Locke Keith: Major Events Management Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeLocke Keith: Major Events Management Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 22 August 2007. Volume:641;Page:11377. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]KEITH LOCKE (Green): I think Ron Mark was right to bring in the honourable tradition of political protest in New Zealand sometimes involving a presence on sports fields. He mentioned the possible situation of people protesting the situation in Zimbabwe and we had the 1981 anti - Springbok tour demonstrations. Generally the people taking part in this civil disobedience as it were do not expect not to be prosecuted; no one is saying that. But one does not need to put in a whole big penalty on it. Up to date it has fallen under the offence of disorderly behaviour. Sure disorderly behaviour has a maximum penalty of 3 months in jail but there has never been any thought by judges of imposing a prison sentence on streakers or people involved in this activity.What happened to the political protestors was that they actually got a lower penalty in the courts in 1981 or more recently in Britain they have completely got off for their civil disobedience around the Trident programme. The judges said: “Well because you were well motivated and you weren’t doing it for selfish reasons we’ll reduce the penalty.” That is effectively what has happened. But this bill is going totally in the opposite direction and saying that this is such a bad offence that we have to get beyond just a small fine under the heading of disorderly behaviour and put in a whole new offence with a maximum penalty of 3 months in prison and get all hot and bothered about it. That is completely the wrong way to go.I reject what Gerry Brownlee says that somehow I am encouraging pitch invasions. That is not the case at all. But let us face it—if someone does a little streak on a field that may not disrupt the game more than the average injury stoppage. Historically a lot of the time streakers have been a welcome extra element for many spectators. I am not encouraging streakers but I am just saying that we do not need to think that we theParliament have to bring in a whole new offence to get around a problem that really does not exist.Gerry Brownlee went on to say we were encouraging New Zealand business. In fact if members look at the sponsors of the Rugby World Cup in France this year I do not think they will see any French firms amongst the major sponsors—there may be sponsors but the major sponsors are not French. I do not expect that a single New Zealand firm will be a major sponsor in 2011 at the Rugby World Cup. The sponsors will be the same as at the present time—McDonald’s and Coca-Cola etc. who are the sponsors at the Rugby World Cup in France. New Zealand businesses will be out of the picture and this law will be used against them if they advertise even several kilometres from the venue.In terms of the definition of a major event I think under the definition here it could apply to a number of events in addition to the 2011 Rugby World Cup because one needs in terms of the definition as printed a large number of international participants or spectators therefore generating significant tourism opportunities.We could interpret that as a Bledisloe Cup match or possibly a Waratahs versus Auckland Sevens final or the International Sevens if it gets the tourist traffic that the Hong Kong Sevens gets. That could apply to those events. They attract significant sponsorship and media coverage. I think that would already apply to a number of the events I have mentioned and it would raise New Zealand’s international profile. It could apply to a number of events including the Rugby Sevens. Most of the action is actually in the stands at the Rugby Sevens. There is good action on the field too but it is quite conceivable that come early next year the odd dressed-up spectator will wander on to the field. That could happen in future similar tournaments including the Rugby World Cup. But I would ask why we really want to jump all over such people with a heavier penalty. Do we not have better things to do?SureThe Lord of the Ringsattracted a lot of international attention to New Zealand but the difference between that and the Rugby World Cup is not just the number of people who might watch the TV feed of the Rugby World Cup—and I agree with Gerry Brownlee that it may be greater than the number of people who watchedThe Lord of the Rings—but is also thatThe Lord of the Rings did not impinge on the human rights of New Zealanders. This bill does.The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 138 in the name of Keith Locke to clause 4 to omit and substitute words be agreed to.