Major Events Management Bill — Second Reading 
Major Events Management Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:641;Page:11104] 
Major Events Management Bill 
Second Reading 
Debate resumed from 7 August. 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 It is interesting that when I was last speaking on the Major Events Management Bill which I think was about a week or so ago I raised what I thought to be a rather curious irony. We were debating the Major Events Management Bill 2006 and National Party people stood applauded and expressed their solid support for the prospect the idea—indeed not a prospect nor an idea now—of a law that will ban entrepreneurialism and will actually seek to intervene in the free market’s ability to exploit a commercial advantage or an opportunity. I say to the National Party: “Well done! Well done!”. Some of us have been arguing for probably 11 years that the free-market model is not a panacea to the woes of our economy. 
 For decades the National Party—in fact I go back to Ruth Richardson after she had eliminated one of the greatest politicians of this country Robert Muldoon—imposed upon this nation a more vigorous version of Roger Douglas’ free-marketeering. So in this bill we have history in the making. National Party members stand up and say they wish to curb entrepreneurial ventures put a clamp on commercial opportunity and interdict and intervene in the free market—to stop the ability of New Zealand men and women from taking a commercial opportunity when they see it. 
How strange too is the Labour example. It seeks to promote the concept that pitch invasion should be illegal. I say that is an irony because many of the Labour MPs in this House proudly wear on their chest a badge of honour that says “Springbok Tour 1981”. I think of the number of maiden speeches I have heard from Labour MPs who said: “I was there in ’81 standing up against apartheid invading pitches and participating in riots demonstrations and violent discord.” and I see that many of those Labour Party people now support this bill and proudly say it is important to pass this bill to stop pitch invasion. How can they have forgotten their past? It is a delicious irony. 
New Zealand First supports the bill because frankly we want to see a world event. We want New Zealand to have this opportunity to showcase itself. If it means accepting some commercial reality to make sure that happens then we say that is fine and let us get on with it. 
I was reminded by my leader the Rt Hon Winston Peters about Justice Thurgood Marshall. I wonder whether members have heard of him. Justice Thurgood Marshall was a judge and I think the first black American to achieve the distinction of becoming the most senior justice in the United States. He was well known for his stand on human rights and civil liberties and he was against apartheid and racism. It is of great interest that Judge Thurgood Marshall sat as presiding judge at the hearing of a complaint brought by protesters against the Springboks tour of the United States of America. The Springboks having left New Zealand shores went to the United States to play a four-match test series against the American Eagles. Judge Thurgood Marshall astounded the world by ruling that the test series should go ahead. He cited as a fundamental principle— indeed a principle enforced in the American Constitution—that people have a right to choose whom they wish to associate with. He also countered that neatly by reinforcing people’s right to protest and people’s right to demonstrate against laws and policies that they did not agree with. 
How ironic that contrary to the New Zealand example—where we saw violence gang members upfront leading demonstrations Labour Party activists wearing helmets and carrying shields in direct violent confrontation with the police—the Americans whom many people in this House have criticised so often had a dignified situation where the Springboks played the American Eagles and where the protest against one test match and numbering about 1000 people was allowed to go ahead but not in such a way that it could interdict the rights of the players to associate with whomever they chose. The match went ahead. Of course the Springboks hammered the American Eagles and I think they lost that test 44-0 or something like that. The Springboks won the entire series 4-0. 
Tonight we are debating the Major Events Management Bill. Two fundamental principles that the two old parties—National and Labour—have vigorously and righteously stood for they are now voting against. How sweet the irony! I welcome all those MPs to the world of reality and pragmatism and to recognition of the people’s right to do things in a lawful way without sacrificing their own rights. I am one of those people who believe in freedom of association—that is freedom of association that does not harm or hurt other people—and believe that people have the democratic right to demonstrate and protest. Indeed one of the reasons that I am proud of having worn the New Zealand Army uniform and served in Her Majesty’s defence forces is that fundamentally that is what we are doing. We are guaranteeing the rights of New Zealanders to live in a free and democratic State where they have the right to protest to express their points of view. No matter how violently I or anyone else might disagree with it they have that absolute right. Certain people like Willie Apiata from the New Zealand Special Air Service fought to guarantee that people should have that right for ever and a day in this nation. 
