Worth Richard: Major Events Management Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeWorth Richard: Major Events Management Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 22 August 2007. Volume:641;Page:11391. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Dr RICHARD WORTH (National): I would like to join in the words that have been offered by the previous National speaker Mr Peachey the MP for Tamaki in saying that the contribution that Joe McManemin has made should not go unremarked. After all I well recall as a young schoolboy and a quarter-miler having my involvement in team racing run under his direction and his contribution which continued across a range of fronts was truly remarkable.But I just pause to say that the Flags Emblems and Names Protection Act 1981 to which the Minister in the chair the Hon Trevor Mallard has referred is much-amended legislation and this may not be the most tidy amendment that is being proposed. It is curious legislation because the principal Act is in four parts. It deals with the New Zealand flag and ensigns it deals with royal vice-regal State and heralded emblems and names. There is protection of the Girl Guides Association in Part 3 and then a raft of miscellaneous provisions. If one looks at the amendments that have been made to the legislation over time one sees that a schedule was introduced and a number of particular entities and emblems were protected: the New Zealand Commonwealth Games symbol the New Zealand Commonwealth Youth Games emblem the New Zealand Youth Olympic Festival emblem and the Commonwealth Games Federation emblem.Hon Trevor Mallard: That was my fault.Dr RICHARD WORTH: It might well be the fault of the Minister and I suppose that in the context of the egregious offences he has committed in his lifetime this would not be seen to be a particularly significant one.But we come to Part 3 which is the topic of this legislation. I think it is no more complicated than this. Part 3 is basically a re-enactment of sections 20A to 21 of this particular principal Act and the schedule of this bill is a re-enactment of schedule 2A of the Act. For some reason the draftsman considered that it was appropriate to include this provision in the Major Events Management Bill and that was probably unnecessary. [Interruption] The Minister is making a contribution that I cannot hear; he needs to repeat it so I can respond.Hon Trevor Mallard: The Minister asked him to include it because he thought that the old system was a rort.Dr RICHARD WORTH: Well yes; that may well be. But I think the reality is that little has actually happened in terms of the change from that legislation to this bill. Probably two things have happened and those things are that the test in clause 26 has been changed to use the word “confused” instead of “mislead” as it was used in section 20A and the penalty provisions in clause 29 have been changed quite significantly. In fact the penalty is very substantial. The penalty is now $150000 for breach of these provisions. I think that what is being thrown up in any discussion on that sort of change is how these penalty provisions—fixed through a stream of legislation—are consistent or inconstant and I am not sure at all that it is appropriate the penalty should sit at that level in the context of other penalty provisions.Hon Trevor Mallard: Too high or too low?Dr RICHARD WORTH: It is hard to say really. It seems a very significant amount at $150000 when one is looking at what is involved here but more particularly because significant civil remedies are now to be given and the criminal consequences of breach are obviously less significant for the affected organisation. So I would say with some reluctance in endorsing Part 3 that it may appropriately be included but I would not wish that Mr Peachey’s words in connection with the encomium he offered Joe McManemin should ever be forgotten.Part 3 agreed to.