Worth Richard: Major Events Management Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeWorth Richard: Major Events Management Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 22 August 2007. Volume:641;Page:11386. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]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.