So here we are debating the Major Events Management Bill. We see National Party members stand up and say that free-marketeering should not be rampant it does have boundaries and we should curb it. I welcome the National Party’s view. I am exhilarated by this new-look National Party. I can see the Hon David Carter who was once a free-marketeer right to the back of his ears and to the very last root of every hair on his head now standing and saying that the free market needs curbing and ambush marketing should be stopped. We welcome the Hon David Carter to this world where some of us do not believe that the free market should be able to reign unbridled. I also welcome on behalf of New Zealand First the Labour members who now realise that their actions during the Springbok Tour of 1981 may not necessarily have been right or proper although their right to demonstrate and protest most certainly was. 
This Major Events Management Bill in 2007 is—how strange—a delicious irony. The speeches that have been made will be recorded in  
Hansard 
 and I guess some interesting moments of reflection will occur as National and Labour collectively vote for this bill and curb two fundamental principles that they have long championed at the expense of other people’s rights. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party is opposed to the Major Events Management Bill. It has come out of the Commerce Committee as bad as it went in. It is regulatory madness all in the interests of big international corporates who will be the official sponsors of major events—in particular of the Rugby World Cup of 2011. Those corporates are companies like Coca-Cola McDonald’s Adidas Goodyear and Heineken—at least those companies are sponsoring the soon-to-be-held Rugby World Cup in France. This bill puts allegiance to those big multinationals ahead of the rights of New Zealanders and New Zealand business people. 
Wayne Mapp of National said we had to pass this type of legislation otherwise we would not have the world cup here. How come then New Zealand was given hosting rights to the world cup event without any mention of this legislation which popped up only a year later? Clearly it was never a condition of New Zealand being granted the world cup. This is over-the-top regulation. Sometimes the Greens are criticised for being too strong in terms of regulation but in supporting this bill both Labour and National have shown they are the kings and queens of over-regulation. 
They are protecting powerful global advertisers like Coca-Cola from competition even if it is 5 kilometres from the stadium along what are called “clean transport routes”. If Coca-Cola is again a sponsor of a world cup then Lemon and Paeroa and who knows what other brands will be banned from advertising along the 5 kilometres of a designated clean transport route. It is not just protecting certain brands only on the day of the big game; the definition of a “clean period” is loose. It could be many days before or after the big game. In the Committee stage the Greens will put forward an amendment to remove this provision for clean transport routes. 
The so-called “clean zones” are not so obnoxious because they relate only to the stadium and perhaps the road outside. However to get carried away and put all this into law may well prompt Kiwis who do not like being over-regulated to come to the game with jokes signs or T-shirts advertising a competing sponsor. Will we see Kiwis being prosecuted for displaying a Tui-like slogan because the official beer is Heineken as it is in the world cup in France this year? The select committee pushed out the boat a little further by making it illegal under new clause 16(1A) even for a person who is outside the clean zone such as on his or her own front lawn to street trade with someone who is in the clean zone. 
 For any of this banned street trading or any of the banned advertising under the bill including advertising along the 5-kilometre clean transport route people can be given a fine of up to $150000. Is it not a bit sick to protect companies like Coca-Cola to that extent? One of the official advertisers in 2011 might be Emirates Airline which is one of the sponsors of the world cup in France this year. The Government and the rich princes behind Emirates Airline who are also trying to take over our key airport hub Auckland International Airport may well in 2011 be protected by this bill which will stop any advertising by Air New Zealand along the declared 5-kilometre clean transport route. The fine for Air New Zealand would be up to $150000. How unpatriotic can we get? 
A lot of the media attention and public mirth have been focused on the setting up of a new offence of pitch invasion covering such people as streakers political protesters or people with unofficial corporate logos on their clothing. The media have interviewed people in the street on this topic and virtually all of them are incredulous. With all the problems in New Zealand and the world—poverty rocketing house prices climate change—why is this Government wasting time on a new bill to chuck streakers in jail for up to 3 months? Has it not got better things to do than to stifle people’s fun? It is not as if there are not laws already to give streakers a little legal rap over the knuckles. When Lisa Lewis who presented to the select committee on the bill ran onto a Hamilton ground in a bikini she was arrested and fined a total of $330 including costs for disorderly behaviour. I do not of course encourage streakers—and I say this because earlier in the debate I was accused of wanting to facilitate streaking. But let us face it most of it is done in good fun and those who do it expect to suffer a minor legal consequence. We do not need an anti-fun bill. 
