Major Events Management Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMajor Events Management Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 22 August 2007. Volume:641;Page:11370. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Major Events Management BillIn CommitteePart 1 Preliminary provisionsALLAN PEACHEY (National—Tamaki): The National Party is of course supporting this legislation. National members have been very happy to work with the Government and with other parties in the Commerce Committee to make sure that the Major Events Management Bill is tidy legislation and legislation that reflects the balance that will be needed to make sure it works.It is quite a significant step for New Zealand to move forward and think about our ability as a country to actually host major events and the 2011 Rugby World Cup is I understand the third-largest sporting event in the world. So it is a great credit to the New Zealand Rugby Union and to those who work with the Rugby Union to secure that. But it means that we have to do it right because if we do not do it right other sporting organisations will not entrust similar responsibilities to New Zealand. That is what this bill is pretty much about. It sets up the right regulatory framework and puts in place the right sort of legislation so that when the opportunity arises we can bid for and secure these events and do them well.There is a high test on the definition of “major event” and that is how it should be. There will be a temptation for various groups and organisations that are hosting events to want to elevate their event to the major event level. This bill—passed in its present form—should prevent that from happening. The test of what is a major event must be very high because balanced against that are some definitions of restrictions on what individual New Zealanders and business interests can do when this Act is applied—so we want to get that right. A lot of the work in the select committee was centred on making sure that the balance was right.When I considered the purpose of the bill I reflected on some of the arguments that have been put up against the restriction on ambush marketing and the suggestions that this sort of legislation is in actual fact anti-entrepreneurial. That is absolute nonsense of course and I ask members who have run that argument and who decide this afternoon to run it again to just reflect on something. That something is that we will not get events of the size of the 2011 Rugby World Cup in New Zealand if we are not prepared to put in place some protections for those who invest in the venture. In my mind it is nodifferent at all from the protections that we give to for example science or medical research companies that have the opportunity having invested sometimes hundreds—Ron Mark: Ha ha!ALLAN PEACHEY: Well the member for New Zealand First may think it is funny but I suggest he reflect on what I am about to say. The incentive for companies to invest heavily in that sort of research lies in the opportunities they have to maximise the returns from the product once the research is completed the product is tested and the product goes on the market. That is how it should be and investment in something like the Rugby World Cup needs to be seen in a similar context. Businesses are not going to make thoughtful carefully thought-out decisions in terms of putting up the millions of dollars that are required to underwrite events like this if they are not going to have a fair opportunity to get a fair return from their investment.So instead of talking about this bill being in some way anti-entrepreneurial members need to see it in the wider context of the motivation for business to invest in a venture. Frankly it does not really matter whether the venture is the 2011 Rugby World Cup or one of the two or three other major events that New Zealand is hoping to host in the next 10 years or so.KEITH LOCKE (Green): It is rather strange to hear the National Party backing up the Government in this Chamber and in this case supporting the force of the State being used to prevent businesses from operating and to prevent competition. That is what this bill is all about. It is about the heavy hand of the State and supporting it is hardly something I would expect from parties that claim they are in favour of the free market free competition and all the rest of it.When one actually looks at the definitions in this part one sees that in clause 3 “Purposes” a purpose is to “obtain maximum benefits from the major event for New Zealanders;”. I do not see how it gets maximum benefit for New Zealanders to say prevent Air New Zealand from advertising 5 kilometres out along a clean transport route as declared under this bill because say Emirates Airline is the official sponsor of the 2011 Rugby World Cup—as Emirates Airline is the sponsor of the Rugby World Cup soon to take place in France. How does it help New Zealand businesses if we stop them from advertising 5 kilometres away from an event venue—be it Air New Zealand against Emirates Airline or Lemon and Paeroa against Coca-Cola which is the sponsor of the Rugby World Cup this year and maybe in 2011? I think that is a bit strange.The clause further states in subclause (2)(ca) that the legislation “prohibits activities that might compromise the smooth running of a major event such as ticket scalping and pitch invasion;”. At first sight I wonder how ticket scalping—whether or not we like it—affects the smooth running of an event. I understood that ticket scalping was the selling of tickets and that is a bit different from what happens on a rugby field or in the stands. Again the anti-competitive streak in the National Party and in Labour seems to be motivating that provision.Of course we do not like people to make huge fortunes out of onselling tickets but do we really want to put in a whole bureaucratic procedure to stop what is effectively a trade in second-hand goods? Any decent organiser of a major event will distribute the tickets quite widely and some people may end up with one or two extra and may make a bit of a profit out of them but is that really such a huge problem in society? With regard to the Rugby Sevens to be held in Wellington next year the tickets go on sale next month. People can get them on the Internet and there will be a lot of competition for tickets. I do not think anyone is going to end up with a huge number of tickets to onsell so how will that affect the running of the event?And how will inventing a whole new offence of pitch invasion help with the smooth running of the event? Disorderly behaviour is already an offence on the law books. Sofar anyone who has disrupted a sporting event by running on the field has been charged with disorderly behaviour; we do not need that new offence in order to allow the smooth running of events. I think that this bill is completely unnecessary.The bill also defines what a major event is. The previous speaker said it would have to meet a high test but as I understand it the event—and there is flexibility about this in terms of the views of the Government of the day—has to have international visitors of some substance and have international advertising associated with it. That would apply to the Bledisloe Cup and to a Super 14 final if it had a foreign team and a lot of Aussies coming across the Tasman say. It would certainly apply to the Rugby Sevens which comes up next year.I turn to the definition in the bill of a clean transport route. Why do we need clean transport routes? That is the heavy hand of the State and I will be moving a Supplementary Order Paper to remove that. I hope to get support for it from other parties. I know several other parties will be supporting the Greens on that and I just hope that either Labour or National will too.MARYAN STREET (Labour): I rise to speak to this Major Events Management Bill in the Committee stage noting that we are talking about the purposes the interpretation the status of examples and the fact that the Act binds the Crown as set out in Part 1 of the bill. I wish to keep my comments to those matters.This bill is quite straightforward in its aims and purposes. It states quite clearly that its purposes are to obtain the maximum benefit for New Zealanders from major events held in New Zealand to prevent unauthorised commercial exploitation of major events through ambush marketing activity and to ensure the smooth running of major events. I think the comments that we heard from the previous speaker Keith Locke absolutely underscore the purpose of this bill. In respect of the example of pitch invasion yes there has been a move from using laws around disorderly behaviour to using a particular offence of pitch invasion.Notwithstanding the comments from Mr Mark in a previous reading of this bill about those of us who may have worn such activities as badges in our past it is important when a country is running and hosting a major event of the nature that is defined in this bill that the purpose of it is maintained and the running of it is orderly. This is in order that the event may proceed first of all without damage to the event itself; secondly without damage by ambush marketing to the integrity of the sponsorship that has allowed the event to be held in the first place; and thirdly without bringing our own reputation into international disrepute at events that are major international fixtures.I think the purposes of this bill are admirable. I am pleased with the way the Commerce Committee members from across the parties have supported the purposes and the interpretations of this bill. There is one further comment I make. I may be wrong in this but it seems to me that inserting examples into legislation is novel. I find it an extremely helpful practice. When we are talking about such things as ambush marketing by association or intrusion it is extremely elucidating to be able to point to an illustration or example in the text of the legislation that makes it patently obvious what is intended by those terms. Although I consider the interpretations to be adequate in themselves the fact that there are examples included within the body of this bill makes it eminently accessible. I think that is a very desirable trait particularly as this Committee moves to try to introduce legislation in plain English. I commend the drafters and the Minister for the introduction of such examples into the text because they make the bill very very accessible.This is legislation that will not only facilitate the running of events but as it says in the purpose clause facilitate the benefits for New Zealanders and in fact allow for some integrity to be maintained around commercial sponsorship and therefore increasethe attractiveness to sponsors of events such as the Rugby World Cup. Thank you Madam Chair.GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): I am very happy to make a contribution on the purpose part of the Major Events Management Bill. The speaker before me Maryan Street outlined what the purpose is and I do not want to reiterate those words but in essence the purpose is also to advance New Zealand’s wider interests by hosting events in areas where we are particularly prominent. The Rugby World Cup of course is one of those events the Cricket World Cup will follow and I am sure there will be other big international events that will be able to avail themselves of the provisions of this particular law and these particular arrangements for their events to be equally successful.Anyone who looks at the effect that the Rugby World Cup can have on our economy not only in the year or the month that the event is held but in the years leading up to it and the years subsequent to it would agree that it is appropriate that we make arrangements to ensure the event’s success. It is interesting to note that much of New Zealand’s economy in the last couple of years has been somewhat insulated from the decline in the rest of the world’s tourism markets and that this is apparently attributable to the success of theLord of the Ringsfilms. I do not doubt that that is a fact and I congratulate all those people who were involved in those films. But it needs to be recognised that the number of people who will watch any one or all three of the Lord of the Rings trilogy pales into insignificance compared with the number of people who will watch one or more games during the Rugby World Cup.I recall last year going to an office not too far from here where a large number of people had gathered to watch the Tour de France the bike race that happens in France each year.Hon