Mapp Wayne: Major Events Management Bill — Second Reading 
Mapp Wayne: Major Events Management Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:641;Page:10890] 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 I am very pleased to be able to speak to the Major Events Management Bill. I had the opportunity of sitting in on the Commerce Committee on two separate occasions when the bill was being considered. The interesting thing about the bill of course is that nowhere does it actually refer to the Rugby World Cup but everyone in the country I suspect knows why this bill is being considered. 
The Major Events Management Bill is being considered because of the Rugby World Cup and more particularly the debacle that occurred in our country some 4 years ago when we missed out on co-hosting rights. One of the reasons we missed out on co-hosting rights was that our legislative framework was not strong enough for us to be able to essentially guarantee to the promoters of the Rugby World Cup that it could be run in a modern professional way. Other countries had made these legislative adjustments we had not and the New Zealand Rugby Union was unable to give the undertakings that the international board required. Its members wanted to but they found themselves contractually prohibited from being able to do so. It was and is imperative that as a nation we fix up this deficiency. Other countries have done so and it is high time we recognise the reality of modern international competitions if we want to host them effectively and provide the level of spectacle that is expected. 
We heard on a number of occasions—from both the international board and the New Zealand Rugby Union—why it is so important that the brand of the event be protected and that commercial organisations not be able to in essence piggyback on the huge investment that has gone into building the event and the promotion. A number of examples were given to us. The most notable one has already been referred to by Mr Brownlee whereby an airline had a soccer ball painted on the nose of its aircraft even though it had not paid any money to the international soccer federation for that privilege. Other promoters had put huge sums of money—admittedly for their own commercial benefit—into promoting that event and other people commercial organisations were coming along and effectively exploiting the event. That puts the financial viability of these kinds of events in jeopardy. New Zealand simply has to update its law to deal with that. 
I know that the Green member Mr Locke is concerned about a very particular issue which is that of pitch invasions. He is wrong; to invade a pitch is clearly a criminal offence—and it already is effectively under the disorderly behaviour provisions. It is surely better to have a specific offence but with the same penalty effectively to cover that particular event. I know that a submitter came along and talked about what a spectacle it was and so forth. But that is false really. People do not go to see pitch invasions. They want to see the event. They do not want the game disrupted. It might be amusing to the participants and it might briefly amuse the crowd or at least a proportion of the crowd but it is not what the event is and we as a Parliament surely cannot be in a position where we facilitate that kind of activity. To seriously suggest doing that I would have to say is effectively to endorse disorder. Maybe that is what the Green member wants. Maybe that is his view of freedoms and liberties. Maybe that is his style—let it all hang out so to speak. Well I say to the Green Party that it should grow up on this occasion and understand that there are bigger issues. 
I want to close on this point. These major events seldom come to New Zealand. We have to really work hard these days to get them. We have to ensure that our legal system fits 21st century reality so that we can host these events when once every decade or so we get the opportunity to host them.