The one international major event that might well have the odd colourful pitch invasion is the annual Wellington international Rugby Sevens where unlike most other games the action is in the stands more than on the field and the odd spectator in fancy dress might wander on to the field. The Wellington Rugby Sevens would certainly qualify as a major event under the bill as would a Bledisloe Cup game or a Super 14 final between Aussie and New Zealand clubs. Anything can qualify as long as a fair number of people are coming from overseas for the game and more important the advertising exposure is international—mainly via a live TV feed. 
Of course there is an honourable tradition of pitch invasion carried out for political reasons. Back in 1913 Emily Davison ran on to a British racetrack and helped to put women’s suffrage on the political map. There is also an honourable tradition in New Zealand. In 1981 people ran on to rugby fields during a game with a Springbok team representing the racism of apartheid. These people were actually helped in the courts; the judges had a degree of sympathy for them in that they often recognised that the pitch invaders had a humanitarian motivation and either let them off altogether or gave them a minor fine. Then there are those like the streakers who painted a Vodafone symbol on their chests. That is a tradition we have seen here too. 
Do we really need a whole new offence of pitch invasion to cover these different types of people none of whom mean any harm to spectators or to rugby players? It is a principle of lawmaking that new laws are not made unnecessarily. There is a perfectly good law against disorderly behaviour now which covers streaking and provides for very minor fines. Disorderly behaviour does not have the $5000 maximum fine that pitch invasion will. Both offences will have a maximum 3-month prison term. But we do not need a prison term for streaking. Some forms of disorderly behaviour like disorderly behaviour leading to a serious risk of violence—perhaps on a plane—might qualify for a prison term but there is no way that streaking should ever qualify for a prison term. Most New Zealanders think that is absurd and Trevor Mallard and the Government should listen to them. 
Let us look at the anti-scalping provision which provides that people are not allowed to sell a ticket at more than its cover price. I understand that people do not like scalpers making big profits but do we really need to legislate against a second-hand market in tickets? Why should we? We cannot stop it; it will only go underground or it will go on to the Internet. TradeMe submitted to the select committee explaining the problems that this bill will pose for it. Even if TradeMe does its best to stop most trading of tickets people can then just move on to eBay or some other site and trade them there. I do not often agree with Roger Kerr of the Business Roundtable but I agree with his submission to the select committee that we should not interfere in the free market in this way. 
Surely the solution—or a large part of the solution—is for events managers to make sure the tickets are distributed fairly through clubs through the Internet or however. This is already done to a large extent and often with Internet sales everyone does have a chance. There will always be a secondary market which is what smart operators overseas like the San Francisco Giants baseball club recognise. They actually have an Internet site where they run a secondary market where people can onsell tickets. That is a better way to go. There will always be people who have extra tickets or who get sick and they should have the opportunity to onsell. Do we really need to get hot and bothered if they make a profit? 
I think National and Labour intimidated by the big global corporate advertisers have dropped the ball on this. They have forgotten about the rights of New Zealanders and New Zealand businesses. The champions of the free market—so-called—have become the champions of silly and offensive regulation. Again it is up to the Greens to carry the flag of freedom. 
HONE HARAWIRA (Maori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Deputy Speaker; tena koe Mr Jones; tena tatou e te Whare. Hoi ano tera pea a te wa ka tohungia e Guinness ko te tino Maori o nga Maori katoa ka kore e riro ki tetahi o tatau o roto i tenei Whare. Tera pea ko tetahi ka tonoa ki te Horo Rongonui ko Hori Nepia o Ngati Rakaipaka. Na koia tera i ahau e whakaaro ana mo tenei pire i huri oku whakaaro ki a ia me te haerenga o te Kapa o Pango ki Awherika ki te Tonga i te tau 1960. 