Trevor Mallard: I’m surprised you got up that early Gerry.GERRY BROWNLEE: Actually it was a replay. The Minister has said that he is surprised I got up as early as that. In fact I was up as early as that; I work very long hours. In the small part of the day that I normally reserve for sleep I was watching a replay with a group of people who interestingly were not making comments about the race itself but were constantly commenting about the beautiful background and the scenery through which the race was happening. A similar thing will happen with the Rugby World Cup. More eyes will look at this country more eyes will see what we are about and more people will make a decision to come here and effectively bring their import dollars into this country. Given that we have such a big reliance—around 40 percent of our domestic economy—on tourism it is an appropriate focus.I want to pick up on a couple of remarks made by Keith Locke. The first thing is that things like the Rugby Sevens will not be affected by this bill at all. The Rugby Sevens event is not a major event and is unlikely to be declared so. It is a very major event for this part of the world but it is not a nationwide event and therefore would not be caught by this legislation. Secondly I want to send a bit of a message in that regard to the organisers of the Rugby World Cup. It is pretty depressing for me standing here today supporting this bill and wanting it to be successful to have read in my local newspaper that my city of Christchurch is unlikely to get to host a semi-final of the Rugby World Cup. I think that this is serious because the promotion around this thing has been that 4 million fans—in other words the whole country—are getting in behind this. It is unacceptable to simply say: “Well you know for the sake of 20000 seats we are going to move the semi-finals and the final to Auckland.”Hon Trevor Mallard: It’s logistics.GERRY BROWNLEE: Do not give me the logistics argument. This is a small country. Auckland is an hour away from Christchurch by plane and I am sure it not toohard to organise that. Given that Christchurch is the largest centre in the South Island the reality is that the stadium could easily have been filled by locals anyway. So some of the thinking there needs to change if people expect this event to still be considered New Zealand’s Rugby World Cup rather than Auckland’s Rugby World Cup. So there is a small message there.Around the issue of pitch invasion Mr Locke appeared to make the case that this should be perfectly acceptable. I recall Mr Locke walking down Queen Street in his underwear and I would hate to see him repeat that sort of activity at any one of the Rugby World Cup games because that would be the wrong image for New Zealand. Similarly having the pitch invaded by anyone creates a poor impression of this country. We had a very interesting submission at the Commerce Committee from a young woman called Lisa Lewis. She was a very intelligent young woman and she advanced the view that we should enable some form of pitch invasion. She went on to say that Wikipedia attributes the invention of the art of bikini streaking to her; therefore it is a New Zealand first—no pun on the party of course I say to Mr Mark but a bit of that may help with the votes. She was saying that this sort of thing should be allowed.But as the conversation progressed it became evident that what she was really saying was that at the start of a match the conclusion of a match and half-time there needed to be some form of entertainment and that maybe this form of entertainment could be considered. Under this provision if the event organisers chose to have those sorts of promotions that would be their prerogative provided that whatever they were doing was within the law and was I suppose tastefully presented if I could put it that way. The reality is that all these games these days have pre-match entertainment they have entertainment at half-time and I suspect that they will have something at the conclusion of these games as well. Pitch invasion though is the opportunity for people to impinge on the activity that other people have paid a lot of money to see. No one has a right to do that. We should just simply codify that so the whole world knows where we stand on that particular issue.When it comes to clean transport zones I think there is a whole lot of misunderstanding about what is actually meant. Essentially they are about trying to protect the interests of sponsors who put up a lot of money to make these events fly in the first place. I do not think it is appropriate that people should be able to engage in ambush marketing activities that effectively see them get the credit for the sponsorship. At the select committee we were given a very good example of how this works. The example involved Germany where the football world cup was played. The major sponsor for that event was an airline. It put up a very very significant amount of money to make it work. It tied up its own promotion around the event. But a competing airline carried out the simple exercise of putting on its aeroplanes a decoration that conveyed the clear message that it was the sponsor of that event.At the conclusion of the event a large number of people who had participated as spectators or otherwise were of the view that the competing airline had been the main sponsor. So the poor old airline that had put all the money in and made the event happen was robbed of some of the benefit. I think we have to be realistic about this. It really did fascinate us to see the breadth of creativity that people can engage in in order to ambush the marketing around one of these events.So in response to Mr Locke I say we need to be very relaxed about the provisions in this bill. They are not about destroying business in this country. This entire bill is about giving business in this country an enormous opportunity to grow its activities and to do so for the benefit of the whole country. I am sure that at some stage the Minister will want to share with the Committee the value that New Zealand got out of the recent yachting event at Seville. Was it Seville?Jill Pettis: Valencia.GERRY BROWNLEE: Well I knew it was the name of an orange so I was halfway there. The America’s Cup was very successful for New Zealand businesses. They were able to spin off the back of that. We should not be frightened about the Government actually backing New Zealand. In many ways anyone who argues against this bill argues against that premise.This is a good bill. I think the Committee will make very few changes to it because of the way in which it was dealt with by the Commerce Committee. The committee dealt with the bill on a very very positive basis in order to try to get a bill that was fair to all those who were likely to be affected and to ensure that when it was put in place there would not be too much of a need to go back second-guessing.I conclude by saying that at some point New Zealand might want to consider whether some of our very good local events like the Rugby Sevens should come under these provisions or provisions like them. Perhaps there could be a lesser test. Perhaps it is something that might be devolved to local authorities. Good evidence was put in front of us that there is some need for this particularly around the issue of scalping.RON MARK (NZ First): I will take just a short call. I want to make it very very clear that New Zealand First supports this legislation. We have spoken on this bill and although we have noted with interest the rather curious situation we see unfolding in front of us here as we reflect on the past and on the history of this nation we support the legislation. We told the Minister Trevor Mallard that quite some time ago. He has our absolute and whole support.We believe that the arguments Mr Brownlee has just concluded making are all valid but it would be remiss of this Committee not to pass comment on some rather curious developments would it not? To not pass those comments would leave the people of the mind that we had totally ignored history and ignored reality and that we were not considering in full what we were doing—and we have. I ask the Committee to consider this. Let us take Mr Brownlee’s last comment about what we may consider as major events in the future. His suggestion that the Rugby Sevens could be classed a major event is I think a very valid sort of observation to make at this point in time. It might well be that should there be a grand soccer match—just one game—there could be an argument that that could be a major event. Let us suppose for example that New Zealand was to meet England in a match to be played here in Wellington at the Westpac Stadium. There could be an argument given the huge popularity and the huge viewing audience internationally that that one game could be considered a major event.Imagine an event such as the Rugby Sevens or even the Rugby World Cup where Zimbabwe entered a team. What might be the reaction amongst normal New Zealanders? It might well be that a bunch of former Zimbabwean citizens now New Zealand citizens might decide to protest and picket that match because of their hatred and loathing of the dictatorship led by Robert Mugabe. What this legislation brings to mind is that any pitch invasion of a Zimbabwe versus New Zealand game would be breaking the law.Hon Trevor Mallard: As it is now.RON MARK: That is what we are saying. Right now that is illegal and we are seeking to close the loophole so it is absolutely possible to control that contain that and deal with it.Some of us would say it is a good thing that those people should not be allowed to disrupt a match or to impinge on people’s rights to freely associate with whom they wish and that their rights to protest should be constrained contained and protected as much as other people’s rights to associate with other rugby teams and other rugby playing nations. In fact Judge Thurgood Marshall the pre-eminent black Americanwho became the most senior member of the judiciary in the United States and who was widely regarded as a leader and a campaigner for civil liberties and for the rights of black Americans argued that when he dealt with the case involving those who protested against the Springbok American tour in 1981 and wanted it stopped. He made sure that the rights of those who protested were looked after. They could protest near the venue but not in the venue. He made sure that the rights of those players to play whomever they wanted to play were not interrupted. No one was permitted to invade those pitches as he had seen from the television footage had happened here in New Zealand in the months prior to the Springboks tour of the United States. Of course the Eagles got hammered but the games were played.I think that is the fundamental thing we need to recognise. Everybody has their rights—the right to associate and the right to express a contrary opinion. It is a question of striking that balance through the middle to ensure that nobody’s rights are impinged on and that everybody is given the opportunity to do what they should be entitled to do but without adversely impacting on others. I think that is what New Zealand First likes about this legislation. We seek to protect the interests of both. The people who wish to protest can do so but not on the pitch not at the expense of people who have bought tickets and paid good money to go to see those games and not at the expense of the investors who are bringing the event to this nation. That is why we support the legislation.But we notice the delicious irony when one looks at these things as they have been presented right now. Mr Mallard the Minister I know on many occasions has told the nation that he was one of the protesters during 1981. I actually recall that time as being quite a difficult time because our family was split right through the middle between those of us who just wanted to watch the two best rugby playing nations in the world compete and those who wanted to stand and champion the cause against apartheid. Obviously some of us still feel to this day that the fact that matches were not played was a direct impingement on our right to see those matches played.Dr RICHARD WORTH (National): “Innovative” and “insightful” would be epithets that can appropriately be applied to the workings of the Commerce Committee under the skilled chairmanship of Mr Brownlee. I can illustrate that in a number of ways but let me just content myself with one illustration—it reflects badly on the Minister and that is why I have chosen it—and that is the use in this Major