Mark Ron: Major Events Management Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMark Ron: Major Events Management Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 22 August 2007. Volume:641;Page:11375. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]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.