Koia ra te tau i huri te Kapa o Pango hei Kapa o Ma—na te tautoko o te Uniana Whutupaoro o Aotearoa ki nga tono a Awherika ki te Tonga kia kaua te kiri parauri e haere. I mua tonu o te haerenga nei i tono a Hori Nepia i tetahi karere ki te Ropu Tautoko i te Kapa o Pango i Te Whanga-nui-a-Tara me tana ki: “Kia kaha ra. Whakapa mai mena e hiahia ana koutou ki tetahi pou muri.” Engari hara te Citizens All Black Tour Association i te hunga whiriwhiri tima. He ropu tenei i whakaturia hei whakakahoretia i nga hikoi hakinakina ranei i tautoko nei i te kawana kaikiri. E ai ki ta Hori Nepia ko te take e kore taea e ia te uru atu ki nga tima haere ki Awherika ki te Tonga i te tau 1928 ko te mea he Maori a ia. Na koia te timatanga mai o te tautoko i te tu manapori. He tu whakahe ki te kore tuara ngoikore ranei o te Uniana Whutupaoro i whakaae mai kia pera rawa te whakarite o te tima kia taea ai e ratou te tukituki atu i te tima Springboks 
Na koia nei te ahua o te rangirua. I nga wiki kua hipa ara ahau otira tatou a Aotearoa whanui e kaha umere ana mo te Kapa o Pango i to ratou whiwhinga i te Ipu Bledisloe me te Ipu Whenua Tokotoru. He tika ra ki a au te tono a te Ropu Kapa Whutupaoro o te Ao ki te komiti whaiti e mea ana: “Ko nga pou e rua ko Aotearoa ko te whutupaoro e kore e taea te wehewehe. He momo hakinakina e kaingakau ana i te iwi he toa ratou he piripono a he hakinakina e kaha ana ratou ki te tautoko a kakore hoki e kitea tenei tu ahuatanga i wetahi atu whenua o te ao hakoa he aha te momo hakinakina.” 
Engari anei ahau e tautoko ana i te hiahia a wetahi ki te whakararuraru i nga hui whakahirahira nei kia whai wahi ai ratou ki te tautohe. Ka kaha whakahe te Pati Maori i te Pepa Tapiritanga e mea ana he hara nui te ekenga o te tangata ki te papa takaro i te mea he mea e noho taupatupatu ana tera i te whakapapa o nga mahi tautohe e mohiotia nei tatou i Aotearoa nei. Ki te Pepa Tapiritanga 106—“Ekenga papa takaro” eke poka noa kua ara ake tetahi hara hou nei. He hara mauhere tonu ki te toru marama he utu ranei o te $5000. Mena ka eke koe ki te papa takaro whiu ranei i tetahi mea ki kona. 
He aha i whakahe atu ai ki tenei Tapiritanga? Me maumahara ano tatou ki nga ra o mua ki nga whakataetae nui me te mohio ano hoki he huarahi tenei i ata tirohia nuitia hei whakairi i nga take nui nei ki te ao nga take tukino wehenga a-iwi aronga a-iwi me te mahie ano hoki. Kei to matou hitori tera momo korero mai i nga ahuatanga o te tau 1981. Ka hoki oku mahara ki taua tau me te ekenga poka noa o te 350 tangata ki te papa whutupaoro i Kirikiriroa a kua whakakorea e ratau te kemu. Koia ra te ekenga rongonui e mohiotia nei tatou i Aotearoa nei. 
E ai ki wetahi o tenei Whare ko tenei he ra pouri nui he ra whakama hoki. Kua rongo hoki matou i wetahi o Reipa e korero pahupahu ana mo to ratou tu i taua ra. He tohu nui tera mo to ratou whakahe i nga tikanga kaikiri meinga meinga. Kua wareware tere ke ratou. Me pehea tatou e taea ai te ki hei aha wena momo mahi me huri tatou ki te tautoko i te pire nei i tenei ra. Me pehea ra te waiho i te karanga a “Amandla” me nga korero mo nga rakau patu kia moe 
? 