Events Management Bill of examples. I completely agree with what an earlier speaker has said: that it is wholly consistent with the new drafting style that this Parliament has adopted to use examples and diagrams. We have done it in tax legislation in the past. Here we see through this legislation examples of examples. It should be noted in dealing with this particular part that the status of examples is made clear in clause 4A. An example it is said is only illustrative of the provisions to which it relates. It does not limit those provisions. If there is an example and an inconsistent provision then it is the provision that prevails.The background to this legislation is reasonably simple. It is a matter of history that in association with New Zealand’s bids to host the 2011 Rugby World Cup and co-host the 2015 Cricket World Cup the Government has given assurances to the International Rugby Board and the International Cricket Council that certain protections will be put in place for those fixtures. Those protections include ambush marketing protections. More events of course are contemplated. New Zealand is to host the World Rowing Championships in 2010 and my understanding is that we will host the Under-17 Women’s Football World Cup in 2008.In Part 1 of the bill—which as others have commented contains preliminary provisions including purpose provisions—there are a raft of definitions in clause 4“Interpretation”. I just pick up on a couple of those definitions for the purpose of developing an argument around ambush marketing. There are definitions of “clean period” “clean transport route” and “clean zone”. A very substantial part of this legislation is around the concept of ambush marketing. It is quite a sophisticated phrase and quite a sophisticated concept that describes the actions of companies or advertisers who seek to associate themselves with major events or to draw a connection in the public’s mind between themselves and major events without the authorisation of the event organisers.There are a number of things that ambush marketers do. The types of things would range from arranging aerial advertising over a major event venue immediately before the event or during the event so as to suggest sponsorship or association to the placement of billboards displaying the ambush marketer’s name near the venue—or if there are several venues near the venues—or on key routes to the venue. Within the realm of ambush marketing there are other issues such as the unauthorised sale of goods or services at the event. There are issues associated with the registration and the exploitation of domain names. The aspect of scalping is also within ambush marketing. Scalping is the unauthorised on-sale of tickets—and I know we will look at it in some detail when we get to Part 2—but it is also all about the circumstance where tickets are packaged with travel and hospitality offerings. The subtlety of ambush marketing extends to the circumstance of giving away free merchandise such as caps or T-shirts bearing the advertiser’s logo with the aim that large groups of spectators will wear that gear and the television cameras will pan on to them or perhaps still photographs will be taken that hint at that association.There are—and this is picked up in the legislation and starts in this particular part—two main varieties of ambush marketing currently recognised in the context of major international events. I will return to that issue later.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.A party vote was called for on the questionThat the amendment be agreed to.Ayes10Green Party 6; Māori Party 4.Noes109New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland Field.Amendment not agreed to.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 a definition be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the questionThat the amendment be agreed to.Ayes6Green Party 6.Noes112New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; Māori Party 3; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland Field.Amendment not agreed to.A party vote was called for on the questionThat Part 1 be agreed to.Ayes109New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland Field.Noes9Green Party 6; Māori Party 3.Part 1 agreed to.Part 2 Declaration of major event and the protections for major eventsALLAN PEACHEY (National—Tamaki): I appreciate having the opportunity to speak also to Part 2 and I just note with a little irony that most of what the representatives of the Green Party and New Zealand First have been talking about is probably more relevant to Part 2 than it was to Part 1.I will take the opportunity to share with Mr Mark his love of American history. Twice in this debate he has mentioned Justice Thurgood Marshall. I think that if he checks his history he will find that Justice Marshall although appointed to the Supreme Court by Lyndon Johnson in I think 1965 never actually reached the top echelons of the Supreme Court. He was simply an associate and never a Chief Justice. It pays to get one’s history right.Previous speakers have traversed a range of views and interpretations of this legislation and I wonder what those very fine people at the New Zealand Rugby Union and their business interests must be thinking. Here we are with a fair degree of unanimity in the Committee debating very very important legislation that will lay out the environment for New Zealand to host the Rugby World Cup 2011 very very well. It is important we do it well because this sort of activity will be more and more important to our future not only in hosting the event itself and getting that right but also in enjoying the downstream advantages that come from that with New Zealand being seen as a destination for doing business tourism and that sort of thing. Yet here members are finding themselves almost degenerating into irrelevancies about the way that people might conduct themselves.I want to make one thing very clear to the Committee: New Zealanders are sick and tired of having their enjoyment of major events spoilt by one or two self-important indulgent people who think that making an exhibition of themselves is far more important than the game that is under way. I think that many New Zealanders feel a sense of embarrassment that when we are on the world stage and when so many people are working so hard to make the event go off well attention is distracted by some clowns who seem to think they are free to make fools of themselves and forget the consequences.Hon Member: They’re normally drunk.ALLAN PEACHEY: They are normally drunk. We do not want that; New Zealand wants to move forward beyond that. New Zealand wants to see itself now as a seriousdestination for world-class major events. A lot of things go with that and part of it is ensuring that the standard of behaviour in the crowd is up to scratch.I also want to put on record my very very strong support for the anti-scalping provisions. Already now in New Zealand when big major sports events are held it is too hard for ordinary New Zealanders—the men and women who are out on the paddock on a Saturday coaching children—to get tickets to the big events. As I said I think in speaking to the introduction—Hon Trevor Mallard: No trouble getting tickets for North Harbour.ALLAN PEACHEY: Well as I have said a couple of times before in this debate I am the principal who hired a hospitality box at North Harbour Stadium so that teachers the people who were fronting up week after week had an opportunity to experience what people who were often making no positive contribution to sport at all were experiencing week after week. I note the irony that the Minister behind this bill had some strong views on my actions at that time. Hopefully with a little time having passed he might have reflected on that matter.It is really important that we protect—Ron Mark: Who used it the most?ALLAN PEACHEY: Well the music teachers actually had it the day we got caught I say to Mr Mark but that is another story.It is not right that ordinary New Zealanders who front up on Saturday after Saturday on a Thursday night or whenever it is to coach teams to play in teams or to support teams do not have a fair crack at a reasonable price at seeing the really big games. The reality is of course that there will always be a limited number of tickets when a ground is going to be sold out and I accept that and fully understand it. But I am anxious to ensure that ordinary New Zealanders who have a love of sport get a fair crack.The last comment I want to make at this stage in speaking to Part 2 is just to reinforce the importance of the high test being put in place in terms of the declaration of a major event. If the Committee takes a moment to look at that test it will become apparent just how important this legislation is to us and just how important these major events are. There has to be significant international participation and a significant number of international spectators. I am bound to say that although I saw the Minister shake his head I find it very hard to see the New Zealand soccer team playing England or our team as being in that category. Perhaps if Manchester United were to play England in New Zealand it might be a different matter. The event has significantly—Hon Trevor Mallard: Part of a tour. Comes from Australia—you know 30000 Poms watching. That would be a major event.ALLAN PEACHEY: Ha ha; yes they will be mostly Poms. The event must significantly raise New Zealand’s international profile and associated with it have an appropriate level of professional management and professional coordination. It must attract significant sponsorship and international media coverage. That is probably the significant test: is the event that is to be held in New Zealand big enough to attract international media coverage and international sponsorship? It is a pretty rigorous test. There also have to be substantial sporting cultural social economic or other benefits to New Zealand and to New Zealanders.Really this bill marks the movement into a new era of events being hosted by New Zealand. This is not the Rugby World Cup of 1987 however much those of us who experienced that look back at it with huge pleasure and satisfaction. We are not talking about an equivalent event any longer; we are talking about what I understand to be the third most significant sporting event in the world—the third. It is huge. Its possibilities for New Zealand are huge. It is vital that we get it right and it is good to see that thetwo major parties are able to come together work together through the select committee process and put in place the framework that will ensure we get it right.SHANE JONES (Labour): Kia ora Madam Chairperson. It is a pleasure to stand to take a brief call on this Major Events Management Bill. During the course of our Commerce Committee proceedings it was good to have a great deal of support and input from the majority Opposition party. There are a few concerns which our friend from the Green Party referred to but they will pass as relatively trivial matters in the greater scheme of things.I make this small contribution on the eve of a departure for great athletic responsibilities following in the footsteps of the Minister in the chair the Hon Trevor Mallard and I look across the Chamber with some sadness that I will not be joined by the heavyweight of the Opposition front bench Mr Brownlee. Unfortunately the pugnacious Mr Foss is wandering around spraying apples in Hawke’s Bay. However other matters require my attention. There is a famous Māori saying in the world of the Ngāpuhi: “The first punch that’s landed had better knock out the opposition because utu has a very very strong kickback.”The legislation in my view improves our credentials. The declaration of a major event enables us and especially the Minister and the Government to promote our credentials in terms of New Zealand being a safe and secure environment for investors advertisers and promoters who will come here knowing that the significant amounts of money they are going to sink into the event will not be frittered away either by weak law or by the inability of the judiciary to arrive at the right decision because of vagueness in the law.In terms of declaring a major event and also ensuring that people put their money on the line those people look with a great deal of anxiety not only at the Minister but also at the relevant ministry to ensure that their proposals and their applications are adequately appraised. I agree with Mr Peachey—a man whom prior to meeting him I had formed quite a favourable view of