Is this New Zealand?

February 19th, 2008 at 9:44 pm by David Farrar

The SST reports on the new law for the Rugby World Cup:

Officials will be allowed to enter private land and buildings if they are clearly visible from a clean zone.

Government enforcement officers can obtain search warrants to enter private property during clean periods and seize or cover up offending advertising. Police or enforcement officers accompanied by police officers can use any force that is “reasonable in the circumstances” to gain entry or break open any article.

Individuals wearing a rival company’s logo or slogan on clothes or shoes would not be prosecuted if they acted alone, although they could be if they acted in co-ordination with other people and intended to get the attention of event-goers.

An Economic Development Ministry spokesperson said it was likely groups wearing clothes advertising a rival company would be asked to leave a clean zone although they could be told to remove their clothing if they refused.

Good God, and I think both National and Labour voted for this law. So if you are sitting in your balcony on your Tui couch with your DB shirt or hat on, government officials will be able to break into your house, forcibly undress you and seize your clothes and probably your couch also.

I think a degree of overkill has happened.

No tag for this post.

36 Responses to “Is this New Zealand?”

  1. vto (713 comments) says:

    more dumb law.

    but notwithstanding that, it seems to compound the dullifying, saturating and arrogant nature of rugby today. sheesh. and I’m a followerish of it.

    i find that quite unbelievable. i wish the government would make laws to help my business in such a way. it actually makes me shake my head. the power of a private enterprise over a man’s home.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. vto (713 comments) says:

    and woman’s home etc

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Whaleoil (650 comments) says:

    Imagine if Muldoon had passed a law like that at prior to the Springbok tour?

    You would have heard the wailing from the likes of The Standard if they had even been alive then from the top of Mt Eden…..incidentally Eden Park is in a dip so almost every house within a 3km radius is visible from the “Clean Area” which I take it would be the tops of the stands.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Whaleoil (650 comments) says:

    Police State anyone?

    Smith’s Dream

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. vto (713 comments) says:

    wtf is a “government enforcement officer”? do they wear brown shirts? shorts probably

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Buggerlugs (1,241 comments) says:

    A government enforcement officer will be whatever unemployable losers still don’t have jobs so that ministerial disgrace Ruth Dyson can bellow “under this Labour-led Government…etc”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. ginga-bearded tree-hugger (22 comments) says:

    The Major Events Management Act 2007 is an appalling infringement of civil liberties and freedom of expression. It was supported by all of Labour, National, NZ First, United Future, , Maori Party, ACT and Progressive.

    To their credit, the Green Party opposed it, but were the only Party to do so.

    How come this one slipped by, without a murmer from all the National and ACT supporters who are usually the first to complain about legislation that infringes upon individual rights?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. JC (950 comments) says:

    It isn’t as bad as that.

    http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2007/0035/latest/DLM411987.html

    Some bits:

    “Exceptions to sections 18 to 20

    Sections 18 to 20 do not apply to advertising=3F
    (a)if, in accordance with honest practices in industrial or commercial
    matters, the advertising is done by an existing organisation continuing
    to carry out its ordinary activities; or
    (b)on articles of clothing (including shoes) or other personal items
    being worn, carried, or used by=3F
    (i)a member of the public, unless that item is being worn,
    carried, or used in co-ordination with other persons with the intention
    that the advertising intrude on a major event activity or the attention
    of the associated audience; or
    (ii) a person who is a participant in, or who is officiating at, a
    major event activity; or
    (iii) a volunteer engaged in the management or conduct of a major
    event activity; or
    (c) in a newspaper or magazine, or on a television, radio, or electronic
    device, being used for personal use, unless it is being used with the
    intention that the advertising intrude on a major event activity or the
    attention of the associated audience; or
    (d) on a train, boat, or vehicle, provided that that train, boat, or
    vehicle is being used to carry out its ordinary activities in its usual
    manner; or
    (e) on an aircraft that is used for an emergency that involves a danger
    to life or property necessitating the urgent transportation of persons
    or medical or other supplies for the protection of life or property.

