Major Events Management Bill

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Energy) Link to this

I move, That the Major Events Management Bill be now read a first time. At the appropriate time I intend to move that the bill be considered by the Commerce Committee, and that the committee report finally to the House on or before 15 June 2007.

This bill results from New Zealand’s successful bids to host the Rugby World Cup in 2011 and to co-host the International Cricket Council Cricket World Cup in 2015, both of which included a commitment to ensure that adequate provisions are in place to prevent ambush marketing. This type of legislation is now a reality for hosting major events. The financial investment made in major events by organisers and sponsors is such that it is now common practice for the organisers of those events to require appropriate ambush marketing protections to be implemented as part of the hosting agreement. Free riding of that investment by companies not associated with the event is damaging, not just for the official organisers and sponsors but also to the credibility of the event itself and the country hosting it. Legislation containing ambush marketing protections has been introduced in other jurisdictions, including those in the United Kingdom, Australia, South Africa, and the Caribbean.

The bill is a piece of generic legislation that will apply to major events of all kinds, sporting and otherwise, as long as they meet the criteria set out in the bill. It is crucial for New Zealand to be seen as a viable host country for major events of international significance. The Government is interested in submissions about whether events other than sporting events could meet the criteria and, if not, whether the bill should be narrowed accordingly. It is important that this type of protection is available only for truly major events of international significance. It must be acknowledged that it places a limitation on business practice and commercial speech, and to apply it too widely would be to cause more problems than it solves. So the bill is based on the basic premise that the protection of those events should be for the overall benefit of New Zealand.

The bill sets out a number of criteria that determine whether an event should be declared to be a major event and attract the protections contained in the legislation. They include things such as whether the event raises New Zealand’s international profile, generates significant tourism opportunities, and offers significant sporting, cultural, social, and economic benefits. Event organisers will need to apply to the Minister for Economic Development for major event status, and the Minister will be required to take all those criteria into account. The event organisers will also need to satisfy the Minister that they will use all practicable measures available under the existing law to prevent the unauthorised commercial exploitation of a major event. Those will include, for example, protecting their intellectual property through registering their trademarks. Once a major event has been declared, the Minister will also be able to declare certain words and emblems to be the major event’s words and emblems. That will mean that they can be protected under the provisions of the legislation.

Two types of activity are regulated by the legislation. The first is ambush marketing by association. That is aimed at businesses who are not the official sponsor, but who try to create some kind of association between themselves and the event. In essence, they are seeking to unfairly trade off the goodwill and reputation surrounding an event, without making the significant financial commitment that official sponsors make. Clearly that type of free-riding activity could discourage potential sponsors from investing in an event. The legislation puts in place prohibitions against that type of activity during the period of protection specified by the Minister, whether the activity is done explicitly or by more subtle means. That includes the use of tickets for promotional purposes without the authorisation of the event organiser.

Another major form of ambush marketing is ambush marketing by intrusion. That refers to the practice of unfairly intruding on the attention of spectators who are essentially gathered solely for the purpose of the major event. In essence, they are a captive audience. The legislation prevents those who are not authorised by the event organisers from displaying advertising in the area around a major event venue or, in some circumstances, if it is visible from the major events venue. It also prevents unauthorised advertising from being visible when approaching the venue. The Government is not wedded to the detail of the boundary around the venue, and I expect that will be the subject of debate at the select committee.

It is important to recognise, though, that this type of legislation could unfairly restrict honest practice. Plenty of businesses go about activities on a day-to-day basis that we do not want to fall foul of this legislation. Freedom of speech, including commercial freedom of speech, is crucial in a fair and democratic society, so the bill has many safeguards for honest business practice and existing right-holders. If any activity forms part of a business’ honest everyday activities, it will be able to continue the activity regardless of the legislation. The legislation will not override the rights of existing trademark holders or prevent a person from using his or her own name or address in trade. Clearly, this legislation would not fulfil its aim of promoting the interests of New Zealand if it went too far or was too far-reaching. All those issues have been given consideration during the drafting of the bill.

As I have already said, the use of tickets is incorporated into the ambush marketing provisions. The bill also prohibits the on-sale of tickets at above their face value. As recent events show, those who buy up tickets and then seek to sell them at an unfair profit have deprived many Kiwi sports fans of the opportunity to attend big events. Obviously, if a consumer buys a ticket to an event and for some reason cannot attend, we do not want to prevent that person from selling his or her ticket or recouping his or her costs. It is not fair, however, when people knowingly buy up batches of tickets for the sole purpose of selling them at sometimes substantially inflated prices well beyond the means of many New Zealanders.

