Tremain Chris: Major Events Management Bill — Referral of S.O.P. 106 to Commerce Committee 
Tremain Chris: Major Events Management Bill — Referral of S.O.P. 106 to Commerce Committee 
[Volume:638;Page:8718] 
CHRIS TREMAIN (National—Napier) 
: 
 I acknowledge the member who spoke before me and say that I respect his comments about the Springbok Tour of 1981 but I believe that his speech is somewhat wide of the mark in respect of what we are here to discuss today. Supplementary Order Paper 106 does not deal with the issues the member spoke of. There will still be the right for anyone in this country to protest and to invade a pitch if that is what protesters ultimately end up doing. This particular Supplementary Order Paper deals with another form of pitch invasion—invasion by marketers who choose to take over from marketers who have paid for the rights— 
Nandor Tanczos 
: You’re reading the wrong bill. 
CHRIS TREMAIN 
: I will come back to that; I just wanted to touch on the main bill itself because the Supplementary Order Paper comes into it. 
This is ambush marketing. I will just talk about Nike’s ambush marketing in 1996. Adidas had put up a $50 million campaign for the Olympic Games of that year but Nike used the opportunity to overtake the whole Olympic Games. So at the end of the Olympics when a survey was done of who had been the major sponsor of the games it showed that Nike had managed to overtake Adidas in the minds of those surveyed. 
The Green Party spoke today about new section 25A “Offence to invade pitch at major sporting event” proposed for insertion into the Major Events Management Bill by Supplementary Order Paper 106. Green members talked about streakers and how it was an offence for streakers to invade the pitch. I want to bring members back to a couple of other incidents that did not involve streakers but that were incidents where match officials were required to take people off the paddock. One was in a Tri-Nations game in August 2002 in South Africa when 43-year-old Pieter van Zyl tackled the referee to the ground just a few minutes into the second half of the match which was won by the All Blacks 30-23. Members will remember that particular incident. Pieter van Zyl had evaded 419 security officials to launch— 
Hone Harawira 
: So who kicked the last goal? 
CHRIS TREMAIN 
: —good question—an assault as the All Blacks scrum half Justin Marshall was about to feed the ball into the scrum. People will remember that RichieMcCaw dealt a blow to the invader and it took him a while to get up. But that was one example where this sort of Supplementary Order Paper becomes quite important. 
Another example was where a steward was hurt back in June 2001 in a case of cricket chaos when literally hundreds of people invaded the pitch. The only protest in that instance was that the Pakistanis were losing the game. Did those people have a right to invade the pitch in that instance? I would say that they did not in that situation. So there we have a couple of examples of situations where pitch invasion is illegal and does need to be dealt a blow to—it really does. 
I wish to make one other point before sitting down: National does support this Supplementary Order Paper. There are two points that I wish the Minister in charge of the bill to consider. The offence in the Supplementary Order Paper attracts a $5000 fine but I want the Minister to consider pitch invasion by spectators who are paid by ambush marketers. There was the example of someone who invaded a pitch with a Vodafone sign painted on his back. Once again if Vodafone was not a major sponsor of that particular event but was using ambush marketing tactics to have someone invade the pitch then I think we have every right to find that person and to get him or her out of there. But I would suggest that giving a $5000 fine to a sponsor that has not paid one cent to be at a World Cup final but that still gets its brand in front of millions and millions of people after an incident at that final is nothing. We need to consider that when protecting the rights of sponsors that have put up millions of dollars to have their brand put in front of the public. 
The second point I make is about the definition of the word “propels” in proposed new section 25A(2). We have to consider only the likes of Mexican waves that traverse around stadiums. The definition of “propels” in the Supplementary Order Paper is “intentionally setting an object in motion in any manner including for example throwing kicking dropping or rolling.” In a Mexican wave situation any number of people could be liable to be fined for throwing items into the air that end up on the pitch. So that is just something to consider with regard to that matter. 
Those are a couple of points that I would like members to consider. National will be supporting the Supplementary Order Paper.