MAJOR EVENTS BILL

Committee Stage

In committee (resumed on motion).

Clause 1.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Before the honourable member continues, we were sort of part way through some answers and she was in the process, I think, of asking a further question when we had to adjourn. I point out that I should add something to my remarks with respect to clause 14. It is also the case, as I understand it, that one of the requisite elements to attract an interest in this is that it is actually for a—if you go to section 20 you will see where it contains the penalties and prohibitions.

You will see that a person must not use official titles or logos to a major event, which is the discussion we were having a minute ago. Then it says, 'or anything that is substantially identical', which is sort of in the same space, and then it says, 'if the use is for commercial purposes or is for promotional advertising or marketing purposes, whether or not for commercial gain'. I think that gives us a bit more clarity around this.

A further point to bear in mind is that the regulations will be defined by dates. So, the major event—for example, the Tour Down Under—would be on particular days. All of this is only invoked on those days so it would only be those uses which offend this legislation at the time that it applies, which would be captured, and so the hypothetical barbecue would (a) have to be on one of those days—

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Yes—and (b) it would have to be for a commercial purpose. I am saying commercial purpose, promotional, advertising, marketing purposes, whether or not for commercial gain, but that is it—promotional, advertising or marketing purposes. My take on that would be that for a purely non-commercial event in the nature of you and some friends gathering for a barbecue at your place because the tour is on, and you call it 'the tour barbecue at my place', and provided you are not charging an admission or making some commercial arrangement out of it, and you are not using it to advertise your business or something, then you are not going to be captured by that.

Ms CHAPMAN: I thank the Attorney for his further explanation. I would be comforted, of course, if the definition was confined to use for commercial purposes full stop. The concern I have is with the rest of it, which does allow for social activity which, of course, can be promotional, especially if they are inviting work colleagues—and I think I used union affiliates as one of the examples I referred to before—and where there is some benefit. It does not have to have a commercial value but there is a promotion, advertising or marketing purpose. The Premier running around in a t-shirt saying 'Vote for me on the third Saturday of March 2014' could clearly come within the definition of 'promotional' and we need to have that clear.

At the moment, I hear what the Attorney is saying, and I thank him for his clarification. We are keen on this side of the house to ensure that all South Australians have a chance during that week or two weeks, or whatever the time period is, to enjoy the benefit of the event, not to detract from the exclusive sponsorship arrangements that follow from those agreements and to interfere with them, but to be able to all have the benefit of being able to gain from the activity. I have previously outlined how that can obviously capture more than, perhaps, the Attorney-General has in mind, but we will see how the operation of that goes.

I was going to refer to other activity in the state. I have referred to the Royal Show. Obviously that is a major event and is well attended. I am not aware of the show society being consulted on the bill, let alone considering whether they might apply or whether, in fact, they may wish to do so if they find out about this. But, in any event, we will be seeking some response from the government as to an assurance that, where the government is a sponsor at these events, they too are going to be prohibited from entering into other arrangements using that sponsorship as a means to promote themselves, as distinct from interfering with other sponsors out there.

Again, I think I used a situation where the promotion is for a particular entity to sell their wares, and promote themselves. Let me give you another example: let's assume that a company—a general business operator who buys a tent, or leases an area on the site—pays their $10,000 or whatever you pay for them, and they then have their little logos all around. Let's assume it is a company which makes beer cups and they have got the John Rau company beer cups promoted all around their tent, and the Vickie Chapman beer cups are the official sponsors of the event. These are the types of things that we need to have some clarity on, as to whether those are going to be prosecuted, because they are also lining up as a paying customer, not as a sponsor, but paying for the space on the day.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: There are a couple of different questions floating around in there. One is about the Premier with the T-shirt 'Vote for Me' or whatever on the day. If the Premier is not using the logo or using the name of the event in a way in which it looks like, in a sense, the Premier is capturing that event and appropriating the value from the event, I do not see how this particular format is going to effect that one way or the other.

In relation to the question about government sponsorship, I think that the case would be that, if the government were a sponsor, it would, of course, be reasonable for the government logo or 'Government of South Australia' or whatever to appear on material. It may or may not be that the government of South Australia, as part and parcel of its sponsorship, supplies beer cups or hats or whatever the case might be, and that would be by reason of their having some contractual arrangement with the event organisers whereby they were given the permission of the organisers to utilise the name and the logo, for which presumably they would pay.

I do not think that there is anything in this legislation which permits the government, or any other sponsor for that matter, by reason of their having become a sponsor—and that might be a very big one or a very little one—to ignore commercial arrangements with the event organisers and use the name or the logo as they please without their permission.

Otherwise, the ambush potential would be that you or I might say, 'We're going to be sponsors,' and we chip in $100 and then, by reason of our chipping in $100, we are out the front of the place with our party hats on with the logos on it and having a grand old time and causing all sorts of trouble. In fact, that clearly is what we are trying to avoid—both the freeloaders and the people who might find some advantage in being a minimal sponsor and then thinking they can hide under the umbrella of permission.

Ms CHAPMAN: Does that mean, then, that, if West End Brewery is an official sponsor of a major event and the Coopers' tent, which has its facility there for its invitees, serves Coopers and has all its promotional material around, which is the 'ambush marketing' aspect of this, not the logo and title issue, that is going to be a problem?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: If we go to clause 6, which defines 'ambush marketing', it provides:

(a) taking advantage of the holding and conduct of a major event to promote a person, goods or services without the approval of the event organiser; and

(b) any other activity that would suggest to a reasonable person that a person, goods or services have a sponsorship, approval or affiliation that they do not have with—

(i) a major event; or

(ii) the event organiser of a major event; or

(iii) any event or activity associated with a major event.

To come back to your example about West End having been a sponsor and then over the way there is the Coopers' tent with Coopers paraphernalia on display. I think that the case would have to be that Coopers could not be there doing that without permission from either the event organiser or whatever and, if they do have permission, presumably that is by way of some sort of franchising or licensing agreement or some other thing. Anybody who is there with the permission of the event organiser, even if they are two competitors, would be fine. What we are seeking to capture here are the people who have not sought the approval of the event organiser before then marketing their product in association with the event.

Ms CHAPMAN: If I can go back to 'other events', in the general debate we discussed this question of the councils having some objection. The Adelaide Hills Council has presented a submission, I think, to you, Attorney, and to members of the opposition. This, of course, covers some of my electorate; in fact, all of us here, I think, who are on our side of the house have a vested interest in this. They include major events that are currently in their area, including the Tour Down Under, which we have discussed; Bay to Birdwood; Lights of Lobethal festival; Adelaide Hills Autumn Garden Festival; Crush Festival; Oakbank races; Targa Rally; and the Adelaide Hills Tarmac Rally.