 I te pera i Kirikiriroa i Otautahi i Tamaki-makau-rau tonu ara i te wa i whakatakaina nga pahutanga puehu paraoa i te rangi kia mutu ai te kemu. Ko te tikanga o te pire kei mua i te Whare i tenei rangi ko te whakarite whainga kia kore ai etahi e whai i era tauira kia hamenehia tonu te hunga hara. 
Ko te mate ke i konei i Aotearoa nei kua puta to tatou rongonui ki te ao mo to tatou kaha ki te whakahe i te mahi kaikiri i te whakawhiunga a-tangata. Koia ra te ahua o taua wa ko te ekenga poka noa ki te papa takaro ka mutu he wahanga o to tatou hitori. He hiahia tonu tera no tatou ki te Whakakore i te Haerenga Mai o taua hunga whutupaoro na he tohu tera mo to tatou ngakau nui ki enei mea ki te noho tahi te noho orite ki te tika me te pono. 
Ki te tautoko tatou o tenei Paremata i te Pepa Tapiritanga 106 ara noa atu a tatou mahi ehara i te mea ko te paku rawekeweke tatou i te ture. Kei te ki ke tatou ko te tu i te tau 1981 he tunga i tautokongia e te maha o nga mema o tenei Paremata he hara tonu ka mutu me mauhere i te tangata ka tika. Koia na te tino putake ae ra hoki i mau heretia wetahi. Engari ko taku kia kaua tatou e here i te hiahia o wetahi ki te whakaatu i to ratou takariri ki te hara nui whakaharahara nei ki te ao tangata. He herenga tohe he herenga rangatiratanga. 
Na ko tetahi take ano hei mea korero maku i tenei panuitanga tuarua ko tera e pa ana ki te tiakitanga me te mana whakahaere i runga ake o nga mea penei i nga tohu kupu ranei e hangai tonu ana ki te Taumahekeheke o te Ao o te Kahui o Ingarangi ranei. He mea rahui te pire nei i te whakaaturanga o nga tohu mena horekau he whakaaetanga ka mutu i tana ka tiakina a-ture wenei tohu mo tetahi wa. 
I te kotahi marama kua hipa ake nei i te wa e inoi ana te Pati Maori ki te Kawanatanga ki te ata titiro ki tetahi kamupene tiaki Wiwi na ratou te ki he ropu Maori nei ratou he ngoikore tonu te whakautu mai a te Pirimia. Hakoa i mohiotia tonu te Pirimia ae he tauira ano tenei o te hunga kaipakihi o te ao me wa ratou mahi nanakia ki nga tikanga o te tangata whenua hei whakanui i ona ake rawa whakaritenga mahi auare ake kaore a ia i whai atu i tenei take. 
Engari anei wenei whakaaro kia hamenehia te hunga hara ki te $150000 mo te kore whiwhi whakaaetanga mo tetahi momo tohu hei whakanui i tetahi hui nui whakahirahira i Aotearoa nei. He aha te tikanga o tera? Kua tae mai wetahi korero ki te Pati Maori mo nga momo taonga momo whakaaturanga kua takahi nei i nga tikanga. Kahore he mutunga mai o te rarangi korero nei—he huna kanohi Halloween he haka hei hoko waka Itaria he tohu Maori i runga pakete hikareti. 
Kua puta ano hoki ko te nanakia hou nei a Baking Industry o Aotearoa me ta ratou ripene whakaata o tetahi ropu pihikete parauri nei e haka ana ae he pihikete e haukerekerehia nei ki raro i te peke paura te ahua nei he peke paura ma. Ko te wero nui nei e penei ana. Hakoa he mahi poka noa te mahi ko te ahua nei horekau he rongoa. Kati anei tetahi pire e kaha tiaki nei i te hunga whakariterite hui me te hunga kaipakihi nui whai putea nei. A i tua atu i tera horekau he tikanga e ahei ai te Maori ki te noho i te tepu whakatau kia taea ai e matou te ki he hui whakahirahira tenei hui ko te arai ranei i te mahi nanakia i nga taonga tuku iho. 