in relation to his contribution to education at Rangitoto College—when he said that lots of families struggle to find the opportunity to see these events at an affordable level. However these sorts of events will engender a greater level of enthusiasm and may actually shake loose from the corporate world more sponsorship to assist those less fortunate New Zealanders to get their tamariki their kids into sport.This particular event relates to rugby but there are other events. Unfortunately the forces of nature and the politics of yachting conspired against us and the Minister was unable to bring Grant Dalton and other mariners home so we could stage that particular event. However this event given that it is focused on rugby—which is very close to a national religion—will have a positive impact on our families and on our young people. I know there are those who might say that rugby eclipses arts culture and various other pursuits but the reality is that it is a major money earner and a major source of attraction for people wanting to come to our country. So why not pass this bill without a great deal of procrastination and put it on to the face of the law to ensure that our friends in Australia despite their best efforts to hobble us in recent times will actually look at us a bit more admiringly come 2011?Ought this bill give the proposed level of protection to intellectual property or other legal rights? Of course it should. People are not going to invest considerable amounts of money in events in symbols or in signs unless they are confident they will get a return on their investment. And yes there is now a fusion between commerce and sport so they have every right to expect that in our country the rule of contract will be observed and that the judiciary will deliver a speedy result in the event of fly-by-nighters and rorters trying to undermine the rights of investors when we host this highly successfulevent. All going well our major team our national All Black team will emulate the feat that I am sure the parliamentary team will achieve—that is success.Before making a recommendation the Minister for Economic Development must take into account a number of issues. Is it likely that a large number of international participants and spectators will be attracted? That goes without being said because our greatest brand in the area of sport and recreation is undisputedly the brand of our All Blacks. All around the world young people have been encouraged to identify heroes and icons in the sporting area and this is an area in which all New Zealanders can take pride. The members of our team will be an additional attraction—something like a cultural rainbow in the sense that they represent the major groupings that occupy the fields in our urban and provincial areas. They are the tangata whenua our friends from the Pacific and the hearty descendants of the original colonists otherwise known as Pākehās.Will this event generate significant tourism opportunities beyond cavil? Of course it will. Tourism continues to provide an ongoing source of overseas revenue. That is good because it enables us to broaden the base of our GDP and to broaden the base of our international earnings so we do not rely on just our traded commodities from the pastoral sector and leave everything to the whims of the traders of the dollar.Is the event likely to boost our international profile? Well we pride ourselves on punching above our weight. We enjoy seeing our young men and women don our uniforms and represent our country’s interests in relation to international obligations in areas such as the Sinai peninsula and throughout the Pacific. This is another way in which our international profile can be both maintained and extended. Of course it has ongoing spin-offs for younger people and we should think about that in this House because not every young person is going to listen to a parliamentarian telling them to go to university or polytech especially those who are endowed with physical prowess. This provides them with an opportunity to enter networks whereby they can go overseas to Europe and other places earn a living and actually broaden their own life experience by applying their skills on the sports field and in particular on the rugby field. All of these can be spin-offs of this successful event. But the event will not be successful if the people putting their dough on the line are not confident they will be able to get a return or protect their investment—Economics 101.Will this event require a high level of professional management and coordination? That is without doubt. We had a host of people from the Rugby Union come and address us—indeed if my memory serves me correctly we had an English lawyer arrive who came if not from the Rugby World Cup company then certainly from the International Rugby Board. He gave us a clear sense of confidence that our own rugby administrative infrastructure is up to the task. However the levers of the State had to be applied in a reasonable manner to ensure that the administration could go and provide ongoing confidence to the people who have the rights to the Rugby World Cup.Is the event likely to attract sponsorship and international media coverage? That is also without a doubt. The media will be in New Zealand in their droves and the fact that they are here means they will go to places beyond the rugby field. That is good for the provinces and that is good for all the shades and colours of New Zealand because we need at all times to boost the desirability of our country and to ensure that the attractiveness of not only our nature but also our people and our landscape eclipses some of the blighted commentary that comes our way over internal problems to do with whānau violence etc. Let us accentuate the positive.Will the event attract large numbers of Kiwis as participants or spectators? Well I have already said without offending the bishop that Mr Barnett took to a strip club that rugby is akin to New Zealand’s religion. So I have no doubt that people will flock fromthe Bluff—from the tail of the fish—and that some will even come from Magpie country and they will be great participants and spectators. But as my fellow parliamentarian the former principal of Rangitoto College said unfortunately not enough of them will have an opportunity to actually grace the stands. But I look forward to our Rugby Union being able to come up with some sort of innovative proposition to enable more of our young people to go and watch Piri Weepu who hopefully will not have abandoned Aotearoa for rugby league in distant climes grace the field in the place where he ought to be at the moment—Hon Trevor Mallard: Come on Wainuiōmata.SHANE JONES: Yes OK I accept that the Minister as the “member for Wainuiōmata” had a large degree of input into Piri’s—no I will not say form—development. Thank you very much.KEITH LOCKE (Green): I do not think that anyone in this Chamber wants the Rugby World Cup and major events like that not to be very successful. But the Green Party viewpoint is that this over-the-top heavy-handed legislation will not help us to have successful international events like the Rugby World Cup. In fact it will put off New Zealanders if this Parliament seems to be just dancing to the tune of the big multinationals that are sponsoring events like this. In France that is Heineken Coca-Cola McDonald’s and I think Adidas. Are we serving them or are we serving the New Zealand people? It is true and I take what Allan Peachey says that we want to be true to those who go along play sport and coach sport—the ordinary people—but I do not think that this legislation will help. This is not the Kiwi way.In relation to what the member said about ticket scalping I agree that the requirement is for a proper distribution of tickets. I think that it is the case pretty much that tickets will go out through rugby clubs through the Internet and through various ways. That spreads the tickets out. If people get sick want to onsell tickets or get one or two extra tickets then why should we abandon the normal procedure of having a second-hand market and come down with the heavy hand of the State? The San Francisco Giants a baseball team in the United States accepts that there will be a second-hand market and that there will be onselling so it provides a whole Internet site for that to happen under its own auspices. It is just so strange that we have parties in this Parliament trying to clamp down on a second-hand market.I have two lots of amendments to Part 2 on my Supplementary Order Paper 138. Most of them are related to the clean transport route and the theme of one of the amendments is to knock out the provision for a clean transport route up to 5 kilometres from a stadium. I think that that is one of the most silly over-the-top bits of the legislation—that somehow some New Zealand firms cannot advertise 5 kilometres out. That area would cover virtually the whole of Wellington down the routes that would be defined. The distance is a long way out from say the Westpac Stadium or whatever and a long way out from Eden Park in the case of Auckland. So I would ask members to support my amendments in order to knock out the reference to clean transport routes in the bill.The other amendment is to knock out the provision about the new offence of pitch invasion. As I explained previously there is no need for that. Any people wandering on to pitches for whatever reason they may have are covered already by offences listed in the Summary Offences Act or the Crimes Act—that is by provisions about disorderly behaviour. Do we really need to get so hot and bothered as to bring in a new offence for that?But I take the point and in some ways Shane Jones is quite correct that rugby needs all the support it can get at the present time. I went along to a league game a couple of weekends ago and the Warriors actually had more people along at that game then therewere people at the Auckland-Waikato game. So I think that rugby is in a bit of trouble but I do not think that this bill will help. Piri Weepu may well go to league if those spectator figures continue.It is just stupid and impractical to try to control ticket scalping in the way that this bill proposes. If people have spare tickets then they will rustle around and find someone to buy them if it is a big international event and they will generally sell them for more than the cover price.At the Commerce Committee representatives of TradeMe came along and said: “Look this is going to be a bit hard for us to work out how to stop this. We will do our best of course as we do to implement any law that Parliament passes.” But that company and others have pointed out that people can go on to eBay or somewhere else and still make ticket transactions. We cannot suppress a free market in second-hand goods just by passing a law and no argument has been raised in this Parliament as to why we should do that.Dr RICHARD WORTH (National): It is in Part 2 that the substance of this Committee debate is to be found and as Madam Chairperson herself commented when she started the debate on this part there are five subparts. I just observe that it is a legislative drafting strategy sometimes to seek to constrain Committee debate by including a number of subparts in a particular part. Certainly the issues in this part are discrete issues in themselves and could well have been the subject of separate parts. Why do I say that? Because the subparts are about declarations of major events they are about ambush marketing by association protections they are about ambush marketing by intrusion protections they are about ticket-scalping protections and they are about pitch invasions. They are all discrete topics in themselves and I hope there is an opportunity to contribute separately to at least some of those separate issues.I want to pick up an issue that has been referred to only fleetingly in this ambush-marketing concept which finds its place in Subparts 2 and 3 and to make some short observations in the time available. Two main varieties of ambush marketing are currently recognised in the context of major international events. The first is ambush marketing by association and we have a subpart on that. It involves an advertiser misleading the public into thinking that the ambush marketer is an authorised partner or is somehow associated with the event. Often the association can be quite subtle. The other type of ambush marketing is ambush marketing by intrusion. Mr Locke has made some comment on that. I judge it not to be informed comment but he has commented on