RON MARK (NZ First)
: It is interesting that when I was last speaking on the Major Events Management Bill, which I think was about a week or so ago, I raised what I thought to be a rather curious irony. We were debating the Major Events Management Bill 2006, and National Party people stood, applauded, and expressed their solid support for the prospect, the idea—indeed, not a prospect nor an idea now—of a law that will ban entrepreneurialism, and will actually seek to intervene in the free market’s ability to exploit a commercial advantage or an opportunity. I say to the National Party: “Well done! Well done!”. Some of us have been arguing for probably 11 years that the free-market model is not a panacea to the woes of our economy.
For decades the National Party—in fact, I go back to Ruth Richardson after she had eliminated one of the greatest politicians of this country, Robert Muldoon—imposed upon this nation a more vigorous version of Roger Douglas’ free-marketeering. So in this bill we have history in the making. National Party members stand up and say they wish to curb entrepreneurial ventures, put a clamp on commercial opportunity, and interdict and intervene in the free market—to stop the ability of New Zealand men and women from taking a commercial opportunity when they see it.
How strange, too, is the Labour example. It seeks to promote the concept that pitch invasion should be illegal. I say that is an irony, because many of the Labour MPs in this House proudly wear on their chest a badge of honour that says “Springbok Tour 1981”. I think of the number of maiden speeches I have heard from Labour MPs who said: “I was there in ’81, standing up against apartheid, invading pitches, and participating in riots, demonstrations, and violent discord.”, and I see that many of those Labour Party people now support this bill, and proudly say it is important to pass this bill to stop pitch invasion. How can they have forgotten their past? It is a delicious irony.
New Zealand First supports the bill, because, frankly, we want to see a world event. We want New Zealand to have this opportunity to showcase itself. If it means accepting some commercial reality to make sure that happens, then we say that is fine and let us get on with it.
I was reminded by my leader, the Rt Hon Winston Peters, about Justice Thurgood Marshall. I wonder whether members have heard of him. Justice Thurgood Marshall was a judge, and, I think, the first black American to achieve the distinction of
becoming the most senior justice in the United States. He was well known for his stand on human rights and civil liberties, and he was against apartheid and racism. It is of great interest that Judge Thurgood Marshall sat as presiding judge at the hearing of a complaint brought by protesters against the Springboks tour of the United States of America. The Springboks, having left New Zealand shores, went to the United States to play a four-match test series against the American Eagles. Judge Thurgood Marshall astounded the world by ruling that the test series should go ahead. He cited as a fundamental principle— indeed, a principle enforced in the American Constitution—that people have a right to choose whom they wish to associate with. He also countered that neatly by reinforcing people’s right to protest and people’s right to demonstrate against laws and policies that they did not agree with.
How ironic that contrary to the New Zealand example—where we saw violence, gang members upfront leading demonstrations, Labour Party activists wearing helmets and carrying shields in direct, violent confrontation with the police—the Americans, whom many people in this House have criticised so often, had a dignified situation where the Springboks played the American Eagles, and where the protest, against one test match and numbering about 1,000 people, was allowed to go ahead, but not in such a way that it could interdict the rights of the players to associate with whomever they chose. The match went ahead. Of course, the Springboks hammered the American Eagles, and I think they lost that test 44-0, or something like that. The Springboks won the entire series 4-0.
Tonight we are debating the Major Events Management Bill. Two fundamental principles that the two old parties—National and Labour—have vigorously and righteously stood for, they are now voting against. How sweet the irony! I welcome all those MPs to the world of reality and pragmatism, and to recognition of the people’s right to do things in a lawful way without sacrificing their own rights. I am one of those people who believe in freedom of association—that is, freedom of association that does not harm or hurt other people—and believe that people have the democratic right to demonstrate and protest. Indeed, one of the reasons that I am proud of having worn the New Zealand Army uniform and served in Her Majesty’s defence forces is that fundamentally that is what we are doing. We are guaranteeing the rights of New Zealanders to live in a free and democratic State where they have the right to protest, to express their points of view. No matter how violently I, or anyone else, might disagree with it, they have that absolute right. Certain people like Willie Apiata from the New Zealand Special Air Service fought to guarantee that people should have that right for ever and a day in this nation.
So here we are debating the Major Events Management Bill. We see National Party members stand up and say that free-marketeering should not be rampant, it does have boundaries, and we should curb it. I welcome the National Party’s view. I am exhilarated by this new-look National Party. I can see the Hon David Carter, who was once a free-marketeer right to the back of his ears and to the very last root of every hair on his head now standing and saying that the free market needs curbing, and ambush marketing should be stopped. We welcome the Hon David Carter to this world where some of us do not believe that the free market should be able to reign unbridled. I also welcome, on behalf of New Zealand First, the Labour members who now realise that their actions during the Springbok Tour of 1981 may not necessarily have been right or proper, although their right to demonstrate and protest most certainly was.
This Major Events Management Bill in 2007 is—how strange—a delicious irony. The speeches that have been made will be recorded in
Hansard, and, I guess some interesting moments of reflection will occur as National and Labour, collectively, vote
for this bill and curb two fundamental principles that they have long championed, at the expense of other people’s rights.
KEITH LOCKE (Green)
: The Green Party is opposed to the Major Events Management Bill. It has come out of the Commerce Committee as bad as it went in. It is regulatory madness, all in the interests of big, international corporates who will be the official sponsors of major events—in particular, of the Rugby World Cup of 2011. Those corporates are companies like Coca-Cola, McDonald’s, Adidas, Goodyear, and Heineken—at least, those companies are sponsoring the soon-to-be-held Rugby World Cup in France. This bill puts allegiance to those big multinationals ahead of the rights of New Zealanders and New Zealand business people.
Wayne Mapp of National said we had to pass this type of legislation, otherwise we would not have the world cup here. How come, then, New Zealand was given hosting rights to the world cup event without any mention of this legislation, which popped up only a year later? Clearly, it was never a condition of New Zealand being granted the world cup. This is over-the-top regulation. Sometimes the Greens are criticised for being too strong in terms of regulation, but in supporting this bill both Labour and National have shown they are the kings and queens of over-regulation.
They are protecting powerful, global advertisers like Coca-Cola from competition, even if it is 5 kilometres from the stadium, along what are called “clean transport routes”. If Coca-Cola is again a sponsor of a world cup, then Lemon and Paeroa, and who knows what other brands, will be banned from advertising along the 5 kilometres of a designated clean transport route. It is not just protecting certain brands only on the day of the big game; the definition of a “clean period” is loose. It could be many days before or after the big game. In the Committee stage the Greens will put forward an amendment to remove this provision for clean transport routes.
The so-called “clean zones” are not so obnoxious, because they relate only to the stadium and perhaps the road outside. However, to get carried away and put all this into law may well prompt Kiwis who do not like being over-regulated to come to the game with jokes, signs, or T-shirts advertising a competing sponsor. Will we see Kiwis being prosecuted for displaying a Tui-like slogan, because the official beer is Heineken, as it is in the world cup in France this year? The select committee pushed out the boat a little further by making it illegal under new clause 16(1A) even for a person who is outside the clean zone, such as on his or her own front lawn, to street trade with someone who is in the clean zone.
For any of this banned street trading or any of the banned advertising under the bill, including advertising along the 5-kilometre clean transport route, people can be given a fine of up to $150,000. Is it not a bit sick to protect companies like Coca-Cola to that extent? One of the official advertisers in 2011 might be Emirates Airline, which is one of the sponsors of the world cup in France this year. The Government and the rich princes behind Emirates Airline, who are also trying to take over our key airport hub, Auckland International Airport, may well, in 2011, be protected by this bill, which will stop any advertising by Air New Zealand along the declared 5-kilometre clean transport route. The fine for Air New Zealand would be up to $150,000. How unpatriotic can we get?
A lot of the media attention and public mirth have been focused on the setting up of a new offence of pitch invasion, covering such people as streakers, political protesters, or people with unofficial corporate logos on their clothing. The media have interviewed people in the street on this topic, and virtually all of them are incredulous. With all the problems in New Zealand and the world—poverty, rocketing house prices, climate change—why is this Government wasting time on a new bill to chuck streakers in jail for up to 3 months? Has it not got better things to do than to stifle people’s fun? It is not
as if there are not laws already to give streakers a little legal rap over the knuckles. When Lisa Lewis, who presented to the select committee on the bill, ran onto a Hamilton ground in a bikini, she was arrested and fined a total of $330, including costs, for disorderly behaviour. I do not, of course, encourage streakers—and I say this because earlier in the debate I was accused of wanting to facilitate streaking. But, let us face it, most of it is done in good fun, and those who do it expect to suffer a minor legal consequence. We do not need an anti-fun bill.
The one international major event that might well have the odd colourful pitch invasion is the annual Wellington international Rugby Sevens, where, unlike most other games, the action is in the stands more than on the field, and the odd spectator in fancy dress might wander on to the field. The Wellington Rugby Sevens would certainly qualify as a major event under the bill, as would a Bledisloe Cup game, or a Super 14 final between Aussie and New Zealand clubs. Anything can qualify, as long as a fair number of people are coming from overseas for the game and, more important, the advertising exposure is international—mainly via a live TV feed.
Of course, there is an honourable tradition of pitch invasion carried out for political reasons. Back in 1913, Emily Davison ran on to a British racetrack and helped to put women’s suffrage on the political map. There is also an honourable tradition in New Zealand. In 1981 people ran on to rugby fields during a game with a Springbok team representing the racism of apartheid. These people were actually helped in the courts; the judges had a degree of sympathy for them in that they often recognised that the pitch invaders had a humanitarian motivation, and either let them off altogether or gave them a minor fine. Then there are those like the streakers who painted a Vodafone symbol on their chests. That is a tradition we have seen here, too.
Do we really need a whole new offence of pitch invasion to cover these different types of people, none of whom mean any harm to spectators or to rugby players? It is a principle of lawmaking that new laws are not made unnecessarily. There is a perfectly good law against disorderly behaviour now, which covers streaking, and provides for very minor fines. Disorderly behaviour does not have the $5,000 maximum fine that pitch invasion will. Both offences will have a maximum 3-month prison term. But we do not need a prison term for streaking. Some forms of disorderly behaviour, like disorderly behaviour leading to a serious risk of violence—perhaps on a plane—might qualify for a prison term, but there is no way that streaking should ever qualify for a prison term. Most New Zealanders think that is absurd, and Trevor Mallard and the Government should listen to them.
Let us look at the anti-scalping provision, which provides that people are not allowed to sell a ticket at more than its cover price. I understand that people do not like scalpers making big profits, but do we really need to legislate against a second-hand market in tickets? Why should we? We cannot stop it; it will only go underground, or it will go on to the Internet. TradeMe submitted to the select committee, explaining the problems that this bill will pose for it. Even if TradeMe does its best to stop most trading of tickets, people can then just move on to eBay or some other site and trade them there. I do not often agree with Roger Kerr of the Business Roundtable, but I agree with his submission to the select committee that we should not interfere in the free market in this way.
Surely the solution—or a large part of the solution—is for events managers to make sure the tickets are distributed fairly through clubs, through the Internet, or however. This is already done to a large extent, and often, with Internet sales, everyone does have a chance. There will always be a secondary market, which is what smart operators overseas like the San Francisco Giants baseball club recognise. They actually have an Internet site where they run a secondary market where people can onsell tickets. That is
a better way to go. There will always be people who have extra tickets, or who get sick, and they should have the opportunity to onsell. Do we really need to get hot and bothered if they make a profit?
I think National and Labour, intimidated by the big, global corporate advertisers, have dropped the ball on this. They have forgotten about the rights of New Zealanders and New Zealand businesses. The champions of the free market—so-called—have become the champions of silly and offensive regulation. Again, it is up to the Greens to carry the flag of freedom.
HONE HARAWIRA (Māori Party—Te Tai Tokerau)
: Tēnā koe, Mr Deputy Speaker; tēnā koe, Mr Jones; tēnā tātou e te Whare. Hoi anō, tērā pea ā te wā ka tohungia e Guinness ko te tino Māori o ngā Māori katoa, ka kore e riro ki tētahi o tātau o roto i tēnei Whare. Tērā pea ko tētahi ka tonoa ki te Hōro Rongonui, ko Hōri Nēpia o Ngāti Rākaipāka. Nā, koia tērā, i ahau e whakaaro ana mō tēnei pire, i huri ōku whakaaro ki a ia me te haerenga o te Kapa ō Pango ki Āwherika ki te Tonga, i te tau 1960.
Koia rā te tau i huri te Kapa ō Pango hei Kapa ō Mā—nā te tautoko o te Uniana Whutupaoro o Aotearoa ki ngā tono a Āwherika ki te Tonga kia kaua te kiri parauri e haere. I mua tonu o te haerenga nei, i tono a Hōri Nēpia i tētahi karere ki te Rōpū Tautoko i te Kapa ō Pango i Te Whanga-nui-a-Tara me tana kī: “Kia kaha rā. Whakapā mai mēnā e hiahia ana koutou ki tētahi pou muri.”
Engari, hara te Citizens All Black Tour Association i te hunga whiriwhiri tīma. He rōpū tēnei i whakatūria hei whakakāhoretia i ngā hīkoi hākinakina rānei i tautoko nei i te kāwana kaikiri.
E ai ki tā Hōri Nēpia, ko te take e kore taea e ia te uru atu ki ngā tīma haere ki Āwherika ki te Tonga i te tau, 1928 ko te mea, he Māori a ia. Nā, koia te tīmatanga mai o te tautoko i te tū manapori. He tū whakahē ki te kore tuarā, ngoikore rānei o te Uniana Whutupaoro i whakaae mai kia pērā rawa te whakarite o te tīma, kia taea ai e rātou te tukituki atu i te tīma Springboks
Nā, koia nei te āhua o te rangirua. I ngā wiki kua hipa arā ahau, otirā, tātou a Aotearoa whānui e kaha ūmere ana mō te Kapa ō Pango i tō rātou whiwhinga i te Ipu Bledisloe me te Ipu Whenua Tokotoru. He tika rā ki a au te tono a te Rōpū Kapa Whutupaoro o te Ao ki te komiti whāiti e mea ana: “Ko ngā pou e rua, ko Aotearoa, ko te whutupaoro e kore e taea te wehewehe. He momo hākinakina e kaingākau ana i te iwi, he toa rātou, he piripono, ā, he hākinakina e kaha ana rātou ki te tautoko, ā, kākore hoki e kitea tēnei tū āhuatanga i wētahi atu whenua o te ao, hakoa he aha te momo hākinakina.”
Engari, anei ahau e tautoko ana i te hiahia a wētahi ki te whakararuraru i ngā hui whakahirahira nei kia whai wāhi ai rātou ki te tautohe. Ka kaha whakahē te Pāti Māori i te Pepa Tāpiritanga e mea ana, he hara nui te ekenga o te tangata ki te papa tākaro i te mea, he mea e noho taupatupatu ana tērā i te whakapapa o ngā mahi tautohe e mōhiotia nei tātou i Aotearoa nei. Ki te Pepa Tāpiritanga 106—“Ekenga papa tākaro”, eke poka noa, kua ara ake tētahi hara hōu nei. He hara mauhere tonu ki te toru marama, he utu rānei o te $5000. Mēnā ka eke koe ki te papa tākaro, whiu rānei i tētahi mea ki konā.
He aha i whakahē atu ai ki tēnei Tāpiritanga? Me maumahara anō tātou ki ngā rā o mua, ki ngā whakataetae nui me te mōhio anō hoki, he huarahi tēnei i āta tirohia nuitia hei whakairi i ngā take nui nei ki te ao ngā take tūkino, wehenga ā-iwi, aronga ā-iwi me te māhie anō hoki. Kei tō mātou hītori tērā momo kōrero mai i ngā āhuatanga o te tau 1981. Ka hoki ōku mahara ki taua tau me te ekenga poka noa o te 350 tangata ki te papa whutupaoro i Kirikiriroa, ā, kua whakakorea e rātau te kēmu. Koia rā te ekenga rongonui e mōhiotia nei tātou i Aotearoa nei.
E ai ki wētahi o tēnei Whare, ko tēnei he rā pōuri nui, he rā whakamā hoki. Kua rongo hoki mātou i wētahi o Reipa e kōrero pahupahu ana mō tō rātou tū i taua rā. He
tohu nui tērā mō tō rātou whakahē i ngā tikanga kaikiri, meinga, meinga. Kua wareware tere kē rātou. Me pēhea tātou e taea ai te kī, hei aha wēnā momo mahi, me huri tātou ki te tautoko i te pire nei i tēnei rā. Me pēhea rā te waiho i te karanga a “Amandla”, me ngā kōrero mō ngā rākau patu kia moe? I te pērā i Kirikiriroa, i Ōtautahi, i Tāmaki-makau-rau tonu, arā, i te wā i whakatakaina ngā pahūtanga puehu parāoa i te rangi kia mutu ai te kēmu. Ko te tikanga o te pire kei mua i te Whare i tēnei rangi, ko te whakarite whāinga kia kore ai ētahi e whai i ērā tauira, kia hāmenehia tonu te hunga hara.
Ko te mate kē, i konei i Aotearoa nei kua puta tō tātou rongonui ki te ao mō tō tātou kaha ki te whakahē i te mahi kaikiri i te whakawhiunga ā-tangata. Koia rā te āhua o taua wā, ko te ekenga poka noa ki te papa tākaro ka mutu, he wāhanga o tō tātou hītori. He hiahia tonu tērā nō tātou ki te Whakakore i te Haerenga Mai o taua hunga whutupaoro, nā, he tohu tērā mō tō tātou ngākau nui ki ēnei mea ki te noho tahi, te noho ōrite, ki te tika me te pono.
Ki te tautoko tātou o tēnei Pāremata i te Pepa Tāpiritanga 106, arā noa atu ā tātou mahi, ehara i te mea ko te paku rāwekeweke tātou i te ture. Kei te kī kē tātou ko te tū i te tau 1981 he tūnga i tautokongia e te maha o ngā mema o tēnei Pāremata, he hara tonu ka mutu, me mauhere i te tangata ka tika. Koia nā te tino pūtake, āe rā hoki i mau heretia wētahi. Engari ko tāku, kia kaua tātou e here i te hiahia o wētahi ki te whakaatu i tō rātou takariri ki te hara nui whakaharahara nei ki te ao tangata. He herenga tohe, he herenga rangatiratanga.
Nā, ko tētahi take anō hei mea kōrero māku i tēnei pānuitanga tuarua, ko tērā e pā ana ki te tiakitanga me te mana whakahaere i runga ake o ngā mea pēnei i ngā tohu, kupu rānei e hāngai tonu ana ki te Taumāhekeheke o te Ao, o te Kāhui o Ingarangi rānei. He mea rāhui te pire nei i te whakaaturanga o ngā tohu mēnā horekau he whakaaetanga ka mutu i tāna, ka tiakina ā-ture wēnei tohu mō tētahi wā.
I te kotahi marama kua hipa ake nei, i te wā e īnoi ana te Pāti Māori ki te Kāwanatanga, ki te āta titiro ki tētahi kamupene tiaki Wīwī nā rātou te kī, he rōpū Māori nei rātou, he ngoikore tonu te whakautu mai a te Pirimia. Hakoa i mōhiotia tonu te Pirimia, āe, he tauira anō tēnei o te hunga kaipakihi o te ao me wā rātou mahi nanakia ki ngā tikanga o te tangata whenua, hei whakanui i ōna ake rawa, whakaritenga mahi, auare ake, kāore a ia i whai atu i tēnei take.
Engari, anei wēnei whakaaro kia hāmenehia te hunga hara ki te $150,000 mō te kore whiwhi whakaaetanga mō tētahi momo tohu hei whakanui i tētahi hui nui whakahirahira i Aotearoa nei. He aha te tikanga o tērā? Kua tae mai wētahi kōrero ki te Pāti Māori mō ngā momo taonga, momo whakaaturanga kua takahi nei i ngā tikanga. Kāhore he mutunga mai o te rārangi kōrero nei—he huna kanohi Halloween, he haka hei hoko waka Itāria, he tohu Māori i runga pākete hikareti.
Kua puta anō hoki ko te nanakia hōu nei a Baking Industry o Aotearoa me tā rātou rīpene whakaata o tētahi rōpū pihikete parauri nei e haka ana, āe, he pihikete, e haukerekerehia nei ki raro i te pēke paura, te āhua nei he pēke paura mā. Ko te wero nui nei e pēnei ana. Hakoa he mahi poka noa te mahi, ko te āhua nei horekau he rongoā. Kāti, anei tētahi pire e kaha tiaki nei i te hunga whakariterite hui me te hunga kaipakihi nui, whai pūtea nei. Ā, i tua atu i tērā, horekau he tikanga e āhei ai te Māori ki te noho i te tēpu whakatau, kia taea ai e mātou te kī, he hui whakahirahira tēnei hui, ko te ārai rānei i te mahi nanakia i ngā taonga tuku iho.
Hakoa ko ngā take e rua nei, kei te mārama tonu Te Pāti Māori ki te hōnore, otirā, ko ngā hua ka puta ki Aotearoa i tō tātou pōwhiri ki te ao ki te Ipu Whutupaoro o te Ao 2011, te taumāhekeheke Hoe Waka 2010, te Poi Whana mō ngā wāhine Taiohi i te 2008. Kei a Aotearoa te pōwhiri ki te Ipu o te Ao mō te Kirikiti. Mō ēnei momo hui, e hia kē nei te hunga haere mai, mātakitaki mai rānei.
Tērā pea ka whai hua anō hoki ngā hui Māori, hui tangata whenua, arā, he hui kua kawea e tēnei whenua pēnei i te Taumāhekeheke Waka Ama i roto i tēnei pire. Hakoa e mōhio ana mātou he painga ka puta nā ēnei hui nui nei, e rua ngā māharahara nui. Tuatahi, ko te kore tikanga hei tiaki i ngā tohu Māori, tuarua, mō te pūtake o tēnei pire me tōna pānga ki te noho kāwanatanga ā-iwi. Kāore mātou i te tautoko i tēnei pirei. Tēnā koe, tēnā tātou katoa.
- [An interpretation in English was given to the House.]
[Greetings to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, Mr Jones, and all of us in the House. Chances are that when the Guinness Book of Records chooses to make the award for the greatest Māori ever known, it will not be any of us in this House. One person who may, however, be invited into the Hall of Fame, must be George Nēpia of Ngāti Rākaipāka. And so it was, when considering the precedents for the Major Events Management Bill, I was thinking of him—and in particular the 1960 All Black rugby tour to South Africa.
In the year 1960 the All Blacks became the “All Whites”—as the New Zealand Rugby Union sought to comply with the request from South Africa that its team did not want to host coloureds. In the lead-up to the tour, Nēpia sent a telegram to the New Zealand Citizens’ All Black Tour Association in Wellington, saying: “Best of luck. Let me know if you need a fullback.” But the Citizens’ All Black Tour Association was not about to select teams. It was an association established to mobilise pressure against any sporting tour that sought to support a regime of apartheid. Nēpia always believed that the reason he was mysteriously unselected for an earlier tour of South Africa in 1928 was that he was Māori. So began the process of democratic demonstration—an act of rebellion against the gutlessness of a Rugby Union that agreed to submit to a racially selected rugby team in order to play the Springbok team.
So here is the irony. In recent weeks, along with every other New Zealander in the land, I was cheering as the All Blacks secured the Bledisloe Cup and Tri-Nations. The Rugby World Cup submission to the select committee summed it up for me: “It is barely possible to think of New Zealand without also thinking about rugby. It is a game at which it excels, loves, and supports with an enthusiasm and a passion that would be hard to match in any other country for any other sport.”
Yet here I am standing up for the right to disrupt major events by enabling the right to protest. The Māori Party will oppose the Supplementary Order Paper, which makes it an offence for a person to go on to a playing surface, as that provision flies in the face of a proud history of protest that we know here in Aotearoa. Subpart 5, “Pitch invasion”, which Supplementary Order Paper 106 seeks to insert, creates an offence punishable by a term of imprisonment not exceeding 3 months, or a fine not exceeding $5,000, for going on to the playing surface at a major event, or propelling any object on to it.
Why would we object to this Supplementary Order Paper? Let us think back on a history that has recognised that major sporting events are one means, a very high-profile means, of bringing attention to issues of injustice, racial segregation, ethnic targeting, and hatred. That history, of course, is firmly established through the events of 1981. And I think back to that year when 350 people entered Rugby Park in Hamilton and the game was abandoned. That was perhaps the most famous pitch invasion that this country has ever known.
It came from a period of our history that politicians across the House have variously referred to as our darkest days of shame. We have heard Labour MPs refer to their badge of honour in marching against the cause of apartheid. How quickly they forget! How can we say we should forget that history and turn around today to accept this
proposal? How can calls of “Amandla”, and stories of the long batons, be left to one side? It was like that in Hamilton, in Christchurch, and in Auckland, when flour bombs were dropped from a plane in an effort to stop the game. The proposal before the House today is that procedures be established to prohibit pitch invasion and make convictions.
Yet it is in this country, Aotearoa, that New Zealanders gained an international reputation for being proud and determined opponents of racism and oppression. The tactics and strategy of that time, which included the actions of the pitch invaders, will be forever a part of this nation’s history in seeking not only to “Stop the Tour”, but also to signal to the world our commitment to racial harmony, equality, and justice.
If we in this Parliament support Supplementary Order Paper 106, we are doing much more than agreeing to a raft of consequential amendments. What we are saying is that the stand taken in 1981—a stand supported by many of the members of this House—was an offence, was a crime worthy of imprisonment. The point is that, yes indeed, some were jailed. But the opportunity to demonstrate and to express our indignation at the greatest crime of humanity must not be squashed. To silence protest is to silence freedom.
The other point I want to raise at this second reading is in connection with the attention given to the protection and control of certain emblems and words relating to the Olympic Games and Commonwealth Games. The bill prohibits the use of such symbols without appropriate authorisation, and suggests, further, that these symbols could be given legal protection for a specified period.
Is it not a bit rich that when, less than a month ago, the Māori Party called for the Government to intervene, after we found a French-owned multinational security company was calling itself “Māori Group”, the Prime Minister’s response was less than enthusiastic? The Prime Minister, while recognising that this was but one of many examples of international businesses exploiting indigenous culture to promote their own products and services, chose not to take the issue any further.
Yet here we have proposals of fines up to $150,000 for false, unauthorised, or unofficial use of a particular brand to promote a major event in New Zealand. What is with that? The Māori Party would be approached once a week about products and promotions that cause cultural offence. The list is endless: Halloween masks, the haka used to sell Italian cars, Māori symbols on cigarette packets.
The latest culprit is the Baking Industry Association of New Zealand with an animated video featuring a group of gingerbread men performing the haka—who are eventually squashed and flattened underneath a large sack of—presumably white—flour. The key challenge is that while Māori cultural and intellectual property is misappropriated, yet here in this bill every effort has been made to protect big-scale organisers and big-business sponsors. Further, it appears there are no mechanisms available to enable Māori involvement in the decision making of declaring events to be “major events”, or around preventing the exploitation of intellectual property.
Notwithstanding these two issues, the Māori Party is very aware of the honour and the opportunity provided to New Zealand in hosting the Rugby World Cup in 2011, the World Rowing Championships in 2010 and the Youth Women’s Football World Cup in 2008. New Zealand will also co-host the Cricket World Cup in 2015. These kinds of major events attract large numbers of visitors and spectators.
We are forever hopeful that there will be benefits in this bill for some of the major Māori and Indigenous sporting events this country has hosted, such as the World Waka Ama championships. Even though we recognise the benefits that will flow from these major events, there are two major concerns for us: firstly, the failure to protect indigenous images, and, secondly, the threat this bill poses to our ability to maintain a healthy democracy. We are not supporting this bill. I thank you, and all of us.]
