Locke Keith: Major Events Management Bill — Third Reading 
Locke Keith: Major Events Management Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:641;Page:11449] 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 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 $150000 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 Maori 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.