it. Ambush marketing by intrusion occurs when an event is used to provide the ambush marketer’s brand with exposure or publicity to which it is not entitled by intruding on the attention of the audience gathered for the event. In such instances there may be no claim of association with the event but it is a commercial reality as Mr Jones has said that sponsors make huge financial commitments and both types of ambush marketing focus on commercial activity that free rides on the publicity surrounding a major event.So what is the consequence? The value of the official sponsorship is undermined and that has an impact on the viability of obtaining sponsorship for events in the future. That is why this argument is so critical and it is why I would very much like the Green Party to understand the importance of this legislation. Ambush marketing can affect the financial viability of major events the building of event brands and goodwill for the future. It can also affect the ability of event organisers to fulfil contractual obligations to sponsors. That is why it is and I explained this in my first call that many major sponsors now insist that there be protection against ambush marketing before they will commit to sponsorship contracts for major events.I say to Mr Locke that there is nothing new in this legislation because legislation containing ambush-marketing protections has been introduced in a large number of overseas jurisdictions—for example in Australia for the 2000 Olympic Games the 2006 Commonwealth Games in Melbourne and the Australian Formula One Grand Prix. Those are Australian examples. Other examples are in the UK for the 2012 London Olympic Games; in China for the 2008 Beijing Olympic Games; in South Africa for the 2010 FIFA World Cup; and in the nine nations of the West Indies for the 2007 Cricket World Cup. I urge Mr Locke to contemplate whether he should consider withdrawing the amendments he apparently seeks to advance at this stage.Finally in this call I would like to say something about ambush marketing by intrusion in the context of what has already been briefly adverted to and it is that in connection with clean zones the Minister for Economic Development may declare tightly geographically limited clean zones consisting of the venue and the area directly approximate to the venue. The clean zones cannot include private land with one exception. In essence the clean zones represent those areas where spectators will be gathered solely for the purpose of attending or gaining access to the major event.I also wish to comment on a provision in the bill that relates to clean transport routes during a defined clean period. The Minister may declare motorways State highways and railway lines within 5 kilometres of a clean zone and the areas directly approximate to be clean transport routes. Quite clearly some submitters to the Commerce Committee wished that this legislation went further. Other submitters wished us to draw back. All of that material was the subject of evidence and evaluation by the Commerce Committee. We have had to strike a balance. We believe that the balance we have struck in respect of clean zones clean transport routes and matters of that nature is a balance that has been appropriately struck in the context of the arguments we heard.KEITH LOCKE (Green): No argument has yet been raised to justify the anti-scalping provision in this bill. I ask Parliament to think about the precedent that it sets. Essentially it sets a precedent that the State can control second-hand markets and that it can control people who are making a profit in a second-hand market. Why do we need to go down that track? I ask someone in this Chamber to explain whether there is such a huge problem with the distribution of tickets by the organisers of sporting events that say 1000 tickets end up in the hands of one person and that person makes a huge profit out of them. If that is the case surely the organisers would improve the distribution of tickets the next time around. There is no problem that really needs to be addressed here.The Commerce Committee added a provision which is the heavy-handed thing that Richard Worth talked about. The select committee was worried that at the edge of the clean zones someone may stand on private property and trade a few items from a competing provider—that is a provider who is competing with the goods of an official sponsor may trade off his or her own front lawn—and said that a provision needed to be brought in to control that. Why do we need to get as heavy-handed as that? Why can the major event organisers not just control things in their own stadium? They are quite entitled to do that. Why do we need this legislation? Why do we have to have a 5 kilometre clean transport route?Emirates Airline which is an official sponsor of the Rugby World Cup in France is of course backed by the same people who are trying to take over Auckland International Airport our key transport hub. The same outfit that is behind Emirates Airline is behind the Dubai firm that is trying to take over our international airport. If Emirates Airline sponsors the Rugby World Cup again in 2011 do we really want Air New Zealand to pay a fine of $150000 if it happens to have a sign 4.5 kilometres out from Eden Parkalong the declared clean transport route? Why do we need to go down that track? New Zealanders will think it is stupid. In fact the Kiwi spirit is that if we are ordered around we come back in a satirical way. So all kinds of people in their Tui T-shirts or whatever else they may be wearing will try to stick it up the bureaucrats. This Parliament is giving powers to those bureaucrats to jump on the rights of people to do what they want.I do not think the argument for that measure has been made. Someone is just saying that because the big overseas advertisers say we must do this therefore we must. It was not a requirement in order to get the right to host the Rugby World Cup. When we got that right nothing came to this Parliament to say that if we got that right we would have to pass this legislation. It was only a year later that we were told we needed to do this. Obviously some of the big advertisers tapped someone on the shoulder and said we had to do this or our future might be in doubt. I do not think we want to bow down to those advertisers in that way.The bill contains a number of onerous provisions. As I said there is the anti-scalping provision. I do not have a particular amendment on that but I think we should be against that provision. I do have two specific sets of amendments on Supplementary Order Paper 138 in my name. One is to knock out the clean transport routes and the other one is to knock out pitch invasion. Again no one has really answered me as to why we need to have a whole new offence for pitch invasion and why it could not be handled as it has been in the past by imprisonment under the disorderly behaviour offence. It is very bad lawmaking to bring a whole new offence when it is unnecessary. Exactly the same behaviour can be caught under an existing offence with in practice the application of a lower penalty. Sure both the offences of pitch invasion and of disorderly behaviour have a maximum penalty of a 3-month prison sentence. But when one looks back through the cases at the application of prison sentences for disorderly behaviour one sees that what was behind the crime was often very serious and involved provoking violence or being involved in violence or another crime. Simply wandering on to a football field is not covered and it has never been even thought of as being covered by the disorderly behaviour offence.Dr RICHARD WORTH (National): I will take up the challenge that Mr Locke has thrown down and explain why the Commerce Committee was influenced to include the anti-scalping provisions. I do not think that his argument gains any greater merit just by being repeated as he has done on three occasions now. We are talking about Subpart 4 of Part 2 and it is entitled “Ticket-scalping protections”. Clause 24(1) states: “No person may without the authorisation of the major event organiser sell or trade a ticket to a major event activity for a value greater than the original sale price of that ticket.” There is an offence-creating provision in the next clause which Mr Locke has already referred to.I would just say this. The bill has a number of purposes. The two that are most relevant in the context of the anti-scalping argument relate to the provision for declared events—that is major events—to “obtain the maximum benefit from the major event for New Zealanders;” and to “prevent unauthorised commercial exploitation” of events “at the expense of either a major event organiser or a major event sponsor;”. If one looks at what has gone on overseas one will see some really egregious examples of cases where scalping has actively worked against the interests of consumers—and the bill aims to deal with that.I will give the Committee an example of that. Probably one of the worst examples was in 2004 at the Glastonbury Festival in the UK. It was a case where tickets were initially offered for sale online and were sold out within the first few hours of availability. However afterwards large numbers of tickets started to appear on eBay and other online market places. Not only were professional ticket sellers involved but manyordinary concert-goers had apparently purchased twice the number of tickets that they required and then sold the unused tickets at double the original price thus effectively getting their own tickets for free and further clouding the already fine line between ticket reseller and concert-goer.Ticket scalping—as Mr Locke may know—is very much a business in a number of overseas jurisdictions. We actually use the word “scalper” in this legislation which is an American English term. In the UK such people are generally called touts. But there are also established companies called ticket brokers in the business of reselling tickets. If one looks around the world one finds a lot of literature on criticisms relating to reselling. It is the case that individuals who genuinely wish to attend a popular event may find themselves unable to get tickets as they have already been sold to ticket resellers in the way that I have just described. That means of course that ticket resellers can sell the tickets at market value with no effective loss because they had no intention of attending the event in the first place. Although one can say—and I am surprised that Mr Locke would espouse this view—that the practice of reselling tickets may be defended on free market principles most countries have actually outlawed the unauthorised resale of tickets usually with the exception of situations where the reseller does not profit from the transaction.That is what we have endeavoured to do in this legislation. I think if we are to go into the area of anti-scalping protections that the way that the committee has set the balance is the way that best meets the interests of New Zealand consumers. I do not believe it is appropriate that one should look at the opportunity to purchase tickets for major events as a way for the ticket purchaser to secure gain. That is not what it is about; it is about providing an opportunity for as many New Zealanders as possible to attend particular events at a reasonable cost.ALLAN PEACHEY (National—Tamaki): I commend my colleague Dr Worth for the analytical legal mind that he brings to the issue of scalping. Everything he said is of course quite correct and I endorse it. But I am a little surprised at the line the Green Party is running. I want to bring a little bit of passion to the subject. It is my view that millions of New Zealanders love their sport; they love it passionately; it brings purpose direction and enjoyment to their lives. Those New Zealanders would see any suggestion at all of scalping as a most un - New Zealand type of thing to do. There is one thing about scalping that we need to be very very clear about. One can only scalp tickets if one can secure access—through good luck good fortune using the system one’s mates or whatever it is—to more tickets than one needs for one’s use. The more tickets that fall into the hands of the sorts of individuals who do not plan to use them for themselves the more difficult it is for the millions of New Zealanders—those people with the passion and the love for sport—to get their hands on those tickets.I will make one other comment about that also with a degree of passion. It does not matter whether it is Rugby World Cup 2011 the Commonwealth Games or an age-grade