Worth Richard: Major Events Management Bill — Third Reading 
Worth Richard: Major Events Management Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:641;Page:11442] 
Dr RICHARD WORTH (National) 
: 
 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 $5000. 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.