Mark Ron: Major Events Management Bill — Third Reading 
Mark Ron: Major Events Management Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:641;Page:11448] 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 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. 
RON MARK 
: 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 1000 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.