Street Maryan: Major Events Management Bill — Second Reading 
Street Maryan: Major Events Management Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:641;Page:10887] 
MARYAN STREET (Labour) 
: 
 I am delighted to follow the previous speaker Gerry Brownlee who was of course the chair of the Commerce Committee which deliberated on this legislation. 
The Major Events Management Bill has something for everybody. In the course of the select committee deliberation we had the concept of national identity and national reputation. We had the balance between civil liberties and protections for the public. We had the presence of commercial interests and all the power they bring to bear. We had issues of confidentiality because of the highly competitive and commercially sensitive nature of some of the issues with which we were dealing. We even had a little farce in there as well. There was humour but there was a very serious purpose to this legislation. 
I absolutely endorse the previous speaker’s comments about the ability this bill has to present New Zealand to the world and to make us an attractive investment proposition for sponsors who have an interest in the way a major event is conducted. The key elements of this bill centre on four or five things. First there is the process of determining which events will become major events. The Minister for Sport and Recreation referred to that in his second reading speech. Although we were petitioned by submitters who said what about including the WOMAD festival or other annual or biennial national events or international events the select committee chose to come down on the side of a fairly restrictive view because the kinds of provisions that this bill sets out should not be enacted frequently but should be there in the event that there is a particularly major international fixture that draws a lot of attention and a lot of tourists and attendees to New Zealand. 
The second point that was a critical one which the honourable member Gerry Brownlee commented on previously was the issue about ambush marketing. This became a very interesting debate. The debate was about ambush marketing by association and ambush marketing by intrusion. Ambush marketing by association was just that kind of example that Mr Brownlee gave a moment ago where somebody could ride on the coat-tails of others’ investment and capitalise by association without having paid for or invested in the advertising programme. They could by association travel in on the coat-tails of other big investors and sponsors. Ambush marketing by intrusion however was a different proposition entirely. That will be traversed much more fully in the Committee stage of this bill. It gives rise to the notion of clean zones clean transport routes and clean periods for advertising. In other words for a period of time an area around a venue and transport routes to the venue are demarcated by this legislation and are reserved so that the integrity of the sponsorship arrangements that support and underpin the event can be observed and can be honoured. 
Two other things that the bill provides for are a matter of some interest. One of them is the ticket-scalping protections. That was considered in detail by the select committee. We talked about the ways in which ticket-scalping might happen. Tickets could be advertised on TradeMe or another Internet vehicle or a person could simply buy a lot of tickets stand outside the venue prior to games and make a huge profit way over and above the cost of the tickets. That has become an offence under this bill and anybody who commits an offence in this respect is liable on summary conviction to a fine of up to $5000—which is likely to be far more than any profit the person might have made out of the tickets that were bought up and sold off. 
Beyond that the other point I want to raise is the one about pitch invasion. There was a little exchange earlier in the House about whether pitch invasion was a new offence. Quite frankly pitch invasion is a term that more appropriately describes the kind of offence that we are trying to proscribe in this bill. “Disorderly behaviour” was the title by which such an offence was prosecuted previously but pitch invasion and its two definitions—that is running on to a pitch or on to a playing surface and throwing something on to it—make it absolutely crystal clear what is meant by pitch invasion. 
This was a moment in the course of the select committee hearing where there was a bit of farce because there was a submitter—and I say this with the greatest of respect to her—who came to defend her right to invade pitches. We heard her with a deal of respect but I have to say her submission lacked content and did not win our support. This celebrated pitch-invader clearly was the woman who had invaded a playing surface in the past and then proceeded to make a lot of money on TradeMe by auctioning the little piece of clothing that she was wearing at the time of the pitch invasion. 
Dr Richard Worth 
: Anywhere else she’d be called an entrepreneur! 
MARYAN STREET 
: She appeared before the select committee to defend her entrepreneurial right to do that. However when we coupled the idea of pitch invasion with the idea of ambush marketing we on the select committee clearly came down on the side of ensuring that this became an offence and was properly described as such in this bill. 
This was a most interesting bill to hear. A wide range of submissions were heard and opinions canvassed in the course of that. What I am most proud of I think in the upshot of this bill is that we have something that balances individual liberty and individual rights with legitimate protections for a major event—which of course we are looking forward to hosting in a very short time. Thank you. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The next call goes to the National Party. Two speakers will share it with 5 minutes each. The first will be select committee member Dr Richard Worth.