world championship; I ask members to remember that a lot of the work to make it happen will have been done by volunteers: ordinary men and women who love their sport and who have a concept of service to their community. We have a responsibility to see that those people are not insulted by those who would take unfair commercial advantage of their efforts which is what scalping amounts to.As my colleague Dr Worth said scalping is now widely unaccepted in many countries of the world. It is unaccepted for the reason that I mentioned before when I said that it is a most un - New Zealand thing to do: it is an ungenerous act it is a selfish act and it is actually an act that demonstrates qualities and attributes that we do not associate with the great New Zealand commitment to serving the community servingone’s sport and serving the activity that one loves. Frankly to me any defence of scalping is an insult to that type of New Zealander.The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 138 in the name of Keith Locke to clause 15 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the questionThat the amendment be agreed to.Ayes14Green Party 6; Māori Party 4; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2.Noes107New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland; Field.Amendment not agreed to.The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 138 in the name of Keith Locke to clause 15(1) be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the questionThat the amendment be agreed to.Ayes14Green Party 6; Māori Party 4; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2.Noes107New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland; Field.Amendment not agreed to.The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 138 in the name of Keith Locke to clause 15(2) be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the questionThat the amendment be agreed to.Ayes14Green Party 6; Māori Party 4; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2.Noes107New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland; Field.Amendment not agreed to.A party vote was called for on the questionThat the amendment be agreed to.Ayes13Green Party 6; Māori Party 3; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2.Noes107New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland Field.Amendment not agreed to.The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 138 in the name of Keith Locke to omit “or a clean transport route” from clause 15(5) be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the questionThat the amendment be agreed to.Ayes13Green Party 6; Māori Party 3; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2.Noes107New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland Field.Amendment not agreed to.The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 138 in the name of Keith Locke to omit Example 2 from clause 15(5) be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the questionThat the amendment be agreed to.Ayes13Green Party 6; Māori Party 3; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2.Noes107New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland Field.Amendment not agreed to.Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister for Economic Development): I notice that there has been a pattern to the voting and the amendments to clauses 18 19 and 21 are all on the same issue. I ask for the leave of the Committee for those three questions to be put as one.The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Is there any objection to that course of action? There is not.The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 138 in the name of Keith Locke to clauses 18 19 and 21 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the questionThat the amendments be agreed to.Ayes13Green Party 6; Māori Party 3; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2.Noes107New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland Field.Amendments not agreed to.The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 138 in the name of Keith Locke to omit the Subpart 5 heading and clause 25A be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the questionThat the amendment be agreed to.Ayes13Green Party 6; Māori Party 3; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2.Noes107New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland Field.Amendment not agreed to.A party vote was called for on the questionThat Part 2 be agreed to.Ayes109New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland Field.Noes11Green Party 6; Māori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 2.Part 2 agreed to.Part 3 Permanently protected emblems and wordsThe CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The debate on this part clauses 26 to 32 includes debate on the schedule.ALLAN PEACHEY (National—Tamaki): I would like to take what I expect will be a brief call to speak in support of Part 3 of the Major Events Management Bill. Madam Chair I crave your patience and that of the Committee for a moment if I appear to wander off in terms of relevance. I assure you that I will not.I would like to reflect for just a moment. Last Friday night I had the great privilege to attend a dinner of an outfit called the Carbine Club in Ellerslie. This is a group of noted former and current sportspeople who get together from time to time to enjoy each others’ company and to assist a charity. It is the sort of organisation in which somebody has to pass on before a new member is admitted. We observed the passing of Ron McGregor that great man of rugby league. I had the very great privilege to have as my dinner companion that night a man whose name I hope members in the Chamber will recognise—Joe McManemin. He was the manager of the New Zealand athletics team at the Rome Olympics way back in 1960. I had a delightful night talking to him—Hon Trevor Mallard: Didn’t have this legislation then.ALLAN PEACHEY: No not in those days. We did not need it in those days I say to the Minister. We had this marvellous conversation about Snell and Halberg winning those two gold medals and subsequently going on to Perth and Doreen Porter winning that silver—Hon Trevor Mallard: No Perth was before then.ALLAN PEACHEY: No Perth was 1962 I assure the Minister—I am old enough to remember. The point I want to make is that men like Joe McManemin have given their lives to athletics and to organisations like the former Olympic and Commonwealth Games Association. The symbols that this bill seeks to protect are the result in the case of Mr McManemin of over 40 years’ work. I think it is important that the Committee acknowledges that in a way those men and women own the symbol. They made no financial gain at all from their voluntary effort over 40 or 50 years. Cynics can say: “Yes but look at the trips they had.” but let me tell people from my own experience that those trips are hard work. They are not junkets. They are hard work.I reflect on another member of the Carbine Club a good friend of mine Murray McKinnon who is currently in Osaka with the New Zealand athletics team at the World Championships in Athletics. To the best of my knowledge he is the only New Zealand journalist there who will be reporting back to New Zealand on the efforts of our athletes. He has paid his own way and that is the sort of commitment that in Part 3 we talk about protecting.I do not believe any organisation any smart clever business person or anybody seeking to make a financial gain for themselves has any right to be able to do that using things like the symbol of the Olympic Committee. I am pleased that this House is protecting that because we are saying that we acknowledge and respect the years and years of voluntary effort that has gone into this brand this symbol and what it represents. So much of what it represents is the very very best of New Zealand.I am honoured to speak in support of Part 3.Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister for Economic Development): This is a relatively simple part of the bill and I am sure there will not be any objection to it. When I was in Opposition I took part in the original work that amended the Flags Emblems and Names Protection Act 1981 by way of I think two statutes amendment bills. There was unanimity that these emblems should be protected at the time. I think at the time it was a little bit of a rort to put them in with flags names and emblems because they were designed for things that were not effectively privately owned in the way that the Olympic and Commonwealth symbols are. I see no reason why the Committee should not just tick this and move on.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.Part 4EnforcementALLAN PEACHEY (National—Tamaki): Again I would like to take just a brief call on Part 4 because I do not imagine there will be too much division in the Committee over this. The first comment I want to make is that—and again if I seem to be straying a little bit in relevance Madam Chair I ask for your patience—frequently members of Parliament moving around the country will hear any number of people telling us how useless we are what a non-job we have and that sort of thing—Hon Trevor Mallard: They don’t do that to me!ALLAN PEACHEY: I mean those members over there not me. Every so often they throw a name up at us. Let us not be specific about that but often one finds oneself in the position of actually being able to say: “Now wait a minute their name may not always be in the newspapers and they may not be getting kicked out of the House periodically—all that sort of thing—but the work they are doing down in the engine room in their select committees is very very sound.” I think there are a couple of examples in Part 4 of work that was done in the select committee where—Hon Trevor Mallard: Yes Maryan Street is great isn’t she?ALLAN PEACHEY: I say to the Minister that I suspect that the National members probably had somewhat more influence on deciding the shape of these amendments. Both of these amendments—subclause (1A) in clause 65 and clause 51A—reflect very much our point of view and they temper the harsher intentions of the bill in its original form.I think it is very important to realise that when something like this is being enforced and there is a requirement for a police officer to be involved as there is in clause 65(1A) New Zealanders by their nature are much more likely to accept that enforcement and to acknowledge that that is an appropriate action that should be taken. For that reason alone it is good that the work of the select committee has just tempered the harshness of this. I do not believe that New Zealanders want this Parliament to be giving a range of enforcement officials greater power. Where that power is necessary tobe given—and I do not question that in this case it is—it is important I think that it be tempered in the way provided for in clause 65(1A).KEITH LOCKE (Green): I think that this part illustrates the problem with the bill as a whole in that when one imposes such restrictions on people over such a big area one has problems in enforcement which one would not have if one were not so heavy-handed as the State is. Under this provision there is the set-up of enforcement officers who are not police officers and do not have the normal statutory powers for search and seizure. As Alan Peachey has just said that is a problem and the select committee did put in a provision that when a search warrant is issued in relation to the bill the enforcement officer is to be accompanied by a police officer. As Alan Peachey said that is a good restraint in the situation and makes it more acceptable to most New Zealanders.Other powers and functions of the enforcement officer are detailed in clause 39 “Enforcement officer’s entry to premises restricted” and clause 40 “Power of enforcement officers to seize or cover things”. A lot of what is in those provisions relating to enforcement officers is not covered by the need to have an accompanying police officer. For example in relation to clause 9 only in clause 39(c): “when the entry is authorised by a search warrant issued under section 64.” is there the need for the accompaniment of a police officer. The other two subclauses in clause 39—“(a) when the place is part of a clean zone; or (b) when the place is outside a clean zone and it is a place that the enforcement officer may lawfully enter without a search warrant;”—clearly refer to somebody who is not a police officer conducting entry and—to follow up with the next clause—seizure outside of the functions of a police officer.When we get to clause 40 we see that it is also about seizing or covering things—the bill talks about covering things. Presumably it refers to for example covering adverts. If Air New Zealand is advertising when Emirates Airline is the official sponsor as is the case in the Rugby World Cup in France the enforcement officer would have the power to cover the Air New Zealand logo. An enforcement officer may seize or cover anything believed to breach the legislation that is either within the clean zone or as clause 40(1)(b) states “outside a clean zone and it is in a place that the enforcement officer may lawfully be without a search warrant.” Then we get into the sticky area added by the select committee. Consider this example. The clean zone extends to the road around the stadium and across the road there is private property and someone is trading off that private property. As I understand clause 40(1)(b) an enforcement officer—not a police officer—could come over on to that property and cover something up or seize something.I might be mistaken there in my interpretation. I am happy to be corrected. But it just shows the problems when we extend powers unnecessarily as has been done in this bill when there is no gigantic problem we need the heavy hand of the State to solve here.Dr RICHARD WORTH (National): In a crowded gallery and a hushed Chamber I just express concern that the Minister the Hon Trevor Mallard has not seen fit to offer comment on Part 4 of the Major Events Management Bill. I express the wish that he will do so because there are a number of important aspects that I am sure his officials would have drawn to his attention. The bill is another example of course of the type of legislative drafting technique where there are a whole lot of subparts which might inappropriately limit debate on the substantive part itself.Part 4—and National supports the Major Events Management Bill—is all about enforcement and the subparts deal with matters of general application with border protection measures which I am sure the Minister has thoughtfully considered in subpart 2 provisions relating to enforcement officers in Subpart 3 and provisions relating to civil proceedings in Subpart 4. Subpart 5 is concerned with criminaloffences and Subpart 6 with search warrants. Then of course the legislation moves on to the next part.I would like to make some brief comments about enforcement in the context of this legislation because this is an area that occupied some time in the Commerce Committee and is the subject of some change. A combination of enforcement measures is provided for in the bill to ensure the effective and efficient enforcement of ambush marketing protections. The plan of the drafters which the select committee accepted was appropriate was that criminal and civil remedies would ensure deterrents and redress whilst the extra provisions that were included for administrative remedies would expedite the enforcement of ambush marketing protections limiting the protection for harm by stopping ambush marketing at crucial times. It is quite right to say as others have said in this debate today that in the context of ambush marketing timeliness of response may often be critical to advancing the interests of sponsors and others.I start by talking about civil remedies. Ambush marketing occurs where the ambush marketer perceives that he or she will gain some benefit from his or her activities. Both as a form of deterrence and I think to ensure that ambush marketers do not get paid from their activities event organisers and—subject to the event organiser’s discretion—official sponsors that have suffered damages or loss will be able to bring civil actions. That is as it should be. The civil remedies available include an account of profits which is stripping the ambush marketers of the benefit they gain from ambush marketing activities; damages which as we all know is making good any loss suffered by event organisers; and also corrective advertising to correct public misapprehension.That is all I would seek to say on civil remedies but in addition of course to those remedies provided by the legislation there are criminal penalties. The possibility of criminal prosecution for ambush marketing activities I believe will act as a significant deterrent to those considering the possibility of undertaking that type of activity. There are analogies to be drawn in the context of the Trade Marks Act 2002. As Mr Hughes has reminded me key provisions in section 124 of that Act prohibit a person from knowingly applying a mark to the goods and services that he or she knows is likely to be mistaken for a registered trademark. So much for the civil and criminal remedies.There is this further area of administrative remedies. It is usually only possible—as my colleagues on this side of the Chamber have reminded me—to bring criminal and civil proceedings after an event has occurred. There are some exceptions but the process is complicated and it can be time consuming and expensive. Administrative remedies may very well be an effective enforcement process in this legislation. What is possible? Well enforcement officers who are appointed by the Ministry of Economic Development can do a number of things. They can issue formal warnings to ambush marketers. They can seize offending material they can obscure offending material and they can enter premises under limited circumstances.Hon Trevor Mallard: Can the member say something to wake us up?Dr RICHARD WORTH: One of the issues—and I say this to wake the Minister up from his generally somnolent state—is the police involvement in the enforcement process. The Minister should listen to this because this was a change. This was not something the officials wanted; this was something they told the Minister they did not want. But the select committee said this is what we would have and we do—in the context of exercising these enforcement powers on private land the police are to be involved. It was suggested that the police would not be much interested in that but the reality is that we need to be hugely careful as Keith Locke has said tonight in arming officials with enforcement powers. It is appropriate that when those powers are exercised they be exercised in the presence of the constabulary.I now await the Minister’s comments on what he thinks of these administrative remedies. It is a test for him I would say as to his knowledge of the legislation and the approach that has been taken in philosophical terms to provide effective remedies in the case of a breach.MARYAN STREET (Labour): I rise to take a short call on this issue because I think some things have been lost sight of in the course of some of the recent contributions. During the select committee deliberation on the whole of this bill great care was taken to balance rights and to balance those few occasions when rights were being infringed or curtailed in any way. That balance was set against the advantages that might accrue to New Zealand from being able to hold major events of the sort that this Major Events Management Bill envisages and provides for.It is true that the select committee unanimously decided to amend one of the enforcement provisions in clause 65 “Powers conferred by warrant” in Subpart 6. This is where we agreed that in order to perpetuate the kind of balance that New Zealanders would tolerate and expect under this legislation any search warrant should be exercised by an enforcement officer only when that officer was accompanied by a member of the police. The powers conferred by a search warrant under Subpart 6 are quite extensive. They are as we would expect the ability to enter and search the place vehicle or thing specified; to use any assistance that is reasonable in the circumstances; to use any force for gaining entry; to search for and seize any thing that the warrant authorises the person to search for and seize; to take copies of documents; and to require somebody to reproduce information recorded or stored in a document. Those search warrant provisions are quite far-reaching and the committee decided it was a step too far to have those powers only in the hands of enforcement officers who were recruited for the purpose of an event. But enabling those provisions to be exercised under the auspices and the close observation of a police officer simply makes them consistent with other similar provisions in the law.At every turn in this bill we were at pains to ensure that individual rights were balanced and that any curtailment of those rights was in fact prescribed and limited and that is what has happened in this subpart as well. So before people go sounding off about infringement of individual liberty and the extension of the coercive power of the State they need to understand that the police coverage provisions in clause 65 simply allow for the police to be able to accompany any enforcement officer whether it be an officer of a city council for example or an enforcement officer appointed for the purpose such as a security guard. Those people must be accompanied by police in order to exercise the search warrant provisions in the legislation.This is sensible legislation. It is not extreme one way or another. What it does in fact is limit powers that are given specifically under this legislation to particular circumstances at particular times and in particular places in respect of other provisions in this bill. It is perfectly clear that a good deal of thought has been given to the enforcement part of this bill. Across the select committee it was unanimously decided that the additional provision of observation and accompaniment by a police officer was sufficient to give comfort to the public of New Zealand that no excessive rights or powers were being granted indiscriminately.KEITH LOCKE (Green): I do thank the select committee for putting in the amendment that both Dr Worth and Maryan Street have mentioned which makes sure that a police officer accompanies an enforcement officer when a search warrant is executed. That is a good step forward but it does not get away from subclauses (a) and (b) of clause 39 which relate largely to the action of enforcement officers immediately around the event. They have powers to cover over things and seize things without any police officer being present if the place is part of a clean zone or outside a clean zone.When the place is outside a clean zone presumably the bill means that without a police officer by the enforcement officer’s side the officer will be able to cover over a sign or whatever along a declared clean transport route up to 5 kilometres away and will be able to seize something from a person if that person is trading from his or her lawn across the road from the clean zone as covered in another clause.That can actually be for quite a long period too because the protection period—and this has not really come out in the debate yet—is not just for the day of the event. Under clause 8 it can be for up to 30 days after the completion or termination of the major event. So one can imagine a situation where for instance Air New Zealand could have an advert 4.5 kilometres away and the enforcement officer without a police officer present could cover over that advert up to 30 days after the event if say Emirates Airline is the major sponsor as it is at the current World Cup. Similarly Lemon and Paeroa ads could be covered over if Coca-Cola were the major sponsor as it is at the coming World Cup in France or if a Canterbury clothing manufacturer has a “Buy Kiwi Made” ad that ad could be covered over because Adidas is the official sponsor at this coming World Cup and maybe at the following one. Heineken is the official sponsor at the World Cup in France; Steinlager might be advertising 4.5 kilometres out and that ad could be covered over by an enforcement officer.That could happen under this bill and I do not think we need to go to that extent to achieve what most of us want to achieve—a successful tournament for the 2011 Rugby World Cup and other major international events.A party vote was called for on the questionThat Part 4 be agreed to.Ayes109New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland Field.Noes11Green Party 6; Māori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 2.Part 4 agreed to.Part 5 MiscellaneousALLAN PEACHEY (National—Tamaki): Thank you Madam Chair—Hon Trevor Mallard: You’ll have trouble being relevant on this.ALLAN PEACHEY: Oh the Minister should watch this. I can handle this. [Interruption] I was going to say that I will take a very short and final call on this bill and speak to Part 5 