, and that also seems to appear in the bill.

The question that vexed us most was that of civil liberties—that is, the rights of people. A large number of Labour Party members of Parliament have, throughout their careers, consistently championed their badges of honour through their involvement in the 1981 Springbok Tour protests and demonstrations. I, like others in this House, did not share the view that they had a God-given right to storm on to pitches and impinge on the rights of other people to freedom of association. Like Mr Peachey, some of us have read the words of Justice Thurgood Marshall. What an enlightened decision he made when confronted with the same question, which was whether the American Eagles should be prevented from playing the Springboks in 1981. It is interesting, when one reads back through that, how the Americans dealt with the potential and the possibility of disruptive pitch invasions, and how they noted, through the appearance in the United States of activists from New Zealand, that there was a strong desire to emulate and reproduce the violence and the thuggery that we saw here in New Zealand on American pitches. It was of great credit to Justice Thurgood Marshall, being a champion for civil liberties, and being an Afro-American appointed to the Supreme Court by Lyndon Johnson initially, then confirmed in that same appointment by JFK, that he stood firmly—

💬 Allan Peachey: No, JFK served before Lyndon Johnson.

Mr Peachey is right; it is the other way around. [Interruption] This is good, because we share the same interests—he is right. Justice Thurgood Marshall reaffirmed the freedom of association and the rights of people to freely demonstrate and protest peacefully, without violence and without thuggery, and that is what we can now hope to see through the passage of this bill. It was interesting that he then made sure through his judgment that the protestors, who numbered 1,000, were able to protest, and that the people who were watching the game of football and participating in it, who numbered only about 400, were able to go about their lawful business and exercise their basic rights. This was an enlightened decision that New Zealand finally seems to have reached—how ironic—some 26 years later.

So New Zealand First, in considering the pros and the cons of this bill, comes down on the side that we will support the bill. We believe that it does protect people’s rights and it does protect people’s interests. People will not be prohibited from demonstrating if the Zimbabwe team turns up here and they take it upon themselves to make a point to Mr Robert Mugabe, but they will not be permitted to invade pitches and disrupt the lawful activities of other people and their freedom and right to associate and play sport with whomever they wish.

Those aspects of this bill will ensure that we remain a credible venue and a credible host nation of the future Rugby World Cup and of many events after that. They will ensure that we are seen by the international community as being people who protect the rights and the civil liberties of all New Zealanders and all other people who come to our nation to enjoy the sporting spectacles that we will be hosting. Those aspects of the bill will also ensure, above all, that these ventures and spectacles are profitable and that they return an economic advantage to New Zealanders that will be benefited, I guess, through the social services that the Government delivers, and through the general services that commercial enterprises deliver on an hour-by-hour, minute-by-minute basis all over this land. We support the passage of the bill, and we look forward to its final passage. Thank you.

When the Greens are part of the debate on globalisation and the global economy, we often say that we are all for free competition between firms but that we want a level playing field. One of the problems when we bring in free-trade agreements without having that level playing field is that companies from the richest industrial countries—countries that are the biggest and most capitalised, with the best technology—tend to predominate and wipe out the competition in poorer and weaker countries with smaller economies. I take as one example the banana trade that has been contested internationally. Against Del Monte and what not—the big corporations that produce bananas from Ecuador—it is very hard for smaller Pacific Island or Caribbean producers to compete, so we think there is a requirement sometimes for a level of protectionism to protect smaller economies, in order to give them opportunities in the world economy.

But this Major Event Management Bill is going totally in the opposite direction. It is an over-the-top bill, which is why the Green Party has been opposing it. In fact, this bill is protecting, in the most extreme way, the most powerful people and companies in the world—that is, the big corporates, none of which are New Zealand companies, and the people who run them. We can refer to the sponsors of the coming Rugby World Cup in France, which may be the same companies that will sponsor the event again in 2011 in New Zealand. I do not think that any of them—the ones I saw a list of—are even French companies. The main sponsors are Coca-Cola, McDonald’s, Adidas, Goodyear and Heineken. Those companies are being protected by this bill, with all its legislative provisions against competition, from little New Zealand firms, and sometimes from bigger New Zealand firms.

For example, if Phoenix Organics, which sells drinks, puts up a sign 4½ kilometres out from the stadium where a Rugby World Cup game is being played in 2011, and if it puts up that advertisement on what is called a “clean transport route” under the bill, it could be liable for a fine of $150,000, because the official sponsor of the Rugby World Cup is none other than Coca Cola—well, it is in 2007 and may well be in 2011. This restriction will apply not just on the day of the game but for up to 30 days after the major event. That is specified in the bill. So small drinks manufacturers and people in clothing, food, travel, and car tyres, to refer to the business areas of those sponsors I quoted, could all be in the gun. New Zealand firms could be involved.