Hakoa ko nga take e rua nei kei te marama tonu Te Pati Maori ki te honore otira ko nga hua ka puta ki Aotearoa i to tatou powhiri ki te ao ki te Ipu Whutupaoro o te Ao 2011 te taumahekeheke Hoe Waka 2010 te Poi Whana mo nga wahine Taiohi i te 2008. Kei a Aotearoa te powhiri ki te Ipu o te Ao mo te Kirikiti. Mo enei momo hui e hia ke nei te hunga haere mai matakitaki mai ranei. 
Tera pea ka whai hua ano hoki nga hui Maori hui tangata whenua ara he hui kua kawea e tenei whenua penei i te Taumahekeheke Waka Ama i roto i tenei pire. Hakoa e mohio ana matou he painga ka puta na enei hui nui nei e rua nga maharahara nui. Tuatahi ko te kore tikanga hei tiaki i nga tohu Maori tuarua mo te putake o tenei pire me tona panga ki te noho kawanatanga a-iwi. Kaore matou i te tautoko i tenei pirei. Tena koe tena tatou katoa. 
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
[ 
Greetings to you Mr Deputy Speaker Mr Jones and all of us in the House. Chances are that when the Guinness Book of Records chooses to make the award for the greatest Maori ever known it will not be any of us in this House. One person who may however be invited into the Hall of Fame must be George Nepia of Ngati Rakaipaka. And so it was when considering the precedents for the Major Events Management Bill I was thinking of him—and in particular the 1960 All Black rugby tour to South Africa. 
In the year 1960 the All Blacks became the “All Whites”—as the New Zealand Rugby Union sought to comply with the request from South Africa that its team did not want to host coloureds. In the lead-up to the tour Nepia sent a telegram to the New Zealand Citizens’ All Black Tour Association in Wellington saying: “Best of luck. Let me know if you need a fullback.” But the Citizens’ All Black Tour Association was not about to select teams. It was an association established to mobilise pressure against any sporting tour that sought to support a regime of apartheid. Nepia always believed that the reason he was mysteriously unselected for an earlier tour of South Africa in 1928 was that he was Maori. So began the process of democratic demonstration—an act of rebellion against the gutlessness of a Rugby Union that agreed to submit to a racially selected rugby team in order to play the Springbok team. 
So here is the irony. In recent weeks along with every other New Zealander in the land I was cheering as the All Blacks secured the Bledisloe Cup and Tri-Nations. The Rugby World Cup submission to the select committee summed it up for me: “It is barely possible to think of New Zealand without also thinking about rugby. It is a game at which it excels loves and supports with an enthusiasm and a passion that would be hard to match in any other country for any other sport.” 
Yet here I am standing up for the right to disrupt major events by enabling the right to protest. The Maori Party will oppose the Supplementary Order Paper which makes it an offence for a person to go on to a playing surface as that provision flies in the face of a proud history of protest that we know here in Aotearoa. Subpart 5 “Pitch invasion” which Supplementary Order Paper 106 seeks to insert creates an offence punishable by a term of imprisonment not exceeding 3 months or a fine not exceeding $5000 for going on to the playing surface at a major event or propelling any object on to it. 
Why would we object to this Supplementary Order Paper? Let us think back on a history that has recognised that major sporting events are one means a very high-profile means of bringing attention to issues of injustice racial segregation ethnic targeting and hatred. That history of course is firmly established through the events of 1981. And I think back to that year when 350 people entered Rugby Park in Hamilton and the game was abandoned. That was perhaps the most famous pitch invasion that this country has ever known.  
It came from a period of our history that politicians across the House have variously referred to as our darkest days of shame. We have heard Labour MPs refer to their badge of honour in marching against the cause of apartheid. How quickly they forget! How can we say we should forget that history and turn around today to accept this proposal? How can calls of “Amandla” and stories of the long batons be left to one side? It was like that in Hamilton in Christchurch and in Auckland when flour bombs were dropped from a plane in an effort to stop the game. The proposal before the House today is that procedures be established to prohibit pitch invasion and make convictions.  
Yet it is in this country Aotearoa that New Zealanders gained an international reputation for being proud and determined opponents of racism and oppression. The tactics and strategy of that time which included the actions of the pitch invaders will be forever a part of this nation’s history in seeking not only to “Stop the Tour” but also to signal to the world our commitment to racial harmony equality and justice. 
