Worth Richard: Major Events Management Bill — Second Reading 
Worth Richard: Major Events Management Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:641;Page:10889] 
Dr RICHARD WORTH (National) 
: 
 I thank the House for the opportunity of talking on the Major Events Management Bill. I have a very short time to talk about a couple of issues that I think are of moment and I do that of course to a crowded gallery and a hushed House. But is it not interesting that when we ran the America’s Cup in New Zealand we did not see the need for this legislation. Yet the America’s Cup has to be one of the great sporting contests of all time with all of the aspects around sponsorship competition and ambush marketing which are seen as critical in this legislation. 
I want to talk about three issues for just a moment in the context of the second reading of this bill which National supports. The first is that we are seeing in this legislation and it is pretty unusual in this Parliament a legislative drafting style that is only starting to creep in. I think it is a good thing. What I am referring to and there are several illustrations of this in the legislation is the inclusion of examples in the body of the statute. For those members of the gallery who have copies of the bill in front of them I direct their attention for a moment to an example in clause 21. On a tricky issue that took a lot of time in the select committee there is an illustration of what might happen. It is set out in textual form on the face of the legislation. It is an example relating to “the clean zone and the clean period as well as the clean transport routes and the associated clean periods set out in the examples in section 15.” What the draftsmen have done—I think cleverly and appropriately and what is not done in many other parliaments in the Western democracies—is to give an example. 
The example states: “Example 1. Existing Business A carries on its business from a private building situated on private land on Stevens Street. Although the land is located within the overall parameters of the clean zone because it is private land it has not been declared to be part of that clean zone. Existing Business A has a large billboard on the roof of its building advertising Existing Business A’s services. This billboard has been there for many years. The advertising on the billboard is clearly visible from within the clean zone. Existing Business A does not have the written authorisation of the major event organiser for this advertising.” The example concludes that “This is not a breach” of the relevant section. 
Throughout this legislation there are these scattered examples. I say to members of the House that this is a great parliamentary drafting style. We have seen flow diagrams and now we are seeing examples in the legislation. In the context of quite technical issues—and tax would be the great one—the greater use of examples is clearly worthwhile. 
The second thing I would like to note is a topic that I think the Commerce Committee found quite vexing and I am glad that members of the Government are leaning forward to listen with interest to what I now say. It is about the issue of scalping; the issue of tickets and the deal where people buy tickets for the game at fair value then sell them at a substantial premium. This legislation outlaws scalping and I am not in my own mind persuaded that that strikes the very best balance that might occur. 
The final thing I want to say in the minute that remains to me—apart from acknowledging the incredible work that the Commerce Committee chairman Gerry Brownlee did in guiding the committee in its deliberations and in offering on those very tricky issues where we were uncertain as to how to proceed perhaps the beacon that would lead us to something that was truly worthwhile—is about an issue that I took charge of in the select committee. It relates to the aspect of enforcement. In the example I gave I touched on clean zones clean routes and those sorts of issues but what the legislation originally proposed was that officers who were acting under a warrant from the Chief Executive of the Ministry of Economic Development could go in and carry out enforcement activity. I instinctively felt that was wrong. I am delighted to see that a change has been made so that those enforcement aspects are done in the context of a police presence. 
Thank you very much Mr Deputy Speaker for giving me an opportunity to talk on this important legislation and to pay tribute to Mr Brownlee.