Lawyer questions RWC 'clean zone'

Sally Peart
Sally Peart
Enterprising fundraisers still have the opportunity to sizzle some sausages within the clean zones around Rugby World Cup venues, Dunedin lawyer Sally Peart says.

Some of the restrictions in the Major Events Management Act (MEMA) deserved a closer look.

Advertising and street trading in the clean zone and clean transport routes was prohibited unless authorised by event organisers.

"Gone are the chances for the local rugby club to host its sausage sizzle to feed the hungry crowds as they make their way to and from the game. How many sausage sizzles are likely to be 'authorised' in the Otago Stadium clean zone? No doubt the official sponsors are queuing up for that privilege," she said yesterday.

There were a few gaps which community groups might and undoubtedly would exploit, Ms Peart, a partner at Mitchell Mackersy lawyers, specialising in intellectual property, said.

Private land and buildings within the clean zones were not covered by the Act, provided the visible advertising restrictions were not infringed.

While sausages could not be sold over the fence to fans within the clean zone, there was nothing in the legislation preventing fans from entering a private car park, purchasing their sausage and continuing on their way.

Likewise, private land immediately outside the clean zones could host stalls, subject to any other local authority requirements and the visible advertising restrictions, she said.

The Major Events Management Act was passed by Parliament in 2007, supported by the then Labour government.

In the words of Dunedin list MP David Parker when moving the first reading of the Bill, "the Bill was based on the basic premise that the protection of [major] events should be for the overall benefit of New Zealand".

The legislation enacted, included in its purposes the provision of certain protections for events declared to be major events in order to obtain maximum benefits from the major event for New Zealanders, Ms Peart said.

The provisions which prevented use of the various emblems and logos of the Rugby World Cup were perhaps understandable.

They were consistent with existing legislation and common law principles protecting reputation and goodwill in registered and unregistered trade marks.

"The criminal consequences of non-compliance go much further."

A group of schoolchildren wearing their club T-shirts sponsored by a local business would be a breach of the legislation. But if the children were under 14, the criminal offence imposed by the legislation would not be enforceable.

"That wouldn't necessarily stop them from being evicted from the venue. T-shirts without sponsorship are acceptable, even if worn en masse."

Ms Peart questioned how The Act was obtaining maximum benefits from the event for New Zealanders.

The International Rugby Board financing structure provided that the event organiser could profit only from gate receipts and all other revenue must return to the international body.

"In some ways, the biggest stakeholder or sponsor for this tournament is the taxpayer, who is footing the major portion of the costs of the Rugby World Cup 2011.

"The latest estimates are around $500 million, including the upgrade of Eden Park and underwriting the expected loss. That's an awful lot of sausage sizzles."

- dene.mackenzie@odt.co.nz

 

Add a Comment