If we in this Parliament support Supplementary Order Paper 106 we are doing much more than agreeing to a raft of consequential amendments. What we are saying is that the stand taken in 1981—a stand supported by many of the members of this House—was an offence was a crime worthy of imprisonment. The point is that yes indeed some were jailed. But the opportunity to demonstrate and to express our indignation at the greatest crime of humanity must not be squashed. To silence protest is to silence freedom. 
The other point I want to raise at this second reading is in connection with the attention given to the protection and control of certain emblems and words relating to the Olympic Games and Commonwealth Games. The bill prohibits the use of such symbols without appropriate authorisation and suggests further that these symbols could be given legal protection for a specified period. 
Is it not a bit rich that when less than a month ago the Maori Party called for the Government to intervene after we found a French-owned multinational security company was calling itself “Maori Group” the Prime Minister’s response was less than enthusiastic? The Prime Minister while recognising that this was but one of many examples of international businesses exploiting indigenous culture to promote their own products and services chose not to take the issue any further. 
Yet here we have proposals of fines up to $150000 for false unauthorised or unofficial use of a particular brand to promote a major event in New Zealand. What is with that? The Maori Party would be approached once a week about products and promotions that cause cultural offence. The list is endless: Halloween masks the haka used to sell Italian cars Maori symbols on cigarette packets. 
The latest culprit is the Baking Industry Association of New Zealand with an animated video featuring a group of gingerbread men performing the haka—who are eventually squashed and flattened underneath a large sack of—presumably white—flour. The key challenge is that while Maori cultural and intellectual property is misappropriated yet here in this bill every effort has been made to protect big-scale organisers and big-business sponsors. Further it appears there are no mechanisms available to enable Maori involvement in the decision making of declaring events to be “major events” or around preventing the exploitation of intellectual property. 
Notwithstanding these two issues the Maori Party is very aware of the honour and the opportunity provided to New Zealand in hosting the Rugby World Cup in 2011 the World Rowing Championships in 2010 and the Youth Women’s Football World Cup in 2008. New Zealand will also co-host the Cricket World Cup in 2015. These kinds of major events attract large numbers of visitors and spectators.  
We are forever hopeful that there will be benefits in this bill for some of the major Maori and Indigenous sporting events this country has hosted such as the World Waka Ama championships. Even though we recognise the benefits that will flow from these major events there are two major concerns for us: firstly the failure to protect indigenous images and secondly the threat this bill poses to our ability to maintain a healthy democracy. We are not supporting this bill. I thank you and all of us. 
] 
ALLAN PEACHEY (National—Tamaki) 
: 
 I am grateful for the opportunity in the last couple of minutes of the sitting today to speak in support of the Major Events Management Bill. A lot of work has gone into getting this bill right by all parties around the House. It was very very disappointing therefore to see the spokesperson for the Government’s junior coalition partner take the opportunity to attack the National Party’s attitude to this bill. It was not necessary it was not helpful but it was unfortunately increasingly typical of the behaviour of that party in this House—behaviour that is leading us to think that MMP in actual fact stands for “Mickey Mouse Politics” because that was what we saw from the member of the Government’s junior coalition partner. 
A lot of work has been necessary to get this bill right and this Parliament was fortunate to have the thought consideration and reflection that the National members of the Commerce Committee were able to bring to it. You know I was interested to listen to Mr Mark try to ridicule the concept of entrepreneurship. I would have thought that the supreme example of entrepreneurship was the effort of the New Zealand Rugby Union in going out onto the world market and competing for what I understand is the third largest sporting event in the world—the third largest. The New Zealand Rugby Union went out there competed and won the right to host that event against bigger countries and against much more powerful commercial interests. I would have thought that the member of the Government’s junior coalition party actually would have at the very least acknowledged that point. 
This legislation is all about making—[ 
Interruption 
] Do I hear a voice from the distance interrupting as usual? This legislation is all about making sure that the Rugby World Cup 2011 and the other major sporting and other events that will be attracted to New Zealand can be hosted here. We have to conform whether or not we like it. 
Debate interrupted.