I had two amendments at the Committee stage on two of the most extreme provisions of the bill. One was to knock out that 5-kilometre clean transport route around stadiums. It was great that four parties supported my amendment—the Greens, ACT, United Future, and the Māori Party.

I also had an amendment to knock out the new offence of pitch invasion, and those same four parties supported that amendment, as well. There is absolutely no reason to put in a new offence, when any people who wander on to a pitch illegitimately at the moment are covered by disorderly behaviour provisions and given a very small fine. Generally there is no big deal, and certainly there has never been any contemplation by any judge to give a big fine, let alone imprisonment. The imprisonment section of the disorderly behaviour legislation is clearly shaped, as members will see if they look at the cases for people who do serious disorderly behaviour leading to violence or who provoke violence in association with other major crimes. It is just so stupid to have a 3-month sentence for someone who might wander on to a pitch during a world cup game, whether it be someone supposedly having fun being a streaker or someone involved in a political protest of the type that Ron Mark just mentioned—perhaps against a Zimbabwe team, or for some other reason.

I want to spend a little bit of time on the anti-scalping provisions. I did not actually have an amendment on these provisions last night in the Committee stage, but the more I think about it, the more, perhaps, I think I should have, because these provisions are quite stupid. Sure, the aim of the anti-scalping provisions, as other speakers have mentioned, is to try to keep ticket prices within the range of ordinary New Zealanders. There is no need for a law to achieve that; we have achieved it up till now. The way the system operates in New Zealand is that the distribution of tickets is kept pretty spread out, by releasing them on the Internet, to clubs, or whatever, and there is no reason not to perfect that system.

I find it a bit strange giving lectures on the basic principles, the ABCs, of business to the National Party and the Labour Party—to the National Party in particular. At least ACT seems to understand those principles a little bit better. I do not usually praise ACT members, but they seem to understand the basic laws of business here—that if there is a big demand, the price goes up; if there is not so much demand, the price does not go up so much. If the price goes up, and if people have a few spare tickets to a Rugby World Cup match—perhaps to a semi-final or a final—the price might be quite high. It will probably not affect a big number of tickets, but the price will be high.

Let us take a little example of a couple we will call Jackie and John. Jackie and John went to a lot of effort and bought tickets at the proper price—perhaps they stayed up all night queuing, or whatever—but now all of a sudden there has been an illness in the family, a family crisis, and they just cannot go. They will be breaking the law—they will be becoming criminals—if they sell these tickets and take any extra amount above what they bought them for. They will not even be able to take into account all the time and effort it took to purchase the tickets, because they will have to sell them at the price they bought them for. But in the case of huge demand for a Rugby World Cup final, or something like it, will they, in practice, become criminals? They will not be caught by the law, because they will not go out in front of any police officer and sell the tickets there; they will just put a rumour around at their workplace, down the pub, or somewhere, and people will rush up to them and offer $50 more, $100 more—whatever it is—for the ticket. So what are they to do? Are they to say: “Oh, sorry, I’ll be breaking the law if I don’t sell them at the proper price.”? It is just so stupid.

Representatives from TradeMe came along to the select committee and said: “Look, this creates problems. How are we going to do this? We’ll do our best if we have to, but it’s a bit stupid.” What will in fact happen is that people will just go to eBay, or whatever, and they will not necessarily even sell tickets through the normal trading system. They will say: “Couple of tickets for sale; phone such-and-such”, and they will get rid of the tickets at a high price. In this day of the Internet and everything else, there is no way we can stop that. So why make criminals of ordinary people? The San Francisco Giants, a baseball team, has a secondary market with its own Internet website. That is a better way to go—but it is better to distribute tickets properly in the first place.

With regard to pitch invasion, there is all this stuff about how we have to legislate against it because Trevor Mallard says there will be adverse media coverage if anyone wanders on to the pitch. Martin Gallagher says it will damage our reputation. But are we such a heavy-handed State that we need this provision to deal with a streaker who wanders on to the field for 30 seconds? Let us face it: in any of these major events, so many security people will be around the outside that streakers will not last more than a few seconds on the field. They will not interfere with the game very much, at all. Those sorts of people are just trying to have fun; they annoy some people and they amuse others. So what! I wonder who really cares if a protestor goes on the pitch. A previous speaker, Richard Worth, talked about people flour-bombing fields, but we are not talking about that sort of protest in this legislation. Indeed, Mark Jones, who did that in Auckland during the 1981 Springbok Tour, got 6 months in jail. We are talking about people such as Hone Harawira, who was on the pitch at Hamilton in 1981. He did not get thrown in jail. In fact, that action is a badge of honour in most people’s minds. So we say that this bill is quite Draconian. Thank you.

Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. Kia ora tātou katoa, e hoa mā, i tēnei ahiahi. For most tangata whenua across Aotearoa, this week will not necessarily be remembered for the time that the Major Events Management Bill passed its third reading in the House. In fact, this week will long be remembered as the day, and, indeed the week, that Tainui marked the first year of the reign of KīngiTuheitia. But as the nation has observed this historic moment in Te Kīngitanga, I feel it is appropriate to point out the sort of symbolic nature, or symbolic relationship, that exists between Tūrangawaewae Marae in Ngāruawāhia, and this debating chamber in Wellington. For if ever there was a major event in Māoridom, the Koroneihana would fit the bill.

In the middle of a significant and spectacular sense of occasion, a protest of sorts threatened to disrupt all the proceedings. The House will have noted that on TV there was an element of protest, and with elegance, with dignity, with mana, the people of Tainui moved into place, removing the young man who had caused a bit of a problem, and who was the focus of the problem, while at the same time Tainui women broke into a waiata—it goes like this: “Ehara i te mea; nō nāianei te aroha, nō ngā tūpuna, tuku iho, tuku iho.” It is a humble song, and often heard on marae, but the message is pretty straightforward and profound: “Love is not a new thing; it comes from the ancestors. It has been handed down through the passages of time.”

I cannot help but contrast this reaction of the Tainui people to the changes to this bill as reported back from the select committee, which now prohibits and creates an offence of pitch invasion. What the legislation now sets in place is that any protestors doing so, will be liable for a $5,000 fine or 3 months’ prison. But, then again, the coronation is not a major event! The fact that up to 60,000 people, including foreign dignitaries, attended the week-long coronation ceremony was in fact incidental. The event was so significant that in addition to our own VIPs, the Governor-General and Māori leaders from across Aotearoa, it also drew to our shores King George Tupou V of Tonga, Princess Kekaulike Kawananakoa of Hawaii, Prince Teriihinoiatua Joinville Pomare of Tahiti, Niue Deputy Premier Fisa Pihigia, and Cook Islands representative Sir Frederick Goodwin. The final climax involved three waka tauā carrying 120 paddlers down to present a spectacular salute on the Waikato River. But no, that was not major!

I make the point that “major” is clearly in the eye of the beholder. We have spoken throughout this debate about our wish that the eyes of the beholder actually include Māori eyes. At the first reading of this bill I asked that if the Governor-General is to have the final say, then the Minister for Economic Development must consult not only the Minister of Commerce and the Minister for Sport and Recreation but also the Minister of Māori Affairs. We saw the involvement of the Minister of Māori Affairs in the decision-making process around declaring events to be “major events” to be a key way of protecting and promoting the status of tangata whenua in our land. We saw it also as being vital to ensure Māori had a say in measures to prohibit exploitation of intellectual property.

This bill sets in place certain protections for events declared to be major events in order to obtain maximum benefits from it for New Zealanders. Are Māori—and the events that we have referred to throughout this debate—not included in the scope of the benefits for all New Zealanders? I am referring to the major indigenous sporting events such as the Waka Ama IVF Va’a World Sprint Champs; the major indigenous cultural events such as Matatini; major events of historic standing such as the Koroneihana and the annual Rātana gatherings; and others.

This bill is also driven by the need to prevent unauthorised commercial exploitation at the expense of either an event organiser or an event sponsor. The bill provides for agreed-upon emblems and words to be declared as such, and given legal protection for a specified period. The irony of this, of course, is apparent when we consider the skimpy—indeed, minimal—legal protection that is accorded to Māori cultural and intellectual property. Indeed, not long ago, 26 June to be a little bit more precise, in reference to an international security firm branding itself as the Maori Group, our Prime Minister told a press conference that this was merely one of many examples of international businesses exploiting indigenous culture to promote their products and services. She stated, as a matter of fact: “there is no international mechanism which could provide redress for Māori.” So the question is: how come legal protection is fought for, for the Rugby World Cup but not for Māori? I would like to remind the House that less than a week ago the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination reported that it remained concerned that such steps “tend to diminish the importance and relevance of the Treaty and to create a context unfavourable to the rights of Māori.” So on one hand we have a bill to protect big-scale organisers and big-business sponsors, then on another the exploitation of Māori culture and intellectual property is discarded as being of hardly any issue at all.

Such ongoing arrogance on behalf of the Crown would pretty much lead a man to protest. The right to protest is, of course, a right that we have strongly upheld throughout the course of this bill, including our staunch support for Keith Locke’s Supplementary Order Paper to delete clause 25A, “Offence to invade pitch at major sporting event”. It is probably not lost to the House that Māori have no problem associated with taking up the democratic right to express their concerns via the means of protest. At this very time we know that Bruce Ngaromoa and Montana Kelly are taking, along with a Viet Namese man, action on the roof of Sydney’s Villawood Immigration Detention Centre to argue for improved health at the centre and the right to allow family visits. Of course, the nation as a whole took up the power of protest just 2 weeks ago, at 12.12 p.m. on 8 August, a time chosen to remember the 12 children a year who die from child abuse in New Zealand. At the same time as the silent vigil took place, another protest action was inspired by Allies of Whānau o Aotearoa. Their action was to fight for whānau to have their own dreams and solutions calling for an acknowledgement that Māori have the answers. Their protest was called the Make Some Noise Campaign, telling the world to love their whānau by honking the horn, ending the silence, and standing up to protect our tamariki.

It was in light of this history and current strength to preserve the freedom of expression that we have been moved to oppose the bill at both the second reading and Committee stage. We saw the new offence of pitch invasion, and the threat of a term of imprisonment or a fine for going on to the playing surface at a major event, as being unnecessary and pretty much completely over the top. There are already mechanisms within current law to charge pitch invaders with disorderly behaviour, including a fine.

The bigger crime for us is the blatant and ongoing reduction of the rights of Māori. The offence I am referring to is that reported by the UN that Government actions continue to diminish the importance and relevance of the Treaty and to create a context unfavourable to the rights of Māori. It is the ongoing and persistent poor performance, indeed, the failure of the New Zealand Government to honour indigenous peoples that will be noted again on the world stage when the UN General Assembly considers the adoption of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples on 13 September 2007.

The Government has an opportunity to do right by Māori in this bill by welcoming and inviting Māori involvement in the decisions around what are major events. Māori participation could be actively protected through measures taken to safeguard Māori cultural and intellectual property in the brands, goods, and services being associated with major events. We know that our finest Māori sportspersons will be actively engaged in the Netball World Championships in November this year, the World Rowing Championships in 2010, the Rugby World Cup the following year, and the Cricket World Cup in 2015. We honour their right to participate and we celebrate the amazing success of New Zealand sporting talents across the world scene. We will not stand in their way, and we will support this bill at its third and final reading, noting that our concerns have been put to the House.

Tēnā koutou. I commence by acknowledging the coronation of King Tuheitia this week. It is an event that the House and the rest of New Zealand should acknowledge.

I begin my speech on the Major Events Management Bill by saying that my fine colleague Mr Christopher Finlayson was but a 5-year-old boy in the Millard Stand during the 1961 test match when the All Blacks sneaked home in a 5-3 nail-biter against France. That match was played in an 80 mile per hour gale that whipped off the southern ocean and came straight down Athletic Park. Mr Finlayson will remember that. With 15 minutes to play, the game was tied at nil all and a try finally came, not to New Zealand but to France. The conversion was missed. From the restart McKay narrowly missed scoring. But from a scrum on the French line Lacroix passed back to Lacaze to clear. The fullback’s kick was charged down by Tremain, who fell on the ball 10 yards in from the corner. Don Clarke took the conversion attempt on that day back to the 25—it was 25 yards in those days, not 22 metres as it is today. He carried the ball back to the 25 and kicked almost parallel to the goal line for the wind to catch the ball and miraculously carry it through the uprights over the bar to give New Zealand the lead and cruelly dash the French hopes.

💬 Hon Mahara Okeroa: Was that your father?

That was my father.

In 1961 major events such as that test match did not require legislation to protect them from unauthorised commercial exploitation at the expense of major sponsors. Today we live in a different world where every opportunity is taken to exploit major events for promotional gain. The Major Events Management Bill seeks to address that issue and give some protection to major sponsors. The bill outlines criteria for a major event, such as whether it will raise New Zealand’s international profile; generate significant tourism; attract international media attention and sponsorship; or offer sporting, cultural, economic, or social benefits to New Zealand. I challenge Mr Flavell to raisewaka ama so that that sport can also be seen as a major event.

The bill arises from the successful bids made for major international sporting events—the world rowing champs in 2010, the Rugby World Cup in 2011, and the Cricket World Cup in 2015. Similar legislation has been passed in France, England, and Australia, whereby once an event is designated as a major event it is allowed the sorts of protections outlined in this bill. One example that I was recently involved in—which would, unfortunately, fall below the line; the event Te Ururoa Flavell was involved in—would probably not be classified as a major event. It took place in the fine town of Ōtaki, up the coast a little way. It was an event played by the Parliamentary Rugby Team, and our sponsors were looking for a clean stadium. But, unfortunately, we were not able to deliver that on behalf of the Parliamentary Rugby Team. We were unable to deliver a clean stadium for Visa and Air New Zealand, the great sponsors for this team, so in the future we will perhaps be looking to bring the Parliamentary Rugby Team’s annual events under this legislation!

The bill is primarily intended to deal with ambush marketing, which is associating a name, a brand, or a product with an event without having the right to do so. The bill prohibits advertising from intruding on a major event or from implying an association with an event. As other speakers have said tonight, it creates clean zones—clean transport routes where advertising and street trading are restricted. It also prohibits activities that might compromise the smooth running of the event. My fine colleague from Tāmaki, Mr Peachey, talked about ticket scalping and pitch invasion.

Last night I spoke about the Nike example at the 1996 Olympics in Atlanta, where the key sponsors had to cough up $50 million just to be on the deck. But Nike did not do that. It came to the Atlanta Olympics without any intention of paying a sponsorship dollar. It used its Swoosh flags, it used city-wide billboards, and it used a huge events centre to promote its brand at those Olympic Games. The research done after the games showed that many people thought Nike had been a major sponsor of the event. That is not good enough.

Another example of that, which is more local and occurred only a few years ago, was a pitch invasion—and a number of speakers from the Greens and the Māori Party do not like this part of the bill. Vodafone admitted to sponsoring the streakers who interrupted a Bledisloe Cup game during a crucial All Black goal attempt. Members will recall that the streakers ran around All Black fly-half Andrew Mehrtens as he readied himself for a crucial penalty kick, which he later missed. The streaker in that case had a Vodafone emblem on his back. Vodafone’s managing director Graham Maher agreed to pay the fine incurred by the man who had carried out stunt. The fine was under $5,000, yet the promotion that Vodafone was able to get out of that branding opportunity was huge, and this is where the issue of the using pitch invasion as a promotion has a place.

Major events cost big money. They cannot be put on without sponsors’ contributions, and there needs to be a guaranteed return for those sponsors. Mr Locke spoke about Phoenix drinks and about Phoenix not being able to have its drinks located in the stadium, but unless that company is prepared to pitch up and put the money on the table to help sponsor the events, then I am sorry but that is the way the deal has to be.

New Zealand is well-placed to host international events going forward. We are a safe country, we have a great environment, and we are poised to take on a lot more events. These events can have a huge impact on our GDP. Currently, our current account deficit is the worst it has ever been, at 9 percent of GDP. Some $14 billion in net funds per annum is flowing out of the country. This bill gives us the opportunity to bring more and more events into the country. These events bring foreign currency into the country and help us to reduce that current account deficit.

The legislation will also have a huge impact on my own local economy. In the case of the Rugby World Cup, Napier will have the right to host a number of games. That will bring revenue into Napier and Hawke’s Bay that we would not otherwise have.

💬 Hon Member: Well, you’re winning now.

We are on a winner there; we certainly are.

The bill is poignant for me for two other reasons, as I mentioned in the Committee stage. I will address just one of them because I am running out of time. The bill is poignant because my local electorate chairman, Tom Johnson, was a member of the team that first proposed the Rugby World Cup concept. He attended an International Rugby Board meeting in Canada in the mid-1980s, and that meeting resulted in the first Rugby World Cup being held here in New Zealand in 1987—which we won. I think that all members in the House tonight would gather with me in wishing Sir Brian Lochore and his team, who are going over to the Rugby World Cup in France, the best of luck. He certainly has the country’s emotional heart at stake. The world today is different from the world of my father’s day. Sir Brian Lochore and Colin Meads played in that era, but now things have changed. Sponsorship is now a key part of everything we do in sport, and that is why this bill needs to form part of our country’s laws going forward.

This type of legislation is a reality for countries holding major events, and it is often required as part of a hosting agreement. It is common practice in many countries. It is important to ensure that New Zealand can be a viable host country for significant international events, with all the benefits that brings. Lastly, I say that sponsors will not be prepared to make commitments without protections like these being in place. Either New Zealand goes along with this or we will not be in the running to host major international events. I for one am not prepared to miss out on the opportunities that they bring to our nation, to my province, and to our sporting heroes.