but if I am going to be taunted and aggravated by the other side I might choose to speak for 15 minutes on it.Part 5 under the glorious title of “Miscellaneous” covers clauses 76 to 80. It deals with emblems and words protected under other Acts and necessary amendments to the Flags Emblems and Names Protection Act 1981. It also contains provisions for the making of regulations to make the legislation work. I am bound to say—Darren Hughes: Read it again.ALLAN PEACHEY: If the junior Labour whip would like to take a call he will have the opportunity after I have finished speaking. I do have to say that it is somewhat of a challenge even for myself to hold the attention of the gallery let alone members opposite—not to mention those watching on television and listening to the radio—on what really is just a very very practical catch-all to draw this legislation to a close.But I do want to conclude my comments since the challenge on the other side to continue has not been that great by saying that what we have in the five parts that we have been debating and progressively passing tonight is the pulling together of a largenumber of interests ambitions and efforts of a large number of voluntary people business interests sporting organisations and the Government to create legislation that is not only workable but will give New Zealand the opportunity to host the Rugby World Cup 2011.I will make just one last comment while listening to the squawking from the other side—and it has taken them a while to come alive; they normally get into me a bit earlier than they have done. Every New Zealander will be taking a lot of reassurance from the knowledge that come 2011 the Minister who will be acting under this legislation will be a Minister representing a National Government.Dr RICHARD WORTH (National): So often one is put off by a heading like “Miscellaneous” and that is what Part 5 is headed. I would just like to explore an angle that probably has not been sufficiently considered by the Committee and until a few moments ago I had not fully reflected on its significance either. It stems from clause 78. The Minister in the chair the Hon Trevor Mallard has opened the bill to look at this. Clause 78 is headed “Application of Regulations (Disallowance) Act 1989 and Acts and Regulations Publication Act 1989” and the key part is in subclause (1): “An Order in Council made under section 6 or 7 is a regulation for the purposes of the Regulations (Disallowance) Act”.Now I am reasonably sure that the Minister has no comprehension of the significance of that. So let me tell him what it is. If one goes to the Standing Orders of Parliament one finds in Standing Order 3 a definition of regulation: “regulation means a regulation within the meaning of the Regulations (Disallowance) Act 1989”. I sense that the Minister may be on the trail but not quite there. So I draw his attention to this. These Orders in Council are made under clauses 6 or 7. If he turns back and looks at those clauses he will see that those are the very clauses where declarations of major events are made.What does all this mean in legal terms? Well it is something quite simple actually. What it means is that the Regulations Review Committee will have a jurisdiction to determine whether what the Governor-General asserts is a major event is or is not a major event. That is a hugely extended jurisdiction that this legislation confers. It is actually quite unusual. The jurisdiction is not only in respect of clause 6 but also in connection with clause 7 which is about major event emblems and words. So we have this very interesting situation. Let us say that the America’s Cup is declared by the Governor-General to be a major event. The Regulations Review Committee will have the jurisdiction to say “not so”. That will open up these provisions that are to be found around Standing Orders 314 and 315 where the Regulations Review Committee which comprises eminent respected and competent people will be looking to see whether there are Standing Orders grounds that are breached by what the Governor-General and his advisers have done. So I just offer a view for those who follow me in the future that when one comes to provisions headed “Miscellaneous such as Part 5 little jewels are often tucked away and this is one such jewel.Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister for Economic Development): I think there are two points that should be made here. The first is in response to Mr Peachey. I give him an absolute assurance that the recommendations under clauses 6 and 7 will be made by a Labour Minister and not by a National Minister. I am prepared to wager $1000 on it now.Dr Richard Worth: I seek leave of the House for that wager to be recorded in theJournals of the House as distinct fromHansard.Hon TREVOR MALLARD: That is not necessary but if we could have an acceptance from Mr Peachey right now then we will go for it. Is he prepared to put his money where his mouth is?The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The question is that Part 5—Allan Peachey: I would be delighted to.Hon TREVOR MALLARD: What did he say? I am sorry I missed it.The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Look this is out of order—Hon Member: He said yes.Hon TREVOR MALLARD: OK that is good. I am still going Madam Chair.The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Will the member just come back to the bill.Hon TREVOR MALLARD: I am happy to come back to the bill in the way that this works in but I think I should give the member a chance to say that this does not happen in the year of the event. This happens in this case quite a long time beforehand and might even happen over the next few weeks so if he wants to—[Interruption] No no we are talking about the Rugby World Cup and if the member wants to withdraw in his ignorance I am prepared to let him do it because it will be a bit of an unfair bet.Allan Peachey: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. Could somebody tell me what the hell the Minister is talking about because I have absolutely no idea.Hon TREVOR MALLARD: It is the wager that he just bet $1000 on—in ignorance I think. I am prepared to let him withdraw.Maryan Street: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I thought the Gambling Bill was the next item on the Order Paper.The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): That is a good point.Hon TREVOR MALLARD: I will leave it to the member to decide later on. The other point which I think is an important point that Dr Worth has raised—Darren Hughes: A doctor?Hon TREVOR MALLARD: He is a doctor—a part-time doctor but he is a doctor.Darren Hughes: Really a quack?Hon TREVOR MALLARD: No not one of them. He is one of the doctors who makes one sick not one that makes one well.The point to make to that member is that the regulations disallowance area was something that was very very deliberate on the part of the Government. We have a very high test here and we want to make sure there is a degree of unanimity about it in Parliament before it is applied. I accept that some of the powers are along the lines of what Keith Locke has said and that they are somewhat draconian. There is some loss of civil liberties and some balances occurring here and we wanted to make sure that through the Regulations Review Committee and Parliament there was a wide basis of support for the application of this legislation in each and every case.Part 5 agreed to.Scheduleagreed to.Clauses 1 and 2CHRIS TREMAIN (National—Napier): I rise to speak to the title of the Major Events Management Bill. As has been clearly pointed out in the course of this wide-ranging debate in the Committee stage the aim of this bill is to prevent unauthorised commercial exploitation at the expense of major sponsors. We are talking about some key events here. We are talking about the Netball World Championships in 2007 the World Rowing Championships in 2010—Hon Trevor Mallard: Not the netball.CHRIS TREMAIN: We are not talking about the netball; I apologise. We are certainly talking about the World Rowing Championships the Rugby World Cup in 2011 and the Cricket World Cup in 2015. These are key events that we need to focus on. They are particularly poignant for me in that I can look back on the events that myfather was involved in as an All Black throughout the halcyon days of the late 1950s and 1960s. We had the likes of Waka Nathan Colin Meads and Sir Brian Lochore playing then. It is poignant because if we look back to those days we see that what those men had on their jerseys was the silver fern. Advertising and sponsorship were second degree.Hon Trevor Mallard: No TV.CHRIS TREMAIN: There was very little TV—they were different days. Since then time has moved on.It is also poignant for me because Tom Johnson my own electorate chair back in Napier in Hawke’s Bay was on the council that went to Canada and that took up the original proposal for the initial Rugby World Cup.Hon Trevor Mallard: Before the member was born.CHRIS TREMAIN: No it was not before the member was born though it was close to it—it was back in about 1985 if I recall correctly.It is poignant because if we look back on those old days there was limited sponsorship. Now however the sponsorship is totally different. Companies have realised the potential of these events. Let us look at the Nike example that occurred at the 1996 Atlanta Olympic Games. Nike had probably one of the most amazing ambush marketing campaigns that has ever been seen at an Olympic Games. It cost $50 million for sponsors just to be on the starting list at that particular games but Nike did not step up to the game there. It refused to be a sponsor. However behind the scenes it plastered the city with billboards it handed out Swoosh flags all around the stadium and it erected an enormous Nike centre within the city. It was a huge ambush marketing campaign. At the end of the games some surveys were done and people in the city actually thought that Nike was the No. 1 sponsor.The reality is that to hold major events in this country or in any nation for that matter we need sponsors. It is a reality of life. If we cannot provide a return on the investment made by those sponsors then they will not be there. I think that the Greens need to understand this. New Zealand is poised in the fantastic position of being able to host many many events of a world standard and if we cannot provide clean stadiums then we will not get those events. These events have the ability to bring significant revenue into this country and unless we can provide clean stadiums we will not be able to provide those events.Hon Trevor Mallard: Stadia.CHRIS TREMAIN: Stadia.I would like to finish my contribution tonight by going back to the types of things that this bill will provide. It will retain memories in this nation of Rugby World Cups and of our key sporting heroes. They are memories of events that I can talk about after listening to my own father such as one that happened at Athletic Park in 1961. Many members will recall that test when the All Blacks sneaked home at 5-3 in a nail-biter. Members will recall an 80-mile-per-hour gale that whipped off the Southern Ocean and straight down Athletic Park.Hon Trevor Mallard: Was the member born?CHRIS TREMAIN: It does not matter; we still need to recall the memory. With 15 minutes to play the game was tied at nil all. A try finally came—not to New Zealand but to France. A pass from Connor had missed Wolfe 30 yards from the French line and before Wolfe could recover the loose ball Piqué had grabbed it and was making upfield. Bearing left he drew McKay infield before tossing a pass to the now unmarked Dupuy who bolted the last 40 yards to the line scoring 8 yards in from the left corner. Albaladejo failed at the almost impossible task of converting into the teeth of the gale. From the restart McKay narrowly missed scoring but from a scrum on the French lineLacroix passed to Lacaze to clear. The fullback’s kick was charged down by Tremain who fell on the ball 10 yards in from the corner. Don Clarke took the conversion attempt back to the 25 and kicked almost parallel to the goal line in time for the wind to catch the ball and miraculously carry it over the bar to give New Zealand the lead and to cruelly dash the French hopes.It is events like these—memories like these—that this bill will help. We must ensure that we in this country continue to hold events like this. They are why I for one certainly support this bill. Thank you Madam Chair.Clause 1 agreed to.Clause 2 agreed to.Bill reported without amendment.Report adopted.