HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Second Parliament, First Session (52-1)
2010-11-23 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

RECREATION GROUNDS (REGULATIONS) (PENALTIES) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 10 November 2010.)

Mr GRIFFITHS (Goyder) (12:19): It is my pleasure to confirm that I will be the lead speaker for the opposition on this bill. I indicate at the start that the opposition will support it. I choose to make some brief comment and will put some things on the record. Like all Australians, I love sport, and I know that many members of this chamber are devoted to it and every opportunity they get they attend events, watch it on television or talk to people about sport. One of the great frustrations though is when silly people choose to interrupt sporting and recreational opportunities by suddenly deciding that their importance is more than the game being played.

I understand that this bill is designed to ensure that there is some level of consistency about the fees and penalties that may be in place across Australia. I think that it is primarily pushed by the Australian Cricket Board to ensure that it is in place before the first test, happening this Thursday, to ensure some protection and a recognition that it will cost silly people who go out there a lot more money than it might otherwise have done.

All of us who watch sport would be aware of crazy events that happen, and there are serial pests who seem to take great delight in invading too many facilities. Those people should be prevented, if at all possible, from even being in the ground. Crazy people who jump out in front of horse races, continue to go on cricket fields or interrupt football matches, deserve to get in every possible trouble.

This bill intends to increase penalties up to a maximum of $5,000. I recognise that flexibility will exist, when considered by the legal system, as to the fine imposed, depending upon the severity of the impact of a person's invasion of a sporting facility, and it is important that this be supported.

Being in my late 40s and a devoted cricketer, I have a vivid recollection of watching Terry Alderman go down after tackling somebody on a cricket field, I think very early in a test series in Australia, after getting something like 41 wickets the previous season in England—he was in magnificent form. To have all of a sudden lost Terry Alderman, one of the great swing bowlers of Australia's sporting history, because of a silly—

Mr Pengilly interjecting:

Mr GRIFFITHS: True, because he could go through them. He had a beautiful outswing ball. He was lost because of the silly action—and I suppose he was involved in it too—of some crazy person in going onto an oval. It really does exemplify that it is important that we do something about this bill, and it is appropriate that the bill comes before the house.

I recognise that the Hon. Terry Stephens, the shadow minister in the other place, has prepared the briefing paper on this and managed to convince his colleagues, at great difficulty, to ensure that we support the bill.

The Hon. Mr Stephens has given me some information, which I might put on the record, to identify the differences in the fines as they apply. In New South Wales a pitch invasion might cost you up to $5,000 maximum penalty; in Victoria entrance to a playing field is $1,000 and match disruption is $6,000; in Queensland conduct on facility land is $8,000, disturbance on facility land is $2,000 and entry to usually utilised facility is $4,000; in Western Australia if you are forcibly entering land that is $6,000 and if you trespass it is $12,000; in the Northern Territory a trespass on premise or on prohibited land is $2,000 for each of those; whereas in Tasmania and the ACT it is in the lower order of about $500 each. I presume that those parliaments will also be considering legislation to increase the fees.

We have had the situation for some time in South Australia where a pitch invasion is prohibited and there is a maximum penalty of $200 in place, and for match disruption the penalty is $200. That is a ridiculously low figure. There would be unscrupulous people out there who would think, 'Two hundred bucks, that's a couple of good nights entertaining some friends. I will go out there, get myself on television and do something really crazy.' We want to try to stop that. We want to make sure, firstly, that the viewing pleasure of all people who are at the ground watching whatever sport it is, be it in the first person or, indeed, on television, is not interrupted by these silly people. We also want to make sure that the sportspersons themselves run no risk of being injured.

The briefing paper supplied by the Hon. Mr Stephens refers to a Pakistani cricket player being tackled by a pitch invader at the WACA in Western Australia last year, and that has prompted the International Cricket Council to ensure that there is some level of consistency across all grounds on invasion penalties.

