KEY POINTS:
Global events certainly get people excited, which is undoubtedly why the Government appears to be taking a belts and braces approach to the running of the Rugby World Cup in 2011. It is proposing legislation that has the potential to infringe on public rights.
Now before a select committee, the Major Events Management Bill is a piece of legislation all about protecting the interests of sponsors at major events.
It's aimed at tackling so-called "ambush marketing", itself an emotive phrase that clearly divides the world of what might instead be called parallel marketing into good and bad camps.
In its enthusiasm to deliver the goods, the Government is proposing much lower thresholds for prohibited activities than those now acceptable elsewhere in the world.
Coincidentally, as we are launching a legislative juggernaut, the Australians are now looking to review their own legislation in this area, with questions being asked about its intrusions on public life, whether the outputs it intends are already covered by other laws, and if the thresholds for breaching the legislation are too low.
Canada and Britain have made similar moves to relax the rules around parallel marketing. Key points around the New Zealand bill include: * It is proposed some transgressions become criminal offences.
* There is the likelihood that civil liberties will be lost.
* Private property rights might be lost.
* Companies hosting clients around the event might run the risk of infringing the law.
* Australia, Canada and Britain have adopted higher thresholds than those proposed in New Zealand.
* Sufficient remedies, such as patent protection law, may already be in place.
* Our enthusiasm to attract World Cup windfalls may see other freedoms lost.
Proposals based on the no-doubt vigorous lobbying of organisers need to be subjected to equally vigorous scrutiny from other parties.
For an example of how heavy-handed the New Zealand proposals are, take the presumption that the unauthorised use of "major event" emblems and names, or versions of them, will breach the new law. So, unauthorised use of the words "Rugby World Cup" (or "Rugby" or "World Cup") would be deemed a breach of the new legislation, and would invite some quite severe penalties. Whatever happened to being presumed innocent until proven guilty?
Interestingly, a similar provision proposed for the London Olympics was withdrawn as the result of public pressure.
We might well ask how far the Government is prepared to go in its bid to attract events, and whether anyone other than the sponsors is to be permitted to share benefits?
The proposed legislation goes much further than ensuring clean stadiums for key games. It's about delivering clean zones around venues and on major transport routes up to 5km away.
It's about not being able to wear or give away wrongly-branded clothing at events, run competitions giving away tickets, or host guests to events in an inappropriate way.
Even the sky is covered. No wrongly branded blimps or cheeky sky-writing. No earth-bound signs within sightlines.
There are to be penalties for scalping tickets at more than face value, so devout rugby fans desperate for a ticket to the final could find themselves heavily fined, as well as missing the action. That's a situation normally covered by contract law - the fine print on the ticket.
The Government is also proposing part-time enforcement officers (plucked from where?), responsible for policing the new law.
The enforcement officers' powers include the ability to seize or cover up anything they believe is in breach, and they are expressly authorised to use reasonable force.
Is this what we want in New Zealand?
Here's an example of what is making big sponsors and the Government nervous. Lufthansa didn't sponsor the last Soccer World Cup, Emirates did. But Lufthansa put soccer balls on the noses of its aircraft, attracting world attention helping to fill its planes with fans. Is it appropriate for the law to prevent this sort of creativity?
Before getting carried away with "cup fever" and the potential economic spin-offs, it is worth noting that the Government is proposing that its new law applies whenever it designates something a "major event".
Care is needed in this area, as the explanatory note to the Bill cites the Under-17 Women's Football World Cup in 2008 as an example of a potential "major event", a further suggestion the thresholds for designation might be relatively low.
Such low thresholds are a concern, because the consequences of any breach are severe. Breaches will be criminal offences, punishable with hefty fines, and civil action can also be taken against offenders.
One of the questions the Australian review asks is whether the definitions of ambush/parallel marketing now in place include activities that many people view as legitimate marketing practices.
Sport might be our national passion, but is it necessary to cancel public rights and freedoms to the extent proposed, gifting sponsors a playing field tipped overwhelmingly in their favour?
It would be nice if our legislators looked to the experiences of Australia, Canada and Britain and took some heed of the solutions developed there and elsewhere. And even nicer if they were to get the right solution for New Zealand before, rather than after, the Rugby World Cup kicks off in 2011.