    Compare: 1981 No 47 s 20A(3); 1990 No 98 s 13A(3); 2002 No 49 s 95;
    London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Act 2006 Schedule 4 cl 1(2)(b)
    (UK)
    Examples
    These examples refer to the clean zone and the clean period, as well as
    the clean transport routes and the associated clean periods, set out in
    the examples in section 16.
    Example 1
    Existing Business A carries on its business from a private building
    situated on private land on Stevens Street. Although the land is located
    within the overall parameters of the clean zone, because it is private
    land it has not been declared to be part of the clean zone. Existing
    Business A has a large billboard on the roof of its building advertising
    Existing Business A’s services. This billboard has been there for many
    years. The advertising on the billboard is clearly visible from within
    the clean zone.

    Existing Business A does not have the written authorisation of the major
    event organiser for this advertising.

    This is not a breach of section 19 because of the exception in section
    22(a).

    Example 2
    Two years before the final game of the Football World Cup is held,
    Company A pays Company B for the right to place advertisements
    advertising Company A’s services on a number of billboards on the grass
    verge alongside State Highway 73. The billboards are all owned by
    Company B and are all located within the area that will be a clean
    transport route during the associated clean period. These billboards are
    maintained in this area throughout the 24 months leading up to the final
    game of the Football World Cup, throughout the clean period, and for a
    period after the final game.

    Neither Company A nor Company B has the written authorisation of the
    major event organiser for this advertising.

    This is not a breach of section 20 because of the exception in section
    22(a).

    Example 3
    Amy attends the final game of the Football World Cup. She wears her
    favourite T-shirt and hat, which have advertising brands clearly visible
    upon them. She is also carrying a newspaper that has many advertisements
    within it. In order to get to the game, Amy catches a bus that travels
    along a clean transport route.

    Amy does not have the written authorisation of the major event organiser
    for this advertising.

    This is not a breach of section 18, 19, or 20 because of the exceptions
    in section 22(b)(i) and (c).”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Adam Smith (724 comments) says:

    JC
    Yeah right

    This law’s scope is excessive and invasive.

    Who is running the country, the IRB?

    In my view the whole RWC is a classic case of bread and circuses for the masses,

    We will spend mega millions on this nonsense and get little if any return.

    we should pull out and let the Japanese have it, especially as we will not win.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. John Dalley (314 comments) says:

    Nothing for it, give the Rugby World Cup to Aussie. They will do a much better job and then you idiots will have one less thing to moan about.

    DPF. Man have you got you Lemmings well trained. Give them a task and there off screaming like Banchies.

    P.S. Forgive the spelling of Banchies if incorrect, i can’t be bothered looking up its correct spelling.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. radvad (736 comments) says:

    Somebody please tell me this is not true.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. infused (583 comments) says:

    Was reported days ago. Yes this is pure shit. I’d never let the cunts in my house.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Redbaiter (11,880 comments) says:

    I keep telling you. New Zealand is in the hands of barbarians. This is the legacy of a socialist education system producing the ignorant of history savages who write this legislation.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. SPC (5,664 comments) says:

    Its actually a law based on commercial property rights and is meant to be a matter between official sponsors and black market or event hijacking sponsorship. But whatever be paranoid, that its about a threat to the rights of individuals – it’s just scaremongering. It’s surprising that the right is taking the SST and it’s paranoia about business owning things so seriously. You right wingers claim to understand business, you should be ashamed of yourselves. Say Denny Crane and grow up.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. peteremcc (316 comments) says:

    Damn you Farrar. I’d been planning to blog about this yesterday morning and only got around to it tonight, only to come hear and see that you beat me by about 20 mins!

    http://peteremcc.wordpress.com/2008/02/19/major-events/

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. burt (7,425 comments) says:

    So have we got this correct.

    The left wing workers rights party has enacted legislation to protect the brand image of Rugby sponsors allowing Police to remove offending branded material from private peoples houses.

    Now this I understand why Labour wanted a new Stadium. This wouldn’t be a drama if the International TV footage wasn’t scooping up houses visible in nearby backdrops. I guess we are now seeing a hidden cost of not building a stadium.

    However the main issue here is that the govt have enacted laws to suit the best interest of the big business backers of NZ Rugby.