Time is of the essence here. I am advised that the government has had some knowledge of this for a few weeks. It has brought it into the chamber now. We want to make sure that it is supported and we want to make sure that all of these facilities get the level of protection that they need.

I take this opportunity to read into the record some of the facilities where these penalties—once passed by both houses—will apply: Adelaide Oval, the Barossa Recreation Grounds (Curdnatta Recreation Ground, Lyndoch Recreation Ground and Williamstown Queen Victoria Jubilee Recreation Ground), Elizabeth Oval, Football Park (commonly called AAMI Stadium), Glenelg Oval, Hindmarsh Stadium, Mortlock Park (which is in the city of Mitcham), Noarlunga Downs Oval (which is used by the South Adelaide Football Club), Norwood Oval, the Port Adelaide/Enfield Recreation Grounds (including Alberton Oval, Eastern Parade Reserve, John Hart Reserve and Largs Reserve), Prospect Oval, Richmond Oval, Thebarton Oval and Unley Oval. There are quite a few facilities at Whyalla. There is the Bennett Oval, Centrals Oval, Croatia Soccer Ground, Bradford Street Reserve, the Club Italico Soccer Grounds, Dakalanta Park, Jenkins Park, Jubilee Park, Memorial Oval, the Northern Areas Soccer Association, Schultz Reserve, Stuart Park, Swandel Park and the Whyalla Men's Hockey Association Grounds. The member for Giles has been very active in ensuring that her communities are covered.

The list also includes the Woodville Recreation Ground, which includes the Woodville Oval and the Woodville West Reserve. Some new listings are proposed, too: the Adelaide Super-Drome; the Eagle Mountain Bike Park; the ETSA Park Netball Stadium; the South Australian Sports Institute; Heini Becker Park; the Monarto Shooting Complex; the Pines Hockey Stadium; the Athletics Stadium; the State Shooting Park; and the Women's Memorial Playing Fields.

These recreation grounds really do identify to me that a variety of sports will now be protected to a greater degree. It is important that we deliver the message. I think that sporting facility users will understand the importance of this because all they want to see is a great sporting event: they do not want to see silly people invade pitches making it difficult for their sport to be played or, indeed, sports people to be injured in any way.

I do not believe that there will be a need to go into committee, minister. Other members do wish to make a contribution. Indeed, it might be a suggestion that fees should be increased even more than the $5,000 maximum penalty. We do recognise that the legal profession does have the flexibility to ensure that an appropriate fee is put in place up to that $5,000 limit. However, we look forward to the bill's swift passage; and, more importantly, we look forward to not seeing silly people trying to invade sporting facilities in the coming season or, indeed, in the future years.

Mr SIBBONS (Mitchell) (12:26): I rise to speak on this bill, and I indicate that I am supportive of it. This is an important bill for a number of reasons. Field-of-play invasions by spectators during major sporting events are very dangerous, disruptive and can even influence the outcome of those events. They are also damaging to Australia's and South Australia's reputation in the eyes of international viewing audiences.

We have an obligation to ensure the safety of all participants and the public, and it is idiots and the minority of people who put the public and the players at risk. I notice that most media coverage following the Minister for Recreation, Sport and Racing's introduction of this bill focussed on people taking off their clothes and streaking onto the field.

It is true that this bill does deal with that issue; however, it is actually broader, targeting antisocial intrusions onto the field, whether clothed or otherwise. Whilst many of us have, perhaps, seen the humour in the odd streaker running onto the ground during a cricket or footy match, in this day and age it is simply not acceptable to allow this to occur, and there is a much more serious side that must be considered.

The member for Goyder briefly mentioned in his contribution an incident during a one day international match between Australia and Pakistan at the WACA in Perth last year. That highlighted how easily a so-called funny prank can become a dangerous situation with broad international ramifications. On this occasion, fieldsman Khalid Latif was fielding when a drunk spectator charged onto the oval, tackling him to the ground.

The fully-clothed intruder was a 37-year-old male on a dare from a mate. Fortunately, Latif did not sustain any serious injury. However, this was merely due to good luck, and it is just not acceptable relying on luck when ensuring the safety and welfare of sportsmen who, after all, are putting on a performance for the benefit of all spectators at the ground. After the match, interestingly enough, the Australian captain, Ricky Ponting, stated that he would have led a walk-off had one of his players been tackled in this manner, and members only have to look back at another incident in Perth in 1982 to understand why.

This infamous incident during an Ashes test between Australia and England saw Australian seam bowler Terry Alderman seriously injure his shoulder after attempting to obstruct a pitch invader. So serious was the resulting injury that Alderman was forced to miss a year of cricket which, consequently, had enormous ramifications to the Australian team. Some members may also remember a more recent incident involving Australian all-rounder Andrew Symonds crash tackling a male streaker at the Gabba in 2008.

I could stand here for hours going through the incidents from around the world, and by no means are they limited to cricket; there have been numerous occurrences in a variety of sports interstate and overseas. It is important that we seek to ensure similar incidents do not occur at any of our venues. South Australia has a great sporting culture and a relatively low level of ground invasion incidents. However, we are by no means immune and cannot afford to be complacent, given our reputation as an events state. This hard-won reputation relies upon creating public environments that are safe and family friendly.

This summer, South Australia will host a series of sporting events, including the second Ashes Test, the state's first international Twenty20, and a number of domestic Twenty20 matches (which were exceptionally well attended last year), all at the Adelaide Oval. Based on Adelaide United's great performances so far this year under new coach Rini Coolen, we are hoping that we may see and host an A-League soccer final or two.

By enabling harsher penalties to be handed down, we will force members of the crowd to think twice before attempting to enter the field of play. Evidence from the Eastern States shows that the incidence of pitch invasions has fallen since fines were increased. One needs only to compare the maximum fines interstate to the current levels here to see that this amendment is needed. It has been reported that the $200 fine currently in place in South Australia is often covered by a few mates chipping in some money. Clearly, this is not a sufficient fine to act as a severe deterrent. The bill will raise the maximum penalty to $5,000, bringing South Australia into line with other mainland states.

With thousands of English tourists expected to follow their cricket side around the country this summer, it is very important that these increased fines are in place before the forthcoming Ashes Test, starting on 2 December, to ensure a level of continuity throughout the series and to avoid Adelaide Oval being seen as an easy target for would-be ground invaders, whether they be English or Australian. SACA and Cricket Australia are both very supportive of these harsher penalties. It should also be noted that the International Cricket Council has the ability to strip venues of their international status if they believe sufficient measures are not in place to ensure safety.

This bill is just one part of the approach to managing poor crowd behaviour, coinciding with SACA reviewing its security procedures for the upcoming international cricket season. As with every international cricket match at Adelaide Oval, there will be a strong police presence. It should also be noted that other major venues, such as Hindmarsh Stadium and AAMI Stadium, review and will continue to review their security procedures and conditions of entry to manage crowd behaviour.

As a government, we are intent on protecting the interests of South Australian sports fans and ensuring that top-quality sporting events continue to be held in this safe state. Antisocial behaviour at our sporting venues on any level must be discouraged. We want people and their families to be able to watch football, cricket and soccer matches in an enjoyable, safe environment. I am therefore pleased to commend this bill to the house.

Mr BIGNELL (Mawson) (12:34): I also rise to support this bill. I must admit, when I first heard about it, the larrikin in me thought, 'There go the days of being able to go out and streak and come back and get $500 in betting money off your mates, then paying $200 to the police and putting $300 in your pocket.' However, in the interests of safety—

An honourable member: And decency!

Mr BIGNELL: —and decency, I do, in fact, support this bill. We need to move this way in the interests of the safety of not only the people who are there to enjoy the sporting spectacle but also those people out on the ground. Having been to the MCG a few times, even since they have had these big fines, I have still seen people invade the pitches and streak. People may have had too much to drink or whatever and reached the state where they take off their clothes and run across the ground in front of 50,000 or 100,000 people.

One of the things that is a little bit upsetting is that, when they are caught, sometimes the security staff are fairly heavy-handed with them in the way they wrench up their arms, jump on them and put in the fists and the knees. I do not think that is always necessary. Obviously, people need to be restrained and then covered up and taken to a place where they can be dealt with and face the justice that needs to be meted out to them.

Another thing that has been very bad for Australian sport, particularly soccer, is the use of flares, and soccer has done a very good job of trying to stop this over the years. We see a lot of it overseas as it crept into mainly soccer but some other sports, as well. Flares are quite dangerous for spectators who are around them, when they are being lit up, and also for the players, when they are thrown onto the pitches. Any moves to stamp out the use of flares is very welcome, and I know the sporting bodies around Australia support us in taking these increased measures.

In August, I was in Argentina. When I travel I like to go to sporting events because it gives a great insight into the culture of a place. I went on a bus, organised by the hotel, with some other people from other countries (mainly English-speaking people), and when we were going to the ground we were told that we would get off about 500 metres before, and we were also told, 'Don't look at anyone, don't talk to anyone, just get in.' We were barracking for the home team (River Plate), and we went into an area that was designated just for River Plate supporters. There was then a fenced off area for the Tigris fans.

After the game, which River Plate won (1-0, with a late goal) the Tigris fans were released from the stadium and given half an hour to leave. We had to stand in the stadium and wait until they had all been given time to clear out. I asked why and was told that they had a riot a few years ago where nearly 30 people were killed. So, they have a position now where they segregate crowds. In Italy, a few years ago, I went to see Roma versus Chelsea where a similar thing happened: there were riot police everywhere because of huge punch-ups, stabbings and fights around the ground. Thankfully, in Australia, we do not have that, but we do need to look at overseas examples of worse-case scenarios and bring in legislation that will deter people from acting in antisocial ways when they go to sporting events.

Sport is a great release for people who play and it is also a great release for those who want to enjoy a day at the footy or the cricket. I think we should all be very proud of the first stage of the upgraded Adelaide Oval. I was there the week before last for the England versus South Australia game, and it is a credit to all the people who are behind the design of the new facilities. It is an outstanding addition to Adelaide Oval while retaining much of the heritage the ground is famous for around the world. It is recognised as one of the most picturesque and beautiful grounds in international cricket.

I look forward to the further redevelopment of the Adelaide Oval and also to being able to come into town on a train or tram and head down to watch not only cricket but also football. I think it will really boost our credibility and our standing as not only a sporting city but as a city in general when, rather than make the trip all the way down to West Lakes to watch football in a stadium that is well past its use-by date, people can go to Adelaide Oval.

It is going to be terrific not only for the people of Adelaide and rural South Australia, who can come into the centre of town, but also for visitors to this state. Hopefully, we will see an increase in Richmond, Carlton, West Coast and Sydney supporters who want to come over here to experience not only seeing their football teams play against the likes of Port Adelaide and the Crows but also one of the great stadiums in Australia. I support this bill.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS (Davenport) (12:39): I rise to support the bill in part but want to make the observation that the bill does not go far enough. The opposition supports this bill, but the reality is that I personally do not accept the government's reasons for bringing it in and trying to get it through both houses this week. If you believe the government, it is because we have the Ashes Test starting in Adelaide in a fortnight's time. Of course, during the eight years of this government we have had eight Ashes Tests and there was no urgency to bring any change to the legislation over that time. It is obvious that the minister has been asked by SACA at some stage to upgrade the penalty and the minister has decided to do it and try to get it through both houses of parliament this week. The reality is that, had the minister been on his game, this could have been done at any time over the last eight years.

The reason I am not in love with all of the bill is that I think the $5,000 penalty is a nonsense. I think it is too small for the injury and impact on an event. This is primarily targeted at the professional level of sport and this is someone's workplace. All of us can give examples—whether it is Bruce Doull tackling the streaker in the AFL grand final—

Mr Griffiths: Helen D'Amico.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Helen D'Amico, the member for Goyder tells me. I will not say what Bruce Doull's comment was but he made an observation about the quality of the streaker. There was the Terry Alderman incident where he injured his shoulder and it cost him many test matches in recovery. This is someone's professional workplace and we are saying that for $5,000 you can go and disrupt someone's workplace. It is a nonsense.

In my view, the bill has not contemplated the issue of commercial gain by a company or individual from streaking. If I was a marketing person, for a $5,000 penalty, I could whack on the right T-shirt and interrupt the last ball of a close test match. Terry Alderman is batting on Adelaide Oval facing the West Indies. All of Adelaide is there. Members might remember we lost by a run.

Mr Bignell: McDermott.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: The member is right. It was McDermott—and given out caught off the glove was an outrageous decision, we all know. But the reality is that some smart marketer can use these sports arenas as a product launch, and a $5,000 penalty is a nonsense. There is nothing in here that deals with any commercial gain by an individual or company that seeks to use these events for some form of commercial gain. So, I do not think the bill goes anywhere near far enough. For that reason, I encourage the government to put this through but go back and review other regulations around the world. I think it will find that there are other models that deal with this issue.

The other problem I have with this bill is that it does not, to my quick reading of it, deal with events as distinct from matches. Why should the Amy Gillett ride be able to be interrupted by an idiot? Why should the Tour Down Under be able to be interrupted by an idiot? Why should the City-Bay presentations be able to be interrupted by an idiot? Indeed, why should the Christmas Pageant be able to be interrupted by an idiot? There are other events that are special to South Australia that are not test matches, AFL or SANFL football games that are special to South Australia and deserve the same protection. I do not think the minister's bill has contemplated broadly enough the application of this particular principle to other special events in South Australia.

If the public wants any evidence that this bill is trying to deal with idiots, it is pleasing to see that the minister has dealt with the concept of people streaking through shooting ranges. You have actually got the state shooting park in here, minister; it is good to see. It is an interesting mental picture that one gets of having to protect someone or fine someone for having the courage to run through a shooting range. It is an interesting thing to contemplate by way of legislation, but you have done it, and I think it is an interesting thing to observe.

The shadow minister handling the bill suggests that we are not going into committee. I would like the minister to confirm that the department has consulted with every local council that has a ground on this particular list. I raise that because the Women's Memorial Playing Fields is in the electorate of Davenport. I have certainly not been consulted. I am not sure whether the Mitcham council has been consulted. I want the minister to confirm that every council that has a ground listed on here has signed off that it approves it.

I want the minister to explain how it is going to work on the Women's Memorial Playing Fields. According to the document given to me by the shadow minister, the whole of the ground in the Women's Memorial Playing Fields is now going to be covered by this legislation. The whole of the Women's Memorial Playing Fields, of course, has at least has two ovals, a lacrosse pitch and tennis courts. They are all within the gambit, all controlled by the South Australian Cricket Association lease. So, if the South Australia Cricket Association has authorised an event on one of the ovals, what happens about the other ovals? The way the bill is drafted the regulation covers the whole of the ground, not just the ground where the event is taking place.

There is I think the potential at least for someone to inadvertently get caught. They do not have to be streaking; they just have to enter. So, someone could be fully clothed and enter. The other issue that concerns me is that it is so broad that the match does not even have to be taking place; it could be a Thursday night practice. The South Australian women's cricket team could be practising at one end of an oval, and if you go across the other end technically you have breached their event. I am not sure whether that is the intent.

With those few comments, the opposition is supporting the bill. I would like to see the legislation go both heavier in penalty and far broader in its application to events. I think to get up to a $5,000 fine—it is up to the judge's discretion; the maximum is $5,000, so you can bet your bottom dollar that it is going to be in the $1,000 to $2,000 mark—to interrupt someone's workplace I think is a pathetic penalty and really does not send a strong enough message, in my view. So, I would like to see the penalty increased.

I would certainly like to see it broader and apply to other events in South Australia to prevent damage. An idiot running onto the Tour Down Under course and knocking Lance Armstrong or Cadel Evans off their bikes will do us so much damage internationally that a $5,000 fine is chicken feed, really. So, I think there needs to be far tougher penalties and a far broader application of the principle.

Ms SANDERSON (Adelaide) (12:49): I rise today to mention a few thoughts on this bill and also how the bill will seek to encourage positive spectator behaviour at sporting grounds, including our beautiful Adelaide Oval. Truth be told, any opportunity to talk about the Adelaide Oval will be taken. This is a beautiful oval that is potentially looking at being destroyed, a place of heritage and history. I condemn the government for its failure to consult the community in relation to this ever-increasing debt that is the Adelaide Oval redevelopment. However, I digress.

I support this bill as, aside from compelling people through pecuniary measures to be more respectful of our sporting facilities, it will also promote spectators to be more respectful of our sports people. Whether you are at the grounds or watching from home, it is easy to become complacent and to forget that for our athletes the cricket ground or football oval is their place of work and that each of us has a right to feel safe and secure in our workplace, free of harassment and antisocial behaviour. We do not tolerate such behaviour in the more traditional workplaces, and nor should it be tolerated on our sporting grounds.

Whilst the increase in statutory penalties will not necessarily cease all forms of antisocial behaviour, as it is impossible for legislation to stop an individual's free will, I am confident that the increase in statutory penalties from a maximum of $200 to $5,000 to bring us into line with other states will strongly discourage such behaviour occurring.

I concur with the member for Davenport that many other events should be protected, such as the Tour Down Under and the Christmas Pageant, and I also agree that interruptions for commercial gain should be addressed and should require far higher penalties. Otherwise, I commend this bill to the house.

The Hon. M.J. WRIGHT (Lee—Minister for Police, Minister for Emergency Services, Minister for Recreation, Sport and Racing) (12:50): I thank the opposition for its support of the bill and also acknowledge all of the speakers on both sides of the houses. It is a fairly simple piece of legislation. It is increasing the penalties for antisocial behaviour from $200 to $5,000. It will principally apply to the Adelaide Oval, Hindmarsh and also to AAMI, but also to other suburban league grounds. These venues are covered in regulations. We are also increasing the expiation notices from $200 to $315.

This was brought to my attention initially by, I think, the SACA and then by the Australian Cricket Board. They drew to my attention that the penalties we have are way less than those that exist in other jurisdictions around Australia. The member for Davenport made a couple of points, one of them being that the penalty is not high enough. Well, maybe it is not, but it is pretty close to the mark of what applies in other jurisdictions. To the best of my memory, Western Australia is about $6,500. Let's see how this works.

It was impressed upon me that they would like this in before the Adelaide Oval test match. At the meeting I had with the ACB a few weeks ago, the point was made to me that the board's concern was that, if we did have a streaker or someone invading the test pitch, with our penalties at $200 and so much out of kilter with other jurisdictions around Australia, that would look bad in itself, and there could be penalties applied by international bodies. So, obviously, we needed to act upon that advice. We have not consulted with all of the local councils.

This is a pretty simple and straightforward bill. Should it apply to other events? Yes, it should, and we are looking at coming back next year with a different piece of legislation which has broadly been termed 'ambush marketing'. That might not be its term when it comes into the house, but we are very much looking at things like the Tour Down Under and other special events. So, that is also within the government's radar.

However, what is important right here and now is that we get this legislation through and that we bring our penalties up to scratch with other states around Australia. I very much appreciate the support of the opposition. I acknowledge the Hon. Terry Stephens in another place. When I first talked to him about this a few weeks ago, obviously, he could not give me a blank cheque, but he appreciated the importance of it and said he would do all he could. Obviously, he needed to see the bill, and so forth. So, to get this through before the Adelaide Oval test match would be a good result.

Bill read a second time and taken through its remaining stages.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT