Peachey Allan: Major Events Management Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumePeachey Allan: Major Events Management Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 22 August 2007. Volume:641;Page:11370. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]ALLAN 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.