    There is of course one other explanation, these are requirements of the “World Cup” and as host nation the govt have already agreed to all of this and now it’s just being put into place.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. PaulL (5,449 comments) says:

    Sorry, can’t get excited. The legislation seems reasonably tight, and is clear in intent. I hate agreeing with SPC, but it just isn’t scary.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. peteremcc (316 comments) says:

    Paul,

    you’re missing the point.

    my house, or my land, should be mine – as should my t-shirt that advertises Adidas or anyone else.

    sponsors buy the exclusive rights to advertise at the event, not the exclusive rights to advertise in the whole city hosting the event.

    the government could sell exclusive rights to advertise on public roads, but they should be charging even more for that.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. dad4justice (6,594 comments) says:

    Oh great, now we got rugby logo police, as well as smacking police and the twisted politicians who are all tarred with the same bullshit brush of corruption just sit on their spotty behinds pulling absurd law from black’s book of psychosis.
    This country is a run by lunatics and giving the keystone cops another opportunity to come crashing through the front door is just what the doctor ordered.The destruction of the poor couch potato – Part 1 .

    Our politicians are away with the fairies, but then again so are the Pink Blacks that reinstate another loser coach. Talk about suckers for punishment.

    Would a real leader please stand up, please stand up?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. JC (950 comments) says:

    Adam,

    There have been 6 RWC.. NZ (as it was), England, South Africa, Eng/Wales, Australia, France.

    There are two obvious things about this.. the first is that these places agreed to the requirements of the IRB so that it could maximise the dollars, and the second is that these were *nations*, ie, places that could pull together a major international event and make a lot of money from it, pull in 40,000 visitors, use the occasion to build new facilities, brush up old ones and provide a spectacle that would be viewed by over a billion people.

    Back in 2003, a place called NZ had won co hosting rights to the event, but didn’t have the will to meet the conditions to run the event.. so it was given solely to Australia, and a good thing too.

    The reason why NZ lost its rights is it was no longer a nation able to work for a common cause. It had degenerated into something like one of the better known Arab hellholes where govt is determined by “What’s in it for me?”
    A place with a corrupt system of Govt called MMP (it’s no accident that the RWC has only been run by non MMP nations), a place where the increasingly corrupt Govt had split the people up into warring factions in order to maintain power (think Saddam) and where, like the Maori negotiations each individual family had to be bribed to enable any larger event to take place.

    The *nations* that have run the RWC have been able to meet the requirements of the IRB because they have believed in pulling together for a greater good, indeed, they’ve used many such events to show a desire to showcase their nationhood, and apart from the old nation of NZ rugby was a truly minor sport.. but the people pulled together with good spirit to showcase themselves, make a few dollars and use the occasion to make millions happy and proud.

    Unfortunately, only nations can do this, not tribes that have no notion of the greater good.

    JC

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. John Dalley (314 comments) says:

    Very old news but only being cottoned onto by the rabid right now.
    Slow backward yobs.
    Some of you need to watch the frothing from the mouth, it’s called rabies and there is only one cure, death by lethal injection.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. dad4justice (6,594 comments) says:

    Don’t worry about “death by lethal injection” John Dilley, as a visit to the hospital is all you need to leave the planet. I mean with all the medication mistakes, serious medical errors and clinical management problems it’s more than enough to send you down the hole .
    Well done Liarbour freaks.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. vto (713 comments) says:

    john dalley, of statements that are never backed up and boring abuse, i see your cred still languishes

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Adam Smith (724 comments) says:

    JC

    I am very well aware of what the RWC is and the ‘arrangements’ the IRB insists on. Indeed as an Eden Park ticket holder who would have been deprived of my rights in 2003 more than aware.

    However, the economics do not stack up. We the people, through the Government, make a huge investment in new stadia, none of which is economically justifiable. We underwrite the expenses of staging the RWC. We have a government ministry for the RWC. The IRB owns the broadcasting rights and imposes restrictions around who can show what and when. The IRB takes the advertising dollars as well.

    NZ gets the visitor dollars, the ticket revenues and the illusion of good publicity.

    Now if we assume that visitors in 2011 for the RWC generate say $500 million in revenue and say a further $500 million over the next 3 years we have $1 billion in total revenues. Now GST will account for around $100 million leaving say $900 million. Of that let us assume a generous 10% taxable profit overall, some will make money, some will lose. At say an effective tax rate of say 15% allowing for relief etc we get a further $15 million of tax.

    Therefore, on what basis is this a good investment. It is not. The numbers make no sense.

    Please do not moan on about creating nationhood and all pulling together. We are not at war, this is not Dunkirk. The IRB are running a business venture where they are guaranteed to make a mint and we are guaranteed to lose a mint.

    We have been played for suckers by experts, what is more we are rolling over and begging to have it done to us some more.

    Truly to NZ, Rugby really is the opiate of the masses and we are in thrall to the rugby cartel as much as if we were a ‘crack addict’ on the streets of Harlem.

    In addition, many of the tourists, if they come given concerns over climate change, will go home amazed at how grubby this country is:

    – giardia
    – didymo
    – sub-standard tourist attractions
    – bad roads
    – appalling public toilets
    – expensive and inferior hotels
    – rude hospitality staff
    – tacky shops

    Clean, Green and Friendly. I do not think.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. GerryandthePM (188 comments) says:

    Yes, this is New Zealand (est.1999) Limited more and more every day.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Alces (285 comments) says:

    Search and seizure on a “commercial” warrant?

    Poor sad NZ.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. PhilBest (4,757 comments) says:

    Meet NZ’s answer to the Taleban. ANYTHING goes in the name of our national religion: Rugby.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Alces (285 comments) says:

    The RWC organisers could ask and get Helen to ride naked down Queen St if it ensured a RWC in NZ. A second cancellation will be an election losing certainty for Labour.

    The Olympics, next America’s Cup, Soccer WC etc mayl get similiar treatment if they ask. We will be hearing much more about the synergy of Socialism and the Corporate state in the next 20 years.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. JC (950 comments) says:

    Adam, by your own reckoning, this is a good deal because there is still an extra billion dollars into the country. Doesn’t matter who’s pockets it goes into. In fact, it’s the incessant whining about who’s pockets it goes into that hampers our productivity.

    And some of your comments reinforce what I’ve already said. Your list of “grubby” NZ things is a classic of the isolationism that we’ve drifted into as a country. We are no longer proud enough to clean the place up.

    JC

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. gd (1,780 comments) says:

    The problem with legislation like this is that it becomes a wedge in the door that slowly but surely gets pushed open even further.

    And those who shrug shoulders now may find in the future that an supposed innocent amendment catches them in ways they were least expecting.

    Once an established good governance principle has been breached no matter how reasonable it might appear at the time then the genie is out of the bottle and cant be put back in.

    Students of history are well aware of this. Thats why some of us are very weary when we see long established principles being breached.

    You cannot always guarantee that the other side will out the matter right at a later date. Some things suit governments of all colours And usually it things that dont suit most of the citizens.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Adam Smith (724 comments) says:

    JC

    A billion dollars of revenue over a 4 year period does not equal the surplus necessary to pay for the investment, most of the revenue will flow out again in expenses. There is no real economic rational for this spend up other than it makes the pollies, both Left and Right, feel they are doing something for the masses, whilst pandering to the Rugby God, it’s representatives on earth the IRB and NZRU and their handmaidens the media

    Regarding a drift into isolationism. This country is full of and has for many years been full of,

    -xenophobes
    -racists, especially where Asians and Africans are concerned
    -those with their head in the sand who consider this to be “Godzone”

    NZ is a country where isolationism is an art form combined with a belief system that the world owes NZ a living and a degree of cultural immaturity that beggars belief.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. aardvark (417 comments) says:

    A peteremcc, I blogged it *yesterday* but I don’t archive my non-tech blogs so it’s now gone forever, although the discussion continues in the Aardvark Forums.

    It’s a foul example of a (supposedly) socialist party bending over for financial gain.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. RRM (10,099 comments) says:

    All hail the Rugby World Cup.

    And DAMN those socialists. Even though National voted for it too, DAMN the socialist “liarbore” “Helengrad” etc etc mob…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Adam Smith (724 comments) says:

    RRM

    I think National made a big mistake supporting RWC, though given the attitude towards Rugby in NZ it is understandable.

    Government, business, media all bow down before rugby in NZ.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. thehawkreturns (124 comments) says:

    Which companies are not sponsoring the RWC?
    I can order their Tshirts ahead of time and make a killing…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. SPC (5,664 comments) says:

    There’s a lot of self hate of New Zealand and New Zealanders from some on the right – but nothing some serious bondage and discipline to the rule of the global markets won’t expiate I suppose.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote