Locke Keith: Major Events Management Bill — Second Reading 
Locke Keith: Major Events Management Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:641;Page:11106] 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party is opposed to the Major Events Management Bill. It has come out of the Commerce Committee as bad as it went in. It is regulatory madness all in the interests of big international corporates who will be the official sponsors of major events—in particular of the Rugby World Cup of 2011. Those corporates are companies like Coca-Cola McDonald’s Adidas Goodyear and Heineken—at least those companies are sponsoring the soon-to-be-held Rugby World Cup in France. This bill puts allegiance to those big multinationals ahead of the rights of New Zealanders and New Zealand business people. 
Wayne Mapp of National said we had to pass this type of legislation otherwise we would not have the world cup here. How come then New Zealand was given hosting rights to the world cup event without any mention of this legislation which popped up only a year later? Clearly it was never a condition of New Zealand being granted the world cup. This is over-the-top regulation. Sometimes the Greens are criticised for being too strong in terms of regulation but in supporting this bill both Labour and National have shown they are the kings and queens of over-regulation. 
They are protecting powerful global advertisers like Coca-Cola from competition even if it is 5 kilometres from the stadium along what are called “clean transport routes”. If Coca-Cola is again a sponsor of a world cup then Lemon and Paeroa and who knows what other brands will be banned from advertising along the 5 kilometres of a designated clean transport route. It is not just protecting certain brands only on the day of the big game; the definition of a “clean period” is loose. It could be many days before or after the big game. In the Committee stage the Greens will put forward an amendment to remove this provision for clean transport routes. 
The so-called “clean zones” are not so obnoxious because they relate only to the stadium and perhaps the road outside. However to get carried away and put all this into law may well prompt Kiwis who do not like being over-regulated to come to the game with jokes signs or T-shirts advertising a competing sponsor. Will we see Kiwis being prosecuted for displaying a Tui-like slogan because the official beer is Heineken as it is in the world cup in France this year? The select committee pushed out the boat a little further by making it illegal under new clause 16(1A) even for a person who is outside the clean zone such as on his or her own front lawn to street trade with someone who is in the clean zone. 
 For any of this banned street trading or any of the banned advertising under the bill including advertising along the 5-kilometre clean transport route people can be given a fine of up to $150000. Is it not a bit sick to protect companies like Coca-Cola to that extent? One of the official advertisers in 2011 might be Emirates Airline which is one of the sponsors of the world cup in France this year. The Government and the rich princes behind Emirates Airline who are also trying to take over our key airport hub Auckland International Airport may well in 2011 be protected by this bill which will stop any advertising by Air New Zealand along the declared 5-kilometre clean transport route. The fine for Air New Zealand would be up to $150000. How unpatriotic can we get? 
A lot of the media attention and public mirth have been focused on the setting up of a new offence of pitch invasion covering such people as streakers political protesters or people with unofficial corporate logos on their clothing. The media have interviewed people in the street on this topic and virtually all of them are incredulous. With all the problems in New Zealand and the world—poverty rocketing house prices climate change—why is this Government wasting time on a new bill to chuck streakers in jail for up to 3 months? Has it not got better things to do than to stifle people’s fun? It is not as if there are not laws already to give streakers a little legal rap over the knuckles. When Lisa Lewis who presented to the select committee on the bill ran onto a Hamilton ground in a bikini she was arrested and fined a total of $330 including costs for disorderly behaviour. I do not of course encourage streakers—and I say this because earlier in the debate I was accused of wanting to facilitate streaking. But let us face it most of it is done in good fun and those who do it expect to suffer a minor legal consequence. We do not need an anti-fun bill. 
The one international major event that might well have the odd colourful pitch invasion is the annual Wellington international Rugby Sevens where unlike most other games the action is in the stands more than on the field and the odd spectator in fancy dress might wander on to the field. The Wellington Rugby Sevens would certainly qualify as a major event under the bill as would a Bledisloe Cup game or a Super 14 final between Aussie and New Zealand clubs. Anything can qualify as long as a fair number of people are coming from overseas for the game and more important the advertising exposure is international—mainly via a live TV feed. 
Of course there is an honourable tradition of pitch invasion carried out for political reasons. Back in 1913 Emily Davison ran on to a British racetrack and helped to put women’s suffrage on the political map. There is also an honourable tradition in New Zealand. In 1981 people ran on to rugby fields during a game with a Springbok team representing the racism of apartheid. These people were actually helped in the courts; the judges had a degree of sympathy for them in that they often recognised that the pitch invaders had a humanitarian motivation and either let them off altogether or gave them a minor fine. Then there are those like the streakers who painted a Vodafone symbol on their chests. That is a tradition we have seen here too. 
Do we really need a whole new offence of pitch invasion to cover these different types of people none of whom mean any harm to spectators or to rugby players? It is a principle of lawmaking that new laws are not made unnecessarily. There is a perfectly good law against disorderly behaviour now which covers streaking and provides for very minor fines. Disorderly behaviour does not have the $5000 maximum fine that pitch invasion will. Both offences will have a maximum 3-month prison term. But we do not need a prison term for streaking. Some forms of disorderly behaviour like disorderly behaviour leading to a serious risk of violence—perhaps on a plane—might qualify for a prison term but there is no way that streaking should ever qualify for a prison term. Most New Zealanders think that is absurd and Trevor Mallard and the Government should listen to them. 
Let us look at the anti-scalping provision which provides that people are not allowed to sell a ticket at more than its cover price. I understand that people do not like scalpers making big profits but do we really need to legislate against a second-hand market in tickets? Why should we? We cannot stop it; it will only go underground or it will go on to the Internet. TradeMe submitted to the select committee explaining the problems that this bill will pose for it. Even if TradeMe does its best to stop most trading of tickets people can then just move on to eBay or some other site and trade them there. I do not often agree with Roger Kerr of the Business Roundtable but I agree with his submission to the select committee that we should not interfere in the free market in this way. 
Surely the solution—or a large part of the solution—is for events managers to make sure the tickets are distributed fairly through clubs through the Internet or however. This is already done to a large extent and often with Internet sales everyone does have a chance. There will always be a secondary market which is what smart operators overseas like the San Francisco Giants baseball club recognise. They actually have an Internet site where they run a secondary market where people can onsell tickets. That is a better way to go. There will always be people who have extra tickets or who get sick and they should have the opportunity to onsell. Do we really need to get hot and bothered if they make a profit? 
I think National and Labour intimidated by the big global corporate advertisers have dropped the ball on this. They have forgotten about the rights of New Zealanders and New Zealand businesses. The champions of the free market—so-called—have become the champions of silly and offensive regulation. Again it is up to the Greens to carry the flag of freedom.