The New Zealand Rugby Football Union would have acted illegally if it had signed the 2003 Rugby World Cup contract knowing it couldn't deliver what it signed up to, Sports Minister Trevor Mallard said Monday.

The union could have faced civil and criminal legal actions if it had signed the co-hosting contract to deliver stadiums that were free of advertising and sponsorship when it couldn't do so, Mallard said.

Rugby World Cup's organising body on Friday rejected an amended contract from the New Zealand union after it failed to sign up to the strict regulations regarding "clean" - or advertising free - stadiums.

The NZRFU argued that most venues in New Zealand were subject to sponsorship, catering and corporate contracts.

Rugby World Cup organisers rejected the amended New Zealand document and immediately asked Australia to put forward a bid to host all 48 World Cup matches next October.

The New Zealand union was seeking legal advice on the IRB stance. Mallard has asked government lawyers to provide him with an opinion on whether the New Zealand union would have committed criminal offenses under national legislation by signing the original contract on which it could not deliver.

A copy of the opinion would be "made available" to Rugby World Cup chairman, Welsh Q.C., Vernon Pugh (pictured). If the union had "told a bunch of lies" and later been unable to deliver on the contract it would have put itself in an intolerable position.

Mallard said he doubted the Australian Rugby Union could deliver on conditions stipulated by Rugby World Cup, including an advertising free zone of up to 500 meters (yards) around stadiums.

"It appears the Australian Rugby Union has signed up to something it can't deliver," he said. "I don't accept that (Australia) has won (the hosting bid) yet."

New Zealand stands to lose up to 120 million New Zealand dollars (U.S. dlrs 50.4 million) of tourist spending if the 23 matches planned round the country don't go ahead.

Prime Minister Helen Clark said the government can help persuade the IRB to reinstate New Zealand as a sub-host by reinforcing the view that it's illegal for the national union to sign a contract which can't be carried through.

The NZRFU believed it had signed off on a sub-host agreement by the prescribed deadline last Friday, but just over an hour later the ARU announced the offer to share the tournament had been withdrawn.

Australian officials were expecting to meet IRB chief Pugh in Sydney later Monday to discuss plans for Australia to host the tournament alone.

New Zealand hosted the first World Cup in 1987, using Australia as a sub-host, but New Zealand authorities have been lukewarm about the idea of hosting matches since a draft of matches appeared late last year.

With England and South Africa likely to play their group games in Perth, on the west Australian coast, and one semifinal and the final due to be played in Australia, there were rumblings of discontent about New Zealand's ability to make the tournament pay.

The New Zealanders have also rejected appeals to ensure the highly-popular domestic championship is completed before the World Cup opens. World Cup organisers feared that tournament ticket sales
might be affected. - Sapa-AP