In conclusion, this bill is an important step in ensuring that New Zealand is seen as a viable host country for major events of international significance. The role of those events in attracting international visitors and raising New Zealand’s international profile has obvious benefits for all New Zealanders. In addition to the Rugby World Cup in 2011 and the International Cricket Council Cricket World Cup in 2015, New Zealand will also host the World Rowing Championships in 2010 and the Under-17 Women’s Football World Cup in 2008. New Zealand is, of course, challenging for the America’s Cup in Valencia in 2007, and if that challenge is successful the America’s Cup will be held in New Zealand again in 2010-11. This bill places New Zealand well to successfully bring those events and many others to the world. The bill represents the best effort to get a balance between the competing interests that will be affected by the legislation. Different approaches can be taken on many areas in the bill. I encourage all New Zealanders, individuals and businesses, to make their submission during the select committee process so that we can end up with the fairest and most effective piece of legislation that we can.

Hon MURRAY McCULLY (National—East Coast Bays) Link to this

I indicate to the House at the outset that the National Party will be voting for the Major Events Management Bill to receive its first reading and be referred to a select committee for further study—a process that will be more meaningful in respect of this bill than is usually the case. As the Minister David Parker has already indicated to the House, there are some fine lines that are required to be drawn between the interests of event organisers and the commercial and private interests of members of the public. The select committee will have the delicate task of ensuring that those lines are correctly drawn if the bill is to enjoy the support of members when it comes back to us.

I will say a few words about why I think this bill is welcome and why the House should give it serious consideration. The Minister ran off a list of important events that are upcoming over the next few years. I am bound to say that some of them will probably not meet the criteria that are set out in the bill, although some of them undoubtedly will. Looking back into the past we see that the America’s Cup event, which we hosted in New Zealand in 1999-2000, would have met the criteria set out in the bill. Clearly, the Rugby World Cup in 2011 would meet the criteria. A range of smaller events may or may not make the cut, as the case may be. But the simple fact of the matter is that events of that scale—as large as the Rugby World Cup and the America’s Cup—cannot be hosted or conducted without very substantial commitments of sponsorship.

The reason for this bill being before the House today is that sponsors are not prepared to make those commitments in today’s world unless they can see that certain protections are going to exist to make good their investments. We have confronted those problems before in relation to the America’s Cup, and found our way through them, but, as people have got more sophisticated in the marketplace and more clever at challenging the rights and investments of sponsors, the need has become clearer for a framework of rules within which to operate, in this respect. So I welcome the fact that the bill is at least an attempt to deal with such a framework.

New Zealand has a simple choice: either we decide to listen to the needs of the sponsors or we just decide we will not be in the business of hosting those sorts of events. Again, the Minister referred to a number of jurisdictions where similar issues have arisen. I am bound to say that we are somewhat behind the eight ball in relation to the hosting of major events in this country. I have been on public record for many years suggesting that this is an area of activity in which New Zealand should excel. There are examples of jurisdictions close to us that are not especially large but that have been very innovative and successful in the hosting of major events.

The most successful I can think of, going back over a couple of decades, are major events in Melbourne, in the state of Victoria, where a large number of highly successful events not only have been encouraged but have, frankly, been bought by the state using taxpayers’ money, because there has been a recognition that the spin-off benefits of hosting those events—in terms of tourism, trade, promotional activity, and investment opportunity—make valid the scale of the investment of taxpayers’ resources. The state of Victoria has, over many years, developed this to a fine art. Other jurisdictions in Australia have been participants—some on a lesser scale; some on a more significant scale—but I think the shining light in this regard is, unquestionably, the state of Victoria.

I refer the House to the fact that the bill before us today is but a very small part of the fabric that is required to be dealt with if we are to become true players in this respect. The most important leading edge in this area is the process of bidding for, and attracting, these events. Currently in this country that is a relatively haphazard process. True, the Government, at a very high level, participated in the bid process for the Rugby World Cup—it being for New Zealand the premier event of its type—but many other events are left to the preserve of the sporting code concerned or a group of enthusiasts, as the case may be. I think there is room for greater recognition of the role of central government agencies in the bidding process, for a start. Certainly there is scope for a greater investment of the funds that are available for trade, tourism, and investment promotion in New Zealand in this area. That, too, is an area where I hope there will be an added focus if this House is to take this bill forward, because it will make that sort of attention more meaningful.

The framework that is addressed by this bill relates purely to the area of ambush marketing, and there is some attempt here to address the issue of scalping. Those are a very small part of the total vista that is the management of a major event. As I said in my initial comments, there are some fine lines that are required to be drawn by the House, and the consequences of getting those lines wrong will be serious.

One of the obvious areas is the buffer zone, which is provided for in this bill. Once the Minister has managed to persuade Cabinet and Cabinet has asked the Governor-General to sign off on an event as being a major event within the context of this bill, it is not just the area of the immediate event that can be the subject of restrictions that are outlined in the bill; there is a buffer zone around it so that ambush marketing cannot be embarked upon by an opponent of one of the major sponsors of the event. Obviously, some massive value judgments will be required around that. If, for example, New Zealand was to host the America’s Cup again—if Team New Zealand is successful—then some restrictions would apply to the Viaduct Basin and the area where the event itself is contested. But the judgment call about what sort of buffer zone would be required, and what sorts of restrictions should operate within that zone, calls for the most delicate of judgments as to the competing rights of the event organisers and its sponsors, on one hand, and those who normally conduct their business in that locale, on the other hand.

I say to the members of the select committee that this is an enormously complicated job and I hope they apply their minds to the task at hand in the way that is required if we are to get this matter remotely right. I commend to them the wisdom of looking at some of the examples from other jurisdictions. I emphasise, again, that we are far from market leaders in this respect; there is a lot we can learn from others. I welcome the fact that the select committee will have that opportunity.

I have had the opportunity to discuss this bill with the Minister Trevor Mallard, in whose name it sits, and I know that he is of an open mind about these considerations. I encourage not just those who are in the event management business today but those who are involved in the many sporting codes that will have an opportunity over future years to bring major events of this sort to New Zealand to take an interest in this framework, because it is something that will profoundly affect them if they do get to that stage. An investment in time and effort now to understand the bill and get it to some state of perfection—if it is to come back to this House for further consideration—is well warranted. We will see this bill go to a select committee, and I urge the select committee to do its work well, because it will be important to the final product that it does so.

CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) Link to this

I rise to support the introduction of the Major Events Management Bill and to welcome the support of the previous speaker, Murray McCully, who indicated that the National Party will support the bill going to a select committee. That is the correct approach to take, and it is pleasing to see a constructive approach being taken to the legislation. It is important to deal with ambush marketing, given the amount of sponsorship dollars that are spent by major corporates on major events such as those that the bill will deal with. As the previous speaker observed, it is a good thing to be able to attract major events to New Zealand. In order to do that we need to have a competitive regulatory regime, similar to the regimes operated in jurisdictions that have considerable success in attracting those events.

It is interesting to consider the situation in regimes comparable with ours, particularly those in Australia. There, Olympic-related legislation and two statutes—one federal, and one a statute of the Parliament of New South Wales—were used to protect the Sydney Olympics. Those Acts are the Sydney 2000 Games (Indicia and Images) Protection Act 1996 and the Olympic Arrangements Act 2000. That legislation controlled street trading, the sale of tickets, and airspace and aerial advertising, and prohibited advertising on buildings or structures. Australia also has Commonwealth Games - related legislation that protected the interests of Victoria as Melbourne hosted the Commonwealth Games in 2006. It is a very similar scheme to that of the New South Wales and federal legislation. Victoria also has the Australian Grands Prix Act 1994 and the 1996 regulations made under that statute.

In South Africa there are two relevant statutory provisions, both introduced in 2001 to cater for the 2003 Cricket World Cup, and in the UK there is the London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Act 2006. Finally, by way of comparison, in the Caribbean nations the ICC Cricket World Cup West Indies 2007 Bill has been introduced. All that legislation has broadly similar provisions to those in the bill that the Minister Trevor Mallard has introduced. They are appropriate in order to ensure that New Zealand can continue to attract major events, with the consequent benefit for our economy and the world publicity that we receive.

This bill is a good bill, in my view, and I commend it to the House.

GORDON COPELAND (United Future) Link to this

United Future will also be supporting the Major Events Management Bill 2006 going to the relevant select committee. I must say that when I read through the bill and its contents, my mind immediately went back to the role I had in being part of the organising committee for the visit of Pope John Paul II to New Zealand in 1986. It was a massive undertaking. He was here for 48 hours and had face-to-face contact with more then 200,000 people, and many hundreds of thousands also saw him on TV during that time. The first thing we did was to form a company and copyright a logo for the visit, because we were so conscious, given the entrepreneurial inclinations of many Kiwis, which I greatly admire, that there would be all sorts of hucksters who would be crowding in on the events to line their own pockets with what might have been all kinds of inappropriate souvenirs and memorabilia, etc. We thought it necessary right from day one to take control and ensure we had a proper systematic system for ensuring that people who were reasonable and responsible in what they wanted to do were the only ones who could officially participate in the event.

So from that first-hand experience I can really appreciate the need for a bill such as this one when we come to the major events that are planned in New Zealand, starting with the Netball World Championships later this year and going through into 2015 when we host the Cricket World Cup. I guess there will be other major events that come along in the interval.

I thought the bill bulletin issued by Parliamentary Library was very, very good in the way it set out all of the reasons we need such a bill, under very interesting headings: “Faking It”, about rogue traders who move in; “Facility Marketing”; “Individual Sponsorships”; and “Using the Fans”. It really does prove the ingenuity, I suppose, of entrepreneurs in places like Germany who for the 2006 FIFA World Cup, where people who had no sponsorship rights whatsoever in the event, actually got a group of fans to come along—for a fee, of course—and wear their T-shirts. Some of us will remember that that had a pretty unfortunate effect on the sponsorship of Budweiser, which was probably short-changed by the way in which its sponsorship was ambushed by others who seized the opportunity to make a bob or two at the expense of the official sponsors.

The issue of scalping tickets, etc., is also there in the bill bulletin. So we have no doubt at all that there is a need for a bill like this one if we are to adopt world best practice in terms of sponsoring these major events. We will follow the bill through the select committee process with interest, and hope to see it reported back to the House and eventually passed into legislation so that New Zealand can continue to be a destination of choice for major events.

CHRIS TREMAIN (National—Napier) Link to this

I refer to an article by Abram Sauer, who talks about ambush marketing, which, in fact, is the principal focus of the Major Events Management Bill 2006. Abram begins his article by saying: “Imagine you throw a party and invite heaps of brilliant, interesting people. Imagine your roommate fails to help with the planning or the cost. Imagine the night of the party, your deadbeat roomie shows up and claims co-sponsorship. Imagine watching in awe as the freeloader takes credit for your expense and effort. Now imagine that party cost you $20M.” There would be some concerns.

What we are talking about here is a party that we are looking to hold in 2011. We wish to protect the rights of the sponsors that are going to put a significant amount of money into that tournament, and to give them as much protection as possible for their sponsorship dollar. It is something that unfortunately we did not do back in 2003 when we had the right to co-host the 2003 Rugby World Cup with Australia.

I will refer to my own electorate, Hawke’s Bay, and to a gentleman by the name of Tom Johnson. Tom was a colleague of my father, Kel, and played in the Hawke’s Bay Ranfurly Shield era in the 1960s. Tom was a very influential man in the New Zealand rugby scene, and rose to the status of the New Zealand rugby board. It was an instigator in bringing about the initial Rugby World Cup, and as a result the initial tournament in 1987, when ambush marketing was not at its foremost. But since those days, ambush marketing has become a true science—as Mr Copeland referred to it before—that we should have known about when we were looking to host the 2003 Rugby World Cup.

I want to talk members through some of the stories about ambush marketing and how complex it has actually become. Let us have a look at the 1984 Olympics, where Kodak sponsored TV broadcasting of the games, as well as the US track team, despite Fuji being the official sponsor. Kodak was able to get significant mileage out of that. Let us go to the 1992 Barcelona Olympics, where Nike sponsored the press conferences with the US basketball team, despite Reebok being the games’ official sponsor. Perhaps one of the greatest ambush marketing efforts of all time was the marketing feat of all-time Nike man, Michael Jordan, who was “Mr Air Sponsorship” himself. He accepted the gold medal for basketball but covered up the Reebok logo on his kit. Nike has been the all-time champion of ambush marketing. With its association with the Rugby World Cup, it is something that I guess we need to take into consideration.

Let us have a look at Nike’s ambush of the 1996 Atlanta Olympics, which is probably seen as the ambush of all ambushes, according to writers on this subject. Saving the US$50 million that an official sponsorship would have cost—so Nike did not actually front up with that $50 million—Nike plastered the city in billboards, handed out swoosh banners for people to wave at the competitions, and erected an enormous Nike centre overlooking the stadium. It was able to obtain significant mileage over the event without putting one sponsorship dollar into the event itself. In fact, Nike has moved to the point now where it tends to sponsor individuals in teams, as opposed to events, so that it can use that as a legal form of ambush marketing.

If we have a look at the Atlanta debacle we see that many thought that Nike had been an official sponsor of the games. More recently, in a poll in 2001, a study found that from a list of 45 likely sponsors of the 2002 World Cup, 20 percent of those polled thought Nike was a sponsor when, in fact, it was not.

It is not limited to large corporates like Nike. There is a fantastic example at the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City when Anheuser-Busch paid more than US$50 million to sponsor that particular event. In accordance with its agreement it got all the rights to use the word “Olympic” and the five rings logo.

NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) Link to this

I rise to give a fairly brief contribution to the debate on behalf of the Green Party and to say that although we will be supporting this bill going to a select committee, we will not commit ourselves to any support beyond that. It depends on what comes out of the committee. So although we will support this reading, we have a few difficulties with the bill that we think it would be useful for the House to address, particularly in the select committee.

I have listened to the debate so far and heard a lot of talk about the disagreeable nature of ambush marketing. I do not think there is a lot of disagreement about that. It certainly seems quite wrong for a company that has contributed nothing to an event, by way of sponsorship or support in any way, to be able to hijack the event for its own promotional purposes and make a profit from the promotional opportunities it gets out of it. That seems quite wrong.

Having said that, I have to say I have a little bit of sympathy for some of the small guys. It is one thing to talk about Nike versus Reebok, for example, but I have a little bit of sympathy for New Zealand small-business operators, who certainly do contribute to such events through their tax dollars and who, for those who are local, suffer all kinds of inconvenience and hassle. They do not benefit particularly from the event, because a lot of the commercial opportunities are gobbled up by the big players. If the legislation does pass, I hope to see the enforcement agencies show some discretion, with the idea that the legislation should be used to target large commercial operators and a little bit of leeway given to some smaller businesses.

So we heard a lot about how disagreeable ambush marketing is, and how it is a terrible thing. Chris Tremaine gave us a long list of examples of how ambush marketing has been used in the past, and I do not think that any of us would say that it is not disagreeable. The question for us as parliamentarians, though, is whether this bill is a proportionate response to the problem. This House has a longstanding reputation and history of passing wildly inappropriate legislation in order to crush a minor problem

The foreshore and seabed legislation is a very good example. We were talking about that in the House today during question time. Questions from the Māori Party very clearly demonstrated to us, once again, that we had a potential in a court finding, and the extent of the rights recognised by the court had yet to be tested. We had yet to see how large an area would even be covered by any future court findings. We had no idea of that, and the Government introduced a massive confiscation, the likes of which we have not seen for over a century in many parts of the country, in order to stamp on that. That is just one example of the kind of wildly disproportionate legislation we pass in this Parliament all the time.

My question is not whether ambush marketing is a bad thing—not whether we disapprove of ambush marketing—it is whether this legislation is proportionate to the problem we are trying to address. I think it is something to which we should give a lot of consideration, and it is something I do have some concerns about. We know that it is politically useful for the Government to be passing this legislation, but is it good law? We know the real reason for the talk about fairness and whatever. The real reason we are passing this legislation is so we can make sure we lock down the Rugby World Cup and the commitments that have been made in order to secure that event. That is what this is really about. So let us be clear about that in the debate we are having.

The Green Party has a few difficulties with the bill, and I would like to touch briefly upon a couple of them. There will be an opportunity to deal with these difficulties in much more detail in later stages of the debate. I go, first of all, to clause 4, the “Interpretation”. This bill is an attempt to stop commercial operators promoting an association between their products or services and the event in question. We see that “association” means “a relationship of connection, whether direct or implied,”. The phrase “direct or implied” is kind of interesting, because we are talking about not just people who make a direct, blatant claim that their product is in some way associated with the event. “Implied” is a pretty ambiguous term and can cover a wide range of goods and services that are being quite legitimately promoted. So I think we have to look very carefully at the scope of the kinds of promotions that are covered by this legislation.

The same section states that “association” includes “offering, giving away, or selling a ticket to a major event activity in connection with the promotion of goods or services”. So, for example, it seems to me that a radio station could not even give away a ticket, because inevitably that would be a promotion for its own radio station. So a radio station could not give away tickets to an All Black game, because it would be forbidden from doing so by this definition of “association”. That is something we should think very carefully about. Is that what we are trying to cover? Is that what we are trying to capture by means of this legislation? I am not sure, despite all the talk about Reebok and Nike, whether that is actually what we are trying to get at.

I move on to Part 2, “Declaration of major event and protections for major events”. This part does not cover all events but simply ones that have been declared to be major events by Order in Council—by the Governor-General, on the recommendation of the Minister for Economic Development after consultation with the Minister of Commerce and the Minister for Sport and Recreation. So they can declare that an event is a major event, then the bill covers that event.

We would like to see something added to this part, because one of the conditions in relation to declaring an event to be major is that the Minister must be satisfied that the event organiser has the capacity and the intention to successfully and professionally stage and manage the event. One of the things it would make sense to say in a world where climate change is happening as a result of human activity—it is something that is on the political agenda, and the Prime Minister has talked about us being carbon neutral—is that professionally and successfully staging and managing an event includes the condition that it has to be carbon neutral and a zero waste event. Surely, in today’s world that should be a criterion for successfully and professionally managing an event. It seems quite sensible that that criterion would be put in here, because if the draconian aspects or powers contained in this bill are to be brought to bear, and we are passing law to protect commercial interests, there has to be some balance in that, and there has to be something going back the other way.

It is interesting that in declaring a major event, the Governor-General also has the ability to declare “a major event emblems and words”. The Governor-General can declare “any or all of the following: (a) an emblem to be a major event emblem: (b) a word, words if combined with other words, or a combination of words to be a major event word or major event words.” That provision goes far beyond trade-marking legislation. Again, we are seeing a pretty broad application of legislation protecting commercial interests, and we have to give it some real consideration if we want to cast the net as broadly as that.

Clause 7(3) states: “Before making a recommendation, the Minister for Economic Development must take into account the extent to which, in relation to the major event, emblems and words require protection in order to—(a) obtain maximum benefits for New Zealanders: (b) prevent unauthorised commercial exploitation at the expense of either a major event organiser or a major event sponsor.” So this is all about protecting commercial interest. There is no balancing there, there is no test of reasonableness, and there is no test of whether that infringes the rights of other operators.

It seems to me that this is wildly unbalanced legislation. It contains some pretty draconian and wide-reaching elements, and we need to give serious consideration as to how we can tighten up the scope of this bill.

PITA PARAONE (NZ First) Link to this

Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. I am standing in for my colleague Ron Mark, who is our spokesperson on this issue. Due to unforeseen circumstances, he is not able to be present in the House at this moment. I will take a short call just to make sure that New Zealand First’s contribution is made to this debate.

I say from the start that we will certainly support the Major Events Management Bill going to the Commerce Committee, because it is important that the people of New Zealand are given the opportunity to have a say on what is, I believe, very important legislation. The fact that our country will be hosting a number of international events means it is important that we ensure that those responsible for carrying out those events are protected in some way.

I want to make a point in respect of the declaration of a major event. The bill states that ambush marketing protection should not be overused, and that the bill will apply only to major events. The exception to that rule will be the events that New Zealand hosts on a regular basis. I want to ask a question in regard to events like the Bledisloe Cup, which is an annual event and, for those who follow rugby, is probably considered to be a major event. I have seen on the Internet that a number of tickets have been scalped—those who are selling them have obtained them through legal means, of course—and I just wonder whether events like the Bledisloe Cup should not be covered in this legislation. However, having said that, I would expect that during the select committee process particular issues like that one will be covered.

As I said, this would be a short call, and I say that New Zealand First will be supporting the bill going to a select committee. Kia ora.

TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki) Link to this

Kia ora tātou, kia ora Mr Assistant Speaker. Tēnā koe, tēnā tātou katoa. Hei te Rāwhā e tū mai nei, ka tū tētahi kaupapa whakaharahara nui nei i Te Papa-i-oea, i te papa tākaro o Manawatū. Ka kitea mai ai ko te pōhiri, ko ngā manuhiri tūārangi, ko ngā momo whakaari, ko te tini, ko te mano. He aha te take? Ehara i te mea ko Tākuta Pita Sharples e pekepeke ana, e haka ana, e hītekiteki ana me tana taiaha pēnei i ngā tau toru tekau kua hipa. Ko te take e kōrerohia nei, ko te whakataetae ā-motu nei e eke ai ko te kotahi mano toru rau kaihaka, ko te toru tekau mā rima mano tāngata ka tae atu ki Te Matatini.

E ai ki tā te motu, kāore e kore kua nui ake, kua pai ake, kua rahi ake tēnei whakataetae ki ērā o ngā tau kua hipa. He momo pakanga kei te haere ā-kanikani nei, arā, mai i Te Rōpū Taikura toru rau kaiwhakaari, koroua mai, kuia mai, kōeke mai. Rima tekau mā rima tau te pakeke o tēnei hunga whakaora i ngā waiata o ngā tau kua hipa.

Ka rere te tangi mai o ngā manu tīoriori, o ngā reo kapahaka nei ki Te Papa-i-oea tonu puta noa i te motu ki Awarua, ki Te Kao. Nā ngā āhuatanga o te ao hōu ka taea e te hunga kāinga te whakatau ngā rōpū whakamīharo pēnei i te NZ Idol, arā, mā te waea. Ka pāohotia anō hoki e te Pouaka Whakaata Māori, arā, ngā ārai nui ā-pāoho nei, ā, mō te wā tuatahi, arā anō te rōpū whakamārama ā-reo Pākehā nei, arā, ko Hakarongomai tērā.

Kua pēnei mai taku whakamārama e te Speaker mō Te Matatini ki tēnei whare i te mea, koi nei tētahi o ngā kaupapa whakaharahara nei e ai ki tā te tangata whenua titiro. Arā noa atu te nui o tēnei hui ā-whā rānei ka kitea mai ai ko te matatau o te hunga kāinga ki te whakariterite i a rātou anō, ka mutu, ko te hunga whakaeke, te kaha o te manaaki, ngā momo whakaari, ko ngā momo whakahaere katoa, kia eke ki te taumata o tērā kōrero: “A tika ā muri, ka tika ā mua.” He aha tōna mutunga ake? Ko te kapa haka whakamīharo rawa atu o te motu.

Mai anō, koi nei tētahi hui whakahirahira o te ao tonu, ā, i tēnei tau ka whakamanahia hei wāhanga o te Mātauranga Tau Tekau a Te Kotahitanga o ngā Motu o te Ao. I puta te kōrero i te mutunga o tērā tau, ka riro mā Unesco Te Matatini e hāpai i runga i te rātaka o te ao.

Nā, hāunga ēnei kōrero ka pātai au i te pātai i a tātou e wānanga nei i tēnei pire, he aha te take i kore ai Te Matatini i noho hei hui whakahirahira mō Aotearoa, mō te ao tonu i roto i ngā kōrero mō te pire nei? E ai ki tā te pire, e whā noa iho ngā hui nui nei: ko te whakataetae poitarawhiti o te ao a te tau nei, ko te whakataetae hoe waka o te ao i Karapiro a te tau 2010, ko te whakataetae whutupaoro o te ao a te tau 2011, ko te whakataetae kirikiti o te ao a te tau 2015.

Ehara i te mea he tangata whakaiti nei au i te kēmu whutupaoro engari, arā anō te pātai, kei hea te wāhanga o te ao Māori i roto i ngā whiriwhiringa o tēnei mea mō te hui ā-motu?

Mēnā ka huri tātou ki te roto o Karapiro, i reira tonu te whakataetae o te ao mō te waka ama. Kua tae atu tēnei mea te waka ama ki ngā iwi Māori katoa o te motu ka mutu, kua eke mai te tī me te tā o uta, o tai o Aotearoa nei, o tāwāhi anō hoki ki konei. He kaupapa whakakao tēnei i te hunga tūruhi. Ko te mate e pēnei ana. Ahakoa i tau atu te ao ki Karapiro mō taua whakataetae whakaharahara, kāore anō taua kaupapa rā kia whakamanahia hei hui nui e te hunga pāpāho ā-pākehā nei. Nō reira, ko tā mātou māharahara tuatahi e hāngai tonu ana ki nga tikanga hei whakatau, he aha tēnei mea, arā, te hui nui whakaharahara e ai ki tā te pire nei? Kāore he take o ngā wāhanga e rima o roto i te wāhanga marketing ambush mēnā e kore tō hui e eke ki te whakamārama i roto i te pire.

Ko tā mātou e kī nei, mēnā kei te Kāwana Tianara te kupu whakamutunga, me kōrero te Minita Whakatipuranga Rawa ki te Minita Tauhokohoko, ki te Minita Hākinakina engari, me kōrero anō hoki ki te Minita Māori.

Arā noa atu ngā take e pēnei ana ō mātou whakaaro. Ko te tuatahi ko tērā e pā ana ki te hunga hokohoko me tō rātou piringa ki te hunga tae mai ki Aotearoa nei i tāwāhi. Ki taku mōhio, kia tae mai ngā manuhiri tūārangi i tāwāhi ki konei, ki ngā kōrero, ki ngā tikanga, ki ngā āhuatanga o te tangata whenua o te Māori, ērā mea katoa te mea e hiahiatia ana. Me kī, koi nei te mea hoko.

Koi nei te āhuatanga i Whakarewarewa, i te kāinga. Kua roa a Te Arawa e mārama ana ki ngā painga o te tūruhi, ahakoa ko te mahi nui i taua takiwā, ko te peke i te piriti ki ngā wai ki reira ruku kapa ai. Ko te toa e pūkanakana ana, ko te wahine ātaahua whiu poi nei i nga kāri pikitia nei, he āhuatanga kua roa e kawea ana i te kanohi me kī, o Aotearoa ki tāwāhi.

Ko te noho o te Minita Māori i waenganui i ngā whiriwhiringa tētahi huarahi tonu hei tiaki i te taha ki te tangata whenua, i roto i ngā mahi whakarite, whakahaere anō hoki o ngā hui nei.

E tika ana kia kōrerohia te take nei i tēnei wā i te mea, kua ara anō rā te Kerēme Wai 262 ki mua i te aroaro o te Taraipiunara o Waitangi, e iwa tau i muri mai o te wā i tae tuatahi atu ki reira. I tōna whānuitanga e ai ki taua kerēme, kāore te Karauna i tuku i a ngāi tātou a Ngāi Māori nei ki te whakatinana i tō rātou tino rangatiratanga e pā ana ki ō rātou taonga tae atu ki ngā momo tipu, Te Reo Māori, te mātauranga Māori me ngā taonga tuku iho Māori.

Ko tāku e kī nei, kia kaua tātou e huri ki te whai i ētahi ture hōu pēnei i tēnei pire i tōna kotahi. Me titiro anō hoki tātou ki ngā huarahi hei tiaki i ngā taonga tuku iho me ngā mātauranga tuku iho. E hia kē nei ngā wā he whāiti te titiro, arā, he titiro ki te mea kotahi me te kore titiro ki ōna whānuitanga, arā, ki ōna pānga ki ētahi atu ture.

Kātahi anō ka puta mai te Protected Objects Amendment Act, ā, kei reira tonu ngā kōrero mō te tiaki i ngā taonga, te rangatiratanga o te mana whenua, tēnei mea te mana, otirā, te wāhanga ki te Karauna.

Ko te aronga ki te ao Māori, ngā tikanga, ngā kōrero, arā, ngā āhuatanga katoa o ēnei kupu “ngā taonga tūturu” he mea nui nei hei tiaki, hei pupuri nei i ngā taonga tuku iho. Kaua tātou e waiho mā tēnei pire i tōna kotahi, ā, i tēnei pire, kua ngaro, kua warewaretia. Nō reira i a tātou e hāpai nei i ngā kupu, taputapu, tohu, haki rānei me ērā atu mea, kia tūpato tātou ki ngā mahi rāwekeweke ā ētahi i ngā āhuatanga o roto i te ao o te tangata whenua.

Koi nei te take tuatoru kua kī ake mātou, me noho te Minita mō ngā Take Māori i te tēpū me te Minita Whakatipuranga Rawa, te Minita Tauhokohoko me te Minita Māori. Me noho te Minita i te tēpū i te wā ka wānangahia ngā kōrero kia tiaki tonu i te āhuatanga ki te tangata whenua.

Me tae atu te Minita ki ngā tohunga pēnei i ngā mea o Waka Toi me ērā atu rōpū kua roa e kauhau ana mō te kaitiakitanga o ngā taonga tuku iho. Anā, mā tēnei kua whai mana te kupu o te Minita ki te tiaki i ngā taonga. Nō reira, ka tautoko te Tōrangapū Māori i tēnei o ngā pire i a ia e tiaki ana i ngā taonga tuku iho. E tautoko ana mātou kia noho te Minita Māori i roto i ngā whiriwhiringa. Kia aha ai? Kia noho mārama tonu te ao Māori kai reira tonu te āhuatanga o te ao Māori i roto i ngā nekeneke o tēnei pire. Kia ora tātou.

ALLAN PEACHEY (National—Tamaki) Link to this

I am very pleased to be able to rise and speak in support of the Major Events Management Bill. New Zealand is a great sporting nation, and New Zealanders love their sport. It means an enormous amount to us that in the coming years a number of world championships will be held here, and it is very important that we hold them very, very well. Right at the forefront of our minds, of course, is the Rugby World Cup. I guess one of the reasons it is right at the forefront of our minds is the dithering of the Minister for Sport and Recreation. But, in addition to that, the world rowing championships are coming and, of course, the Cricket World Cup.

What is being proposed in this bill is no different from what is happening in other jurisdictions. The Black Caps will shortly be off to the West Indies, with a magnificent series victory against Australia behind them. They will be competing in a sports event where the same sorts of rules will apply, just as they applied at the Olympic Games in Sydney and the Commonwealth Games in Melbourne. What New Zealand is doing is no different from what is happening everywhere else. But it is great to see the way that we are positioning ourselves now, as a country that is capable of hosting major world events, and capable of doing it in such a way that people from other countries will come down here and support them. The Government’s role is to ensure that the environment is right so that those people who put their time, their effort, their expertise, and their money into making an event successful actually have a fair opportunity to make sure that that happens.

This is not unduly restrictive legislation; there were significant protections in the Act. The threshold at which the legislation will cut in is very high. Obviously, I have some reservations that the present Minister for Sport and Recreation will have powers in a matter such as this, but I do take a lot of confidence in the knowledge that by the time the Rugby World Cup reaches New Zealand a National Government will be in office, and it will be a National Minister who will have this responsibility.

It is right that those who make a significant financial contribution to enable these events to be held have the opportunity to get a fair return. I know, from my experience of years spent being involved as a volunteer at national and provincial level in sporting organisations, just how difficult it is to put things together to get the funding to run the activity, and to give those who support us a fair opportunity to get the publicity, the business, and the rewards they are entitled to, as a result of their investment. There are those who will tell us that a totally free market should operate, and that it is fair somebody should take advantage of a commercial opportunity to grab the moment and make a dollar. But we need to understand that if we are going to host these major events and make a success of them, the environment must be such that those who support an event, often over a large number of years in an ongoing commitment, have a fair opportunity to get a return. That is what this bill will provide.

One of the particularly pleasing features of the bill from my point of view is the restriction it puts on what is described as the scalping of tickets. When I think back to my years as a school principal, I know that one of the things that really used to frustrate me was that the schoolteachers who worked for me Saturday after Saturday, evening after evening, and year after year, were never able to get tickets to the big events in the sports to which they gave so much of their time. I very well remember on one occasion being in the hospitality box at Eden Park, and looking around and wondering where the schoolteachers were. Where were the people who week after week, year after year, were providing the framework for sport for our young people? They were not in the hospitality boxes. Often, they were not even in the ground. At least, with some protection against scalping, those ordinary New Zealanders who year after year make a voluntary commitment to their sport, who do not work for some big corporate or some big organisation, and who do not have the ability to somehow fiddle tickets, will get a bit of an opportunity to have a fair go.

Let us never, ever forget that the base for any successful activity lies in its roots. It lies in those ordinary New Zealand volunteers who, as I have said, day after day, week after week, year after year, front up because of their love for their activity, and their commitment to young people and to making sure these things happen. It is very important that when the Rugby World Cup reaches New Zealand in 2011, for example, and when the Cricket World Cup is here a few years later, those people have a fair opportunity to participate and to be involved.

This is thoughtful legislation. It is carefully thought out. It is to meet a specific purpose. It is not unduly restrictive but it is fair. It is fair to those people who are prepared to put their money where their mouths are, who are prepared to make their commitment, and who are prepared to make something happen—and it is very important. I know from my own experience that it is very important that when people make a commitment to an activity, particularly a big commitment, they have to make that commitment some years out. They need a degree of certainty around what they can expect, what sort of return they will get, and what sort of environment they will be in. They need to have the incentive to keep that commitment ongoing. No business interest in its right mind will be in a position to put up large sums of money to promote activities if it cannot see that the environment will give it a fair opportunity to promote its product, to promote its name, and to make the community aware of the support the business is giving.

These days there are partnerships between volunteers, participants, business interests, administrators, ground authorities, local authorities, and Governments. Each bit of the partnership has to be made to work. The partnership will not work if some of its elements feel they are not going to have an opportunity to have a fair go. For those reasons, I am very pleased to be able to support this bill.

Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health) Link to this

I move, That the Major Events Management Bill be referred to the Commerce Committee referred to Commerce Committee