Without reflecting on any of these events, from what you said earlier, probably only the Tour Down Under and the Oakbank races would be in the category of a major statewide event. To your knowledge only the Tour Down Under has indicated some expression of interest to secure that. I think you can see that for some regions, where councils have had a significant role in the management of not just the population but also all of the things that we discussed before around a major event, they are involved in road closures and the like.

They have obviously raised questions about road closures and particularly—and I will make this point—they have been very concerned to check that they are not going to be in breach of any of this legislation in the publication of their community booklet, which is a festival and events policy, in relation to material that is to be approved by their council. They are keen to have a number of discussions, and it may be that has occurred. I would be very happy if the minister could let me know about that.

One of the particular issues on road access I will come to shortly, under clause 21. I do note that the Adelaide Hills Council have acknowledged that there are many useful features detailed in this bill which can assist the whole of the state to enjoy the benefit of these major events, but they are certainly seeking some particulars on the detail. I will have some specific questions to ask, and my next one will be at clause 4. The member for Heysen also has some questions on clause 4.

Clause passed.

Clause 2 passed.

Clause 3.

Mrs REDMOND: Just one question, thank you, Mr Chairman. Could the minister give an example of what other commercial exploitation of major events are in contemplation? If you look at the objects, (d) provides:

(d) to prevent unauthorised commercial exploitation of major events, including ambush marketing...

There is a separate definition that the minister has already referred to for ambush marketing, but what other types of unauthorised commercial exploitation are in contemplation within (d)?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I think there are two answers to that. The first is that Part 3, Division 1 contains other particular forms of commercial exploitation, being the sale and distribution of prescribed articles, ticket scalping and then, over on the next page, ambush marketing. I would imagine it is there to capture the residue of other potential things that inventive minds might come up with. There is a particularisation in clauses 8 and 9 of other examples of some form of commercial exploitation of major events.

I need to emphasise again to the honourable member that this legislation is invoked only after a regulation has been passed in respect to a particular event on particular days for particular prescribed precincts, so it does not have an open-ended operation. It will not be applying to everything. It is certainly my view and, I believe, the government's view that this is not to be chucked around willy-nilly at every sporting event that might pop up.

I mentioned earlier to the honourable member for Bragg that, as at the present time, the only expressions of interest we have had in relation to this are from the cricket people, who were basically the instigators of this being a matter that we needed to look at, and the Tour Down Under. That is it presently.

Mrs REDMOND: Further to that, is this to be an opt in system whereby the government is not going to declare things to be a major event, rather it is going to be a matter of particular organisations who run events asking the government to prescribe their event?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: That was always the idea. If you go to division 4, clause 14, you can see that it is sort of framed on the basis that the minister is not the applicant really. The minister is responding to a request. In responding to the request, if you look in particular at subclause (2), the minister has to have regard to certain matters before being persuaded that it is worthwhile taking the matter further for the process to be engaged.

It was always intended that there would be, essentially, a request made of the minister, the minister would turn his or her mind to the matter, and if they were persuaded that the matter fell within this major event category and there were serious risks of this sort of commercial abuse then some consideration would be given to making it a regulation.

Mrs REDMOND: To be clear, there is no capacity for the minister to simply declare an event to be a major event? For instance, if the Tour Down Under or the cricket people did not make some application they would not become major events under this legislation?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I do not want to be misleading here. I do not think there is anything in this that says, 'The minister may only in respect of a request do these things.' The minister could act of the minister's own motion. However, it was always designed with the expectation that major events that had these issues would communicate with the minister and say, 'Look, can you look after us?' and the minister would then turn his or her mind to it.

Clause passed.

Clause 4.

Ms CHAPMAN: In this clause the issue that is most starkly omitted is any detail of what a major event is. It is just whatever you say in the regulations it is.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I think the simplest answer to what is a major event is: a major event is something that has been through the proposed section 14 process.

Ms CHAPMAN: Yes, but what is it? You see, the major event venue is defined, which is the place where these things happen, but does it mean that it has to be an event of state significance, value over a certain dollars, anticipated participation—what is it? I think genuine concerns have been raised about this. You say, 'Look, only a couple of people in the big league are actually indicating an interest,' but what is going to be in the regulation? Can you tell us that?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: If we take the point that the honourable member makes, major event means an event declared by the regulations to be a major event. The regulation by which an event is declared a major event is under clause 14. If we look to clause 14, it states that the minister must be satisfied, before making a declaration, that:

(a) the logos or titles are sufficiently connected to the identity and conduct of the major event; and

(b) the event has commercial arrangements that are likely to be adversely affected by unauthorised use of logos...

It does not say a particular dollar value for the event, and I think it would be extremely unhelpful for us sitting here to be very prescriptive about what is or is not a major event. Put it this way: let's say we had a chance of attracting a major soccer game to Adelaide. We might be able to get Manchester United to play—

Ms Chapman: Get the British Lions back, because we lost them.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Whatever. It might well be that that event, viewed from one perspective—that is, adding high profile soccer to the menu of opportunities here in Adelaide—

Mrs Redmond: Thank goodness we built a soccer stadium.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Yes—for an exhibition game, it may not have huge sponsors. It may still have sponsors, but it may not have astronomical sponsorship. It may have, for example, a large television audience in the United Kingdom or Europe. We need to be very careful about having a prescriptive framework that we are going to lock the concept of major event into. There are some events, like the Tour Down Under for instance, which by any definition would have to qualify as a major event, because you have 750,000-odd people involved, it has worldwide television interest and it attracts about $40 million-odd to the state in that period of time. That one is clear.

Probably, as I sort of slightly tongue-in-cheek said before, the milk carton regatta and the Birdman Rally would not qualify, unless of course we had international television interest and then maybe they might be, but there is unlikely to be that. I guess what I am trying to explain is that there could be bits and pieces which do not fit into some sort of cookie cutter version of big events in advance.

Ms CHAPMAN: Can I clarify this, then, Attorney? I understand your point, but other states already have this in place. You are saying it is similar to what they already have. Presumably, they already have regulations which, if they do not have it in their act, they have it in their regulations, which somehow or other defines it. In the absence of being too prescriptive, can you just tell us what the other states are doing and what their definitions are? Have you done the draft regulation? Do we have any idea of how it is defined interstate?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Another example was just given to me, which I think is an interesting example: the Credit Union Christmas Pageant. Let's say, for example, that the organisers of that were able to secure international or even interstate television interest, which they were then able to sell because of advertising or whatever, and it became known to them that some independent operator was intending to set up a TV recording space and just take whatever footage they wanted of that and pipe it off to their network.

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The Hon. J.R. RAU: No, film their show. They might say to the government, 'Look, we understand that this group of pop-up TV producers are going to turn up, have made some deal to actually sell the rights to our event to somebody else and we would like you, the government, to declare that event so we can stop those people doing that.' That is another instance where this thing might more or less happen.

As to your questions about interstate, the two that are most similar to ours are Victoria and New South Wales. What do the regulations look like? We do not have regulations because we do not even yet have a formal request from anybody about this because we do not even have the legislation. The Victorian stuff, which is in the Major Sporting Events Act 2009—and bear in mind Victoria is a bigger place and has a lot of very well-established things, as will become obvious from what I read out—says:

major sporting event means—

(a) the Australian Open Tennis Championship;

(b) any Australian Football League match held at the MCG or the Docklands Stadium—

strangely enough, not anywhere else—

(c) any international or interstate cricket match held at the MCG or the Docklands Stadium;

(d) any international, national or state league football match held at an event venue;

(e) any event specified in a major sporting event order as a major sporting event—

which is analogous to what we have—'and includes any opening ceremony or closing ceremony, parade', etc. Then the question is: what is a major sporting event order? A major sporting event order means an order made under section 7. Then you go to section 7 and I suspect you are going to find something very much like our section 7, at least I hope that is what you find. 'Subject to this Part, on the recommendation of the Minister, the Governor in Council may make an order that an event is a major sporting event for the purposes of this Act.' New South Wales, right at the bottom of their Major Events Act 2009, says a 'major event means an event that is declared under Part 2 to be a major event'. It continues:

Part 2—Declaration of major event

The Minister may recommend the making of a regulation under subsection (1) only if the minister is of the opinion that: (a) it is in the public interest to make the regulation, and (b) the event in respect of which the regulation is to be made is a major event at an international, national or State level. (3) Without limiting any other matters the Minister may have regard to the following matters before determining whether to recommend...

and then it says size of the event, number of spectators, possible coverage, possible economic impact, potential contribution to the economy,' etc. The mechanism both in New South Wales and Victoria, with variations, is pretty well the same. It is just that in Victoria, because they have got the AFL situation there and the tennis, they have said they are always going to be ones and they have then made the capacity for a declaration of others to be in that category. In New South Wales they haven't named any, but they have said there can be a declaration and then they have given some sort of vague shape around what that might be, but neither of those are ultimately prescriptive.

Ms CHAPMAN: Just a question on definitions—in Victoria I note that they seem to have confined their major events legislation to major sporting events. Is there a reason that we have followed the New South Wales model? Is there some expectation that the Cabaret Festival or the Fringe Festival or some other cultural events for example that are non-sporting are potentially able to come into this category? Is that the reason for that?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: It was contemplated that as they are major events for Adelaide it may be, although it is not on the radar presently, that there are elements of this legislation which they might ultimately wish to take advantage of and with the way it is presently framed they would be capable of making such a request and it being considered and possibly granted. Again, picking up on the Christmas Pageant, it could be that there are elements of the Fringe—some of the public elements of that—which people do not want to be captured and just fired off and sold by other people, bearing in mind that the organisers of the Fringe spend a great deal of time and money bringing that program together—or WOMAD, for that matter.

Ms CHAPMAN: I did not mean to exclude them, but I think you get the gist of what we are talking about. Does 'public place' in the definitions include a public road?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Yes.

Mrs REDMOND: Thank you, Mr Chairman, that is the definition that I wanted to concentrate on. Could I say by way of preface that, while I understand the genuine intention of the bill, most of my questions are directed towards trying to see whether there could be an inadvertent mischief done to the little guy. The Tour Down Under, being the one that you have already mentioned, minister, as something that is clearly going to be a major event, does go along lots of roads and, indeed, for the sake of asking the questions, I will often refer to my road because I have a lot of cyclists up and down it all the time.

My question about a public place is: under the definition, given that the Tour Down Under is a major event and is going to come under this legislation, and assuming that at some stage the Tour Down Under does come down my road, which it may well do, does that mean that my frontage to the road is actually captured, that part of it which is the public part and indeed, under part (b) 'a place that the occupier allows members of the public to enter'? What does that mean if for instance I have a Tour Down Under party?

What I am worried about are genuine questions that have been raised with me by constituents who are worried about the impact of this legislation, once the Tour Down Under is declared, because lots and lots of people around my area and around everywhere in the state that the tour goes to have all sorts of functions which sometimes might spill out onto the road but sometimes will be within their own premises. They have all sorts of functions and some of them, indeed, involve fundraising for local, small community organisations. It looks to me, under that definition, as though those things could be captured. I just want to get the Attorney's comments on that, please.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I think there are a couple of issues there. If there are people who are coming to your home because they have been invited there for an event, I would certainly contend that it is unlikely that one would call them members of the public because they are not just wandering off the street and into your home: they are people who are invitees.

So, regarding the idea that the honourable member might, for example, try to take advantage of the fact that it is a lovely day and there are people riding past and invite a number of friends around for a barbecue and watch the bikes go by, I do not think there can be any possible way that that would be a public place for the purpose of things. Even if it were, it would only be that, in that public place, you could not do ambush marketing or other prohibited activity or, without authority, display the logo that belonged to the operator of the event or misrepresent in some way that logo as being something you had the right to use.

Otherwise, you can please yourself. The honourable member's guests could dress up in anything they like and ride around on pushbikes and have a fantastic time and it would not offend any legislation, whether it was captured or not.

Indeed, in terms of a group of people who might want to take advantage of that to raise some money, that again, in and of itself, is not problematic. But, if they wanted to raise the money in the context of representing that they, in raising that money, had the permission of the event operators to use the event's logo or were in some other way an authorised expression of the event operator, that is where they would start to get into bother, but that is all.

In fact, the honourable member might have a charity group there that sets up a cake table on the side of the road and sells bits of cake to make money or sells cups of tea and coffee. That, in and of itself, is not an issue. It might be an issue if the table had 'official Santos Tour Down Under' table with the logo on it. That is, I think, where we would be crossing the line but, otherwise, it would not affect people.

The other thing I think the honourable member might actually find a bit comforting, and I think some of the councils will find this a bit comforting, is that part of what the minister would do, particularly with an event of the complexity of the tour, would be to actually ask for a plan of the event or management of the event to be produced so that there would be clear and advanced notice to everybody about what is going on and so forth. I do not think any of the propositions that the honourable member has raised are going to be a problem unless somebody wants to capture that logo, which does not belong to them and actually belongs to the event organisers, and use it as if they were authorised by the event operator to use it.

Mrs REDMOND: Thank you, Attorney, for that explanation. I just want to be very clear about this because this is the area of contention that has been raised with me by a number of local organisations. So, is the Attorney saying that, as long as I do not use the words 'Santos Tour Down Under' I, running some local charitable organisation, can nevertheless advertise that I am holding a Tour Down Under function at a given address, which has a frontage to where the tour will go past at certain times? So, members of the public are indeed invited. They can read in the local fish and chip shop window that the XYZ kindergarten, or whatever it might be, is holding a function which is specifically a Tour Down Under function.

They are not calling it 'Santos Tour Down Under'; however, they are identifying that it is going to be on the day that the Tour Down Under comes along that particular street, so they have called it the XYZ kindergarten's Tour Down Under fundraiser. They will have a sign out the front and signs directing people how to get to it because there will be road blockages so they have to send people around all sorts of ways. Is that going to be allowed once the Tour Down Under becomes a regulated function under this act?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: The advice I have on that is as follows: if it is a commercial activity, so it would not capture the home barbecue where you invite your friends around, but if it is to raise money and if the declared official title is: 'Santos Tour Down Under', those words, the official declared title 'Santos Tour Down Under', are protected words. The easy way around that is to not use 'Santos Tour Down Under' but call it the 'Tour Cake Sale' or something else, so you are not capturing those words. What is protected is those words as those words and only that title. So, all you would have to avoid is whatever the gazetted title is.

Ms Chapman: By one word; just call it 'Tour Down Under'.

Mrs Redmond: That's my question.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Hypothetically, if it is gazetted 'Santos Tour Down Under' then 'Tour Down Under' would not be the gazetted name. If it is not Santos, it is just 'Tour Down Under' then 'Tour Down Under' would be the gazetted name and you would want to either delete 'Down Under' or 'Tour' or whatever.

Mr Gardner interjecting:

The Hon. J.R. RAU: If you insert something in the middle, member for Morialta.

Mrs REDMOND: Minister, I do not want to appear to be difficult about this but it is the concern that has been raised by the small community organisations, and I am sure I am not the only member who has had these approaches, so I want to be very clear about what is allowed. These organisations have already been doing it for years and they call it their Tour Down Under fundraiser of whatever sort, you know, their Tour Down Under cake stall, their Tour Down Under bike race day, whatever it might be, but they do use the words 'Tour Down Under'. They do not generally use the sponsor's name, admittedly, but I want to be very clear about whether simply deleting the sponsor's name from the published gazetted title of 'Santos Tour Down Under' means you can simply use 'Tour Down Under' legally once that organisation is under this act?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Put it this way: it is probably not for me to give people legal advice, but if I were running a cake shop on the side of the road where the Tour Down Under is going by and the declared title is 'Santos Tour Down Under', I would be thinking of calling it 'Community Cake Shop' to make sure I was not anywhere near the space, or asking permission: 'Does anyone care if we do this?'

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The Hon. J.R. RAU: It is not necessary to fill out forms in triplicate. I am saying that I understand where these questions are coming from, but I think there are two points that need to be made about them. The first one is that the easiest thing in the world is to not use those words and you are completely out from underneath any issue. The second point is, do not do a commercial activity and you are out from underneath the issue. The third point is that even if you made the mistake and did it, I wonder seriously whether anybody would come around to your house and pursue you for selling a couple of buns.

If you want to look at it from the potential point of view that if somebody insists on using those exact words, and they are running a commercial activity, and they are identified and a complaint is made about them, and there is a decision to prosecute them, then I guess, potentially, within 21B, you could say that something was deceptively similar, and that would be a question of fact and degree, and lawyers argue about those things all the time.

I have been involved in passing off actions in the past and they are bits of litigation that can go on for quite a long time which, from a legal perspective, is fascinating. There is an easy way to get completely out of this space: either do not be commercial, or do not use those names at all and, if you do, quite frankly, I think it is very unlikely that the police, or whomever the event authorised officers might be, would be focusing their attention on a small trestle table on the side of the road at Uraidla with a couple of buns on it.

Mrs REDMOND: The minister clearly has not been to the Graham Gunn school for authorised officers. Minister, I want to clarify what you mean by the term 'commercial activity' because in normal parlance and, indeed, in a lot of legal circumstances, 'commercial' really applies to those who are making a profit for their own benefit, and not-for-profit organisations are not categorised as 'commercial'. I wonder whether that then would make a difference to those circumstances because the local kindergarten or CFS, or whatever it might be—raising some money certainly, but for the benefit of a not-for-profit or community-based organisation where the benefit of the money made is not going to be distributed to those making it—would not seem to me to be a commercial enterprise.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Again, these are all legal questions which would ultimately be dealt with by whatever court was unlucky enough to be presented with this issue. It seems to me that 'commercial' means 'for sale'. What happens to the profit, and how much of the profit is there, I think is academic—it is commercial. I would have thought that the fact that the ultimate beneficiary is the kindergarten does not stop the sale from being commercial, but that is just my opinion. If it came before a court, there might be a successful challenge that charities are a different kettle of fish, just as whether it is for promotional, advertising or marketing purposes, whether or not for commercial gain. Again, these would be matters that a court would have to decide. I can only give you what I think is a common-sense interpretation of this which is that it is not intended, and never was intended, to capture cake stalls.

Ms CHAPMAN: As we were saying earlier, it would be helpful if the bill were confined to commercial activities, and that there was some definition in the process. It is the vague generality of this that is causing a concern with major offences with very significant penalties. We can all pick an event and two major commercial operators where one might be attempting to ambush market the other one out of an event. What we are really talking about here is setting up a process which will alienate the general populous of South Australia from having the use of an event. They might have been party to the development of it for generations but are removed from being a part of it and having the benefit of it—to allegedly secure the right of sponsors to come into the event—because there is this alleged threat that these big buys are not going to come in and sign up or allow this to come to South Australia unless they get this legislative protection.

It is like BHP saying to the South Australian government, 'We want an indenture, otherwise we're not going to make a commitment. We want to know what the rules are going to be for the next 20 or 40 years, or whatever, on our provision for mineral taxes, etc. These are the deals, otherwise we don't set up in your patch.'

South Australians are giving up the right to receive some of the benefit of this, and there are a number of them, not just the hoteliers, who might have increased patronage in terms of accommodation as a result of people coming to these events. We are talking about the whole box and dice. You say, 'We're not intending to hit the little cake stall operator; we don't want to inadvertently capture them.' The definition here is very sloppy, and that has been pointed out by a number of stakeholders.

So, we make the point, and it has been well made, I think, by the member for Heysen as well. The other aspect is that, because 'public place' in this bill is going to mean 'roads'—and there is a lot of other legislation in South Australia where it does not include roads—roads are given a special significance. I cannot think of the name of the legislation, but no doubt it will spring to mind, Attorney, when we talk about the obligation to consult when we change the name of a road.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: The opening and the closing of roads legislation?

Ms CHAPMAN: No, it is not that. It is another piece of legislation where you change the name of a road or public place. I recently had this issue relating to Albo's Bridge on Kangaroo Island, at Western River—

Mr Griffiths: Minister Albanese.

Ms CHAPMAN: —when minister Albanese apparently got permission to have a local bridge named after him—not a little plaque which says, 'Minister Albanese attended here on such a day and officially opened the bridge.' No, nothing like that: it had to be 'Albo's Bridge', which was—

The CHAIR: That's nice.

Ms CHAPMAN: Well, you might think so, Mr Chairman, but let me tell you that there are plenty of people on Kangaroo Island who aren't so happy about it. The defence for those who allowed it, which was, I think, members of the Department of Transport—I am not sure whether the current or previous minister for transport was there on this happy little occasion, for the unveiling of the bridge's name—'Oh, no; this is not a road, nor is it a public place under this legislation. This is just sort of another area.' I do not know what it is if isn't people walking over it, going over the water.

Mrs Redmond: Geographical Names Act.

Ms CHAPMAN: Geographical Names Act. Excellent! Thank you, member for Heysen. So, this issue was raised, and also the question of naming a place after a person who is not dead. I do not know whether there is legislation for that, but there is some—

The Hon. J.R. Rau interjecting:

Ms CHAPMAN: No; it is considered to be unacceptable to use a living person's name for—

Ms Thompson: Are you still talking about Albo?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Yes.

Members interjecting:

Ms CHAPMAN: But there is other legislation which does define 'public place' differently from 'roads'. One way to avoid the obvious concerns that have been raised with you, Attorney, and with us by local councils, particularly Adelaide Hills Council, which was first off the starting block on this, is not to have roads included in 'public place' and to be able to have some continuing role for the council in the management of these roads—for the council to have some capacity to explain to those who are going to be making all the rules on this the importance of allowing people who live on a road to have access to their driveways and to understand that you have only one-way access to it, etc.

As you know, Attorney, for major sporting events that you have described, frequently roads have to be closed off, managed with one-way traffic, and with human monitors put in place to say who can go in and out—charges are made. Meanwhile, poor little Mr and Mrs Stringbag, who live down the street, cannot get in and out of their house. So, you get the point: why do we have to have roads in there and why can't we keep it separate?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I thank the honourable member for that. The honourable member up until now has been very sort of serene and calm, and whatnot, but she sort of flicked the switch to Vaudeville in that last little interlude. I had images of the honourable member and the member for Elder and the Hon. Anthony Albanese at an official bridge opening all whistling the Colonel Bogey March, which would have been—

Ms Chapman: You didn't even invite me; can you believe it?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I think that's a terrible oversight. I will speak to the Minister for Infrastructure and ask him to make sure that if he ever opens a bridge on the island you are invited. Can we get back to this? Nobody is taking major events away from anybody. That is the most hysterical hyperbole I have ever heard in here, and that is saying something. Nobody is taking anything away from anybody—point number 1. Point number 2 is that if we did not include roads—take the Tour Down Under, for example—what would the Tour Down Under be without a road? It would be like, 'A road, a road, my kingdom for a road.' Where was the tour going without a road, for goodness sake? How absurd to take the Tour Down Under without the roads.

Ms Chapman: It's been 15 years and we've managed all right without it.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: That's why this is called progress; it's the great leap forward. This has been happening in New South Wales and Victoria since 2009 and in Western Australia since whenever. We are not talking here about out there stuff; it is a pretty well trodden path.

Can I say this to the honourable member: if between the houses the honourable member wants to find some words of comfort that might demonstrate that the minister of the day will at least have a chat to the local government authority, that may or may not be involved in it, then that is something I am happy to have a talk about; it might even be within the regulation or something. I am happy to have that conversation, but please do not assume any strange motives in this legislation. It is not intended to be the thin end of the wedge for some other diabolical scheme that I have not thought of yet.

Clause passed.

Clause 5 passed.

Clause 6.

Mrs REDMOND: I just wanted to clarify: it looks to me from reading clause 6 that it is necessary to have the two components. The word 'and' between (a) and (b) suggests very strongly that you have to have not only the component of 'taking advantage of the holding and conduct of a major event to promote a person, goods or services without the approval of the event organiser', but in addition to that you must have some other activity that would suggest to a reasonable person that you have an approval that you don't. Could the minister just confirm that it is in fact necessary to have (a) plus either (b)(i), (b)(ii), or (b)(iii)?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Yes. I move the following amendments, as printed:

Page 5—

Line 5 [clause 6(a)]—After 'without the' insert 'written'

Lines 7 and 8 [clause 6(b)]—Delete 'that they do not have'

After line 11 [clause 6(b)]—After subparagraph (iii) insert:

without the written approval of the event organiser

Amendments carried; clause as amended passed.

Clause 7.

Ms CHAPMAN: I move:

Page 5—

Line 25 [clause 7(2)(g)]—Delete paragraph (g)

Lines 29 to 31 [clause 7(2)(i)]—Delete paragraph (i)

Lines 32 to 36 [clause 7(2)(j)]—Delete paragraph (j)

I indicate that we are seeking to remove from the regulatory powers declaring major events the prohibition of disorderly and offensive behaviour, for the reasons I have set out in my previous contribution; similarly, the prohibition and regulation of conduct and other activities; and 'close specified roads to traffic for a specified period', etc. All these amendments are in line with matters I raised in my second reading speech and narrow the imposition of obligations in those areas under the regulations.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: These amendments are opposed, and for the sake of the record I will provide some reasons for that. Amendment No. 1 deletes the paragraph of the regulatory-making power that allows for the making of regulations to 'prohibit disorderly or offensive behaviour at the major event venue'. The amendment is opposed.

It is true that clause 25 places into the statute itself a provision dealing with disorderly and offensive behaviour. Clause 25(1)(a) empowers a police officer to require any person behaving in a disorderly or offensive manner to leave the venue under penalty for failure to leave, but that is a different matter and deliberately so.

It is different in two respects: first, it does not create any general offence of behaving in a disorderly or offensive manner and, secondly, there is no specific offence of that type of disorderly and offensive behaviour; if there are to be such, these are to be left to the regulations in general or to the regulations that cover a particular event.

The object of this bill is to be as flexible as possible and to be the least intrusive it can be on the ordinary freedom of people. Removing the flexibility is, in fact, a retrograde step and not supported because it actually makes things more restrictive in all cases than perhaps needs to be the case. The next amendment deletes the paragraph of the regulation-making power that allows for the making of regulations to:

prohibit or regulate any other conduct or activities for the purposes of maintaining good order, and preventing interference with events or activities conducted, at the major event venue;

The amendment is opposed for much the same reason as just stated; in general terms, that is to say the least highly desirable of this kind of behaviour be dealt with—in other words, a light touch. It is very well to think that it should be covered in the bill itself, but that detracts from the desirable flexibility just described. Also, paradoxically, it is contrary to the desirable legislative objective of maximising people's liberty. If everything must be in the bill, then all possible objectionable behaviour will be subject to extensive criminal sanction all the time, without discrimination as to the event or practical need. Removing the flexibility inherent in the current scheme is therefore undesirable.

The last amendment deletes that paragraph of the regulation-making power that makes regulation to close roads. This amendment is opposed. The government is well aware that some elements of local government, and one council in particular, want to remain the sole arbiter of what roads in its area can be closed and when. The government does not accept that the planning and viability of a declared major event can be basically left to the whim or caprice of one local government authority or, indeed, one group of particular residents having an interest peculiar to their own circumstances.

I remind everybody that we are speaking here of a declared major event that is vital to the economy of the state. In my view, it would be quite peculiar in those circumstances that the decision as to whether the opening or closing of a road would occur in the Tour Down Under, for example, would be left ultimately to the discretion of the Adelaide Hills Council, for example, and in practical terms perhaps a few particularly agitated ratepayers.

I also point out that apparently in similar provisions in New South Wales legislation there are extensive provisions in relation to road closures, in sections 26 to 31, and division 5 of the Victorian Major Sporting Events Act, to which I referred earlier, also has extensive power in relation to that. All those amendments are opposed for those reasons.

Ms CHAPMAN: These are my amendments so I will briefly respond. I think it should be made clear, firstly, that there has been no identified failure on the part of councils in particular to cooperate for the benefit of these major events. If we were to use the Clipsal as an example, here in the city, Burnside council, Adelaide City Council and Norwood council have all worked cooperatively to close roads for days during the event and before and after. There has not been a complication or difficulty with that. We have plenty of other situations where councils are involved in the opening and closing of access to roads, for example with heavy transport, where they have the management of that. Even under a new national scheme, they are not proposing to take away these rights.

The benefit of this, minister, is not that it is just more streamlined or easier for government to set the rules. There has been no demonstrable problem with this. Secondly, local councils actually are able to help. They are actually able to give some understanding and local knowledge about how these things work and what other options are available. I made the point that this intransigence—in the absence of there being any identified problem with this, as though other players in some way need to be punished because they are just in the way or inconvenient—is just to me complete ignorance of other people who are acting responsibly and have in the past. I am disappointed that the government is not prepared to accept that.

Amendments negatived.

Mrs REDMOND: I have a question in relation to subclause (8), which states that a regulation under this section may have effect despite the provisions of any other act. That struck me as a little unusual that a regulation under this legislation is intended to override other legislation that is in the form of an act. I wonder if the Attorney could indicate whether they had anything in particular in mind that this regulation-making power under this act was going to override.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: The honourable member has identified a novel aspect of this piece of legislation and I will consider it between the houses.

Clause passed.

Clause 8.

Ms CHAPMAN: I move:

Page 7, lines 16 and 17 [clause 8(2)]—Delete subclause (2)

I indicate, as I had in the second reading, that this is an amendment to change the evidential burden of an accused. This is the reversal of onus of proof matters which I have referred to. I will not cover that any further.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: In relation to these, I will very briefly make a remark about this. This is the first of a number of amendments (so I will not repeat this over and over again) to delete what looks to be a reversal of onus of proof in the prosecution and defence of minor prosecutions. These amendments are opposed, and the reasons for doing so are very much the same in each case.

The first point to be made is that, as a general principle of criminal law, the onus of proof is on the prosecution to prove the elements of the offence beyond a reasonable doubt, but the defence's justifications and excuses are not elements of the offence and should in general be proven by the defence. Allied to this is the idea that the burden should be on the accused to prove the defence's justifications and excuses, particularly where the facts in question are peculiarly within the knowledge of the accused. There is nothing novel in that at all.

Take this example in particular. The fact in question is whether the accused had the approval of the event organiser to sell or distribute merchandise related to the major event. Now who is likely to know that? Who is likely to have proof of that? More importantly, who would have the obligation of keeping the required record? The person selling the merchandise will well know whether or not he or she had the required approval and should be obliged to keep a record of it in exactly the same way as any other owner of a business is in fact and in law required to keep records that he or she has the required licences, if any, has complied with tax obligations and such like.

It should also be noted that the onus is only on the accused in each case to discharge an evidentiary burden; that is, it is not required that the accused prove approval or licence beyond reasonable doubt and it is not even required that the accused prove on the balance of probabilities. All that is required by this formula is that the accused raise sufficient evidence of the fact in issue to raise a reasonable doubt about the issue. If that is done the onus shifts back onto the prosecution to prove that there was no approval beyond reasonable doubt. It is not too much to ask, and all of these amendments are opposed for that reason. Can I say that that formulation and that balancing act are not unique by any means.

Ms Chapman: Not under your government, that's for sure.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: For decades—forever. This is not novel.

Amendment negatived.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I move:

Page 7, line 33 [clause 8(6), definition of authorised person, (c)]—Delete paragraph (c)

Amendment carried.

Mrs REDMOND: I have a question on clause 8. In fact, I might combine it, if I may, and save us from stopping, from my point of view, at clause 10 because essentially the question is the same. In clause 8(1) the penalty for selling or distributing a prescribed article in an unauthorised way is $5,000. Then, in subclause (3) there is a provision to say that the items can be confiscated or required to be withdrawn and the penalty for a failure to comply is another $5,000.

I just want to confirm that there are in fact two separate offences and that therefore someone who was selling a prescribed article could face an immediate consequence. Under clause 8 an individual could face the immediate consequence of not only having the articles taken but a $5,000 penalty for the sale proposition and a further $5,000 penalty for a failure to remove them in accordance with whatever order is made.

As I said, it is the same question I was going to ask on clause 10, so I will ask it at the same time even though we are not there at the moment. In the case of clause 10—that is the ambush marketing offence—the penalty is 10 times as high. So, effectively, an individual—put aside a corporation for the moment—guilty of the offences there could be subject to $100,000 in penalties.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: There are a couple of points. First of all, the honourable member's observations in relation to clauses 8 and 10 are a similar problem. That is point number one—agreed. Point number two: they are separate offences. So it is theoretically possible that a person having been identified as being in breach of 8 or 10 who is then asked to desist from doing that and then persists anyway could be given a second charge or find themselves guilty of having breached the second provision.

Thirdly, the maximum penalties: yes, they are as described. However, as the honourable member well knows, what the courts hand out—particularly for people who have committed only one offence—and what the maximum penalty might be are two vastly different things. Might I say that potentially the economic benefit to somebody engaging in ambush marketing compared with somebody who is selling a couple of hats is considerably different. I do not think there is any mystery in the fact that the numbers are different.

Clause as amended passed.

Clause 9.

Ms CHAPMAN: I move:

Page 8, lines 6 and 7 [clause9(2)]—Delete subclause (2)

This is again an amendment to maintain the presumption of innocence and oppose the reversal of the onus of proof.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I oppose the amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Mrs REDMOND: I have one question on clause 9, and that is in relation to the 10 per cent rule, so as I read clause 9(1)(b) there is a potential that someone could lawfully onsell tickets to an event for no more than the 10 per cent increase and it is then protected so that you could not subvert that by going to the next seller and the next seller and adding on 10 per cent; there has to be a 10 per cent maximum on the original price. My question is: is that consistent with legislation in other states?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I think the origin of that goes back to Senator Xenophon's private member's bill when he was not Senator Xenophon.

Mrs Redmond: When he was honourable.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: When he was just the Hon. Nick Xenophon. It did strike me as not being an unreasonable proposition. If somebody has bought a ticket and they have had to go to the inconvenience of maybe trying to find a purchaser for the ticket, it is not a business proposition: it is for the individual person who is caught and wants to pass on the ticket. The alternative is the person either must charge exactly what they paid for it or they have to give it away, which is perhaps a bit unreasonable.

Mrs REDMOND: Is it the same as in other states?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: We do not know, but I suspect not. I suspect it is a bit of South Australian innovation.

Clause passed.

Clause 10.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I move:

Page 8, lines 14, 15 and 16 [clause 10(1)]—Delete:

'a marketing activity in relation to a major event to which this section is declared to apply that would, if the person did not have the written approval of the event organiser, constitute ambush marketing' and substitute:

ambush marketing in relation to a major event to which this section is declared to apply

Amendment carried.

Ms CHAPMAN: I move:

Page 8, lines 20 and 21 [clause 10(2)]—Delete subclause (2)

This is to maintain the presumption of innocence and oppose the reversal of onus of proof.

Amendment negatived.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I move:

Page 8, line 21 [clause 10(2)]—After 'had the' insert 'written'

Amendment carried.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I move:

Page 9, line 6 [clause 10(8), definition of authorised person, (c)]—Delete paragraph (c)

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clause 11.

Ms CHAPMAN: I move:

Page 9, lines 23 and 24 [clause 11(3)]—Delete subclause (3)

Again, this is a reversal of onus of proof matter.

Amendment negatived.

Mrs REDMOND: I have a question on clause 11. With the example given by the Attorney earlier, this is the clause that basically stops someone from filming the alternative version of the Christmas Pageant, with significant penalties, of course: $250,000 for a body corporate or $50,000 for a natural person. I am interested though in the effect of subclause (2), which provides:

...does not apply to the use of a personal mobile electronic device to transit or record any sound or image within the limits of what would generally be accepted in the community as normal incidents of social interaction.

I just wonder how that is going to be interpreted, even in terms of what is a personal mobile electronic device. Obviously, nearly everyone has one of these these days, and as technology is moving so quickly it would seem to me that there is a great potential for people to, indeed, create their own copy of the Grand Prix, or whatever it might be, and send it to a third party who then puts it on YouTube, which then sends it around the world.

We have today had an astronaut on the space station doing his version of Starman that has 20 million hits, or whatever it is, already. So, how does the provision of subsection 2 of that clause actually act in practice to prevent the distribution of something which the people who are seeking the protection of this act are going to find acceptable?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I thank the honourable member for her question. As always in these things, the honourable member brings a forensic mind to these questions and comes up with things that are possible yet profoundly unlikely.

The Hon. P.F. Conlon: Who was singing Starman on a space station?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: It was actually Space Oddity and it was a fellow from Canada who was the captain of the international space station. He is coming back today, if you want to meet him, apparently. He is going to be in Kazakhstan somewhere this afternoon.

The Hon. P.F. Conlon: I must catch up with popular culture.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: It was on the radio. Anyway, the point is that when the member for Elder and his family are down at the Christmas Pageant and one of his delightful young daughters is appearing to enjoy the pageant and they want to record for posterity this happy event, we do not want him being prosecuted under this thing if it turns out that there is a declaration over the Christmas Pageant. The purpose of him taking that film is not for him to be able to broadcast it around the world, but so he can have a marvellous home movie on the 21^st birthday that he will be able to make something of a raconteur's event of. That would be right, wouldn't it?

The Hon. P.F. Conlon: Sounds good to me.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: We are trying to somehow separate that out from people who are clearly trying to do commercial things. It could be that the member for Elder would spend the whole of the Christmas Pageant with his iPhone filming his daughters and the pageant simultaneously, but the clear purpose would not have been the pageant as such, I believe. It would be the capturing of family memories, which would then be treasured and not, probably, broadcast around the world. We want to avoid the absurdity of having those sorts of images being the subject of a prosecution.

Mrs REDMOND: I thank the Attorney for that explanation. I understand that that is the intention of it; it just seems that technology, as I said, is moving so fast that the member for Elder may well find that when he sends the video captured on his phone of his delightful daughters at the Christmas Pageant to his mother, she is then so enchanted with it she sends it on to someone else, and before we know it, it is going all around the world because it is so fascinating.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: This is true. Knowing as I do, something of the honourable member's daughters, it could indeed be fascinating, but we can only go so far. What we are trying to do is introduce a bit of common sense here. The sorts of things that are obviously for domestic consumption might wind up in another milieu, but that is something that is a bit hard to regulate and we do not want to become overly burdensome here. We are trying to just draw a simple line between obviously commercial and obviously domestic.

Clause passed.

Clause 12 passed.

Clause 13.

Mrs REDMOND: I move:

Page 10, lines 28 and 29 [clause 13(2)]—Delete subclause (2)

It is simply changing that reversal of the onus of proof.

Amendment negatived; clause passed.

Clause 14.

Mrs REDMOND: I just have one question, if I may, and it relates to the difference between specified titles and official titles, referred to in subclause (1)(b).

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am advised that it means or is intended to convey the idea that the regulation must specify the title and must specify the logo.

Mrs REDMOND: I appreciate that there is a difference between a title and a logo, and paragraph (a) refers to the logos—and, again, there is the same difference—but I am at a bit of a loss to understand what is the difference between a specified logo and an official logo, or a specified title and an official title.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Once it is specified in regulation, it becomes the official logo for the purposes of this provision.

Clause passed.

Clause 15 passed.

Clause 16.

Mrs REDMOND: I am looking at subclause (1) of clause 16. The end of the clause talks about authorising a person to use 'for non-commercial use an official logo or official title in respect of the event'. This is where we come back to the discussion we were having earlier about what is a commercial use and what is a non-commercial use.

When I read that, I understood the intent of that subclause to be that if you were the local kindergarten or CFS or whatever raising funds for a not-for-profit organisation that would be non-commercial, but the minister's answer earlier seemed to indicate that if it was raising money then it was going to be commercial. I wonder if the minister could explain what is the intention of subclause (1) of clause 16.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I think the best way of understanding it is anything for which the official logo is sought to be used where there is no commercial purpose. I cannot imagine an exact example, but it is there anyway. Isn't it nice to know it is there? I cannot imagine when we will use it, but it is lovely to know it is there.

We are back to this problem. The interpretation matter will ultimately be something for a court, if it gets to that point. I really do not consider that many of these things are going to be an issue in reality for all the reasons I have given before, but presumably there are some events or some instances where there might be something which is a non-commercial activity—for example, it is free or giving something away.

Here is an example, but I might be corrected on this; if I am, you will see me turn to my left slightly. Let's say that in connection with one of the events a particular group wants to give away sunscreen, and they want permission to be able to give away sunscreen and use the logo or the title. This would make it possible for that to happen.

Clause passed.

Clause 17 passed.

Clause 18.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I move:

Page 12, after line 11 [Clause 18(1)]—After paragraph (b) insert:

and

(c) make the register available for inspection by members of the public free of charge during ordinary office hours.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clause 19.

Mrs REDMOND: On behalf of the member for Bragg, I move:

Page 12, after line 25—Clause 19—after subclause (1) insert:

(1a) A person may use an official logo or an official title without authorisation under this Division if—

(a) the use is for a public, charitable or other community purpose; and

(b) the use would not suggest to a reasonable person that there is any official sponsorship, approval or affiliation with—

(i) a major event; or

(ii) the event organiser of a major event; or

(iii) any event or activity associated with a major event.

The amendment relates to extending the ability to use logos or official title without authorisation for public, charitable or other community purposes, and is simply consistent with the view we take of the entitlements of charitable organisations.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I think we have really canvassed this quite extensively; I will not add much to it. I understand the concern being expressed by the members for Heysen and Bragg, but I do not believe in reality that the concern they are addressing will be a practical or real issue. It occurs to me that another problem emerges from this.

Just as presently the two honourable members are identifying what they say is the potential for the CWA selling cakes on the side of the Tour Down Under to get pinched, if we make an exception for charitable or beneficial purposes, or whatever the case might be, do we not then risk exactly the same thing in reverse, that we do not just open the door for the CWA for the small cake stand on the side of the tour, but we open it up for the Heart Foundation, Amnesty International, etc.?

We could be bringing in much bigger players on the basis that they will say, 'We come within the provisions of the statute of Elizabeth, or whatever are the guidelines now—we are a charity, we are registered, we have tax exempt status, etc., how can you discriminate against us but say it's all right for the kindergarten to do it?'

I do not think it is an easy solution to the problem being referred to. For that reason I oppose the amendment, but in so doing I am not unsympathetic to the point, but I am very confident that in reality it will not be a problem.

Amendment negatived; clause passed.

Clause 20.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I move:

Page 14, line 6 [clause 20(4), definition of authorised person, (c)]—Delete paragraph (c)

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clause 21.

Ms CHAPMAN: I move:

Page 14—

Lines 13 and 14 [clause 21(2)]—Delete subclause (2)

Line 21 [clause 21(4)]—Delete subclause (4)

These amendments relate to onus of proof matters and reasonable cause, as previously discussed.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I oppose them for reasons previously stated.

Amendments negatived; clause passed.

Clause 22.

Ms CHAPMAN: I move:

Page 14, lines 27 and 28 [clause 21(4)]—Delete subclause (2)

This again relates to onus of proof.

Amendment negatived; clause passed.

Clause 23 passed.

Clause 24.

Ms CHAPMAN: I move:

Page 15, lines 10 and 11 [clause 24(2)]—Delete subclause (2)

Again this is an onus of proof matter.

Amendment negatived; clause passed.

Clause 25 passed.

Clause 26.

Ms CHAPMAN: I move:

Page 16, line 16 [clause 26(4)]—Delete subclause (4)

This is a burden of proof matter in relation to showing reasonable excuse.

Amendment negatived.

Mrs REDMOND: It is a bit of a combination of clauses 25 and 26, but I thought 26 was probably the better place to ask it. Clause 25 gives power to police to evict people who are disorderly, or whatever, from a major event venue, and then the powers of authorised persons are set out in clause 26. With, for instance, the Clipsal, the security staff there has generally been provided (in years gone by) by Weslo. I know this because my children worked for Weslo while they were going through university and they worked at the Clipsal as well as various other functions around the place.

I want to confirm that it looks to me as though only the police are able and authorised to evict a person from the Clipsal, or some other major event, should that be declared under this act. Therefore, the ability of authorised officers to deal with people who may be disruptive, disorderly, or whatever, under those various other things in clause 25, I would be interested to know what the intention is with regard to the Weslo staff or any other security staff in these events.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I thank the honourable member for her question. The answer is that inasmuch as it was possible to design this legislation to achieve this outcome, the outcome was this: that inasmuch as there might be force required to deal with an individual it was contemplated that police only should be using force. The authorised officer is not empowered to use force but a failure to comply with their request becomes an offence. So, there is a difference between what a police officer can do and what an authorised officer can do.

Clause passed.

Remaining clause (27) and title passed.

Bill reported with amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. J.R. RAU (Enfield—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General, Minister for Planning, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for Business Services and Consumers) (17:32): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.

Mr TRELOAR: Mr Speaker, I draw your attention to the state of the house.

A quorum having been formed: