HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Second Parliament, Second Session (52-2)
2013-05-14 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

MAJOR EVENTS BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 21 March 2013.)

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (11:04): I rise to speak on the Major Events Bill 2013 and indicate that the Liberal Party will be supporting the bill with some amendments. To the best of my knowledge, they were tabled on the last occasion we were in parliament, and I have received the Deputy Premier's two sets of amendments. I will consider some of those extra ones when I have had an opportunity to view them. I also indicate that I am the lead speaker on this bill for the opposition.

This bill comes to us as a result of the government determining that there is a need to declare an event to be a major event in support of major activity that supports our tourism industry and, of course, the social fabric of our state. This comes about as a result of the need to control people, products and promotions related to events or designated event areas, including air space. It is a common phenomenon now that, instead of having just small concerts or events in one small venue, whole precincts may be absorbed with major activity.

This is not unique. We have had major events for many years. I am sure you, Mr Speaker, would be aware of the most populous and most attended event every year in our South Australian calendar, namely the Royal Adelaide Show, which brings together people from all over the state, and indeed entries and visitors from other states, who attend this event over a week-long period. It has by far the biggest attendance of any single activity in our state. I notice that event did not get any attention in the government's contribution to this bill, and to the best of my knowledge I do not think the Royal Show society has even been consulted about this bill, but I will come back to that in a moment. I make the point that it is not unique that we have major events.

Through the history of our state we can think of other events that have been one-off events. For example, when Sir Sidney Kidman had his 30th birthday, he brought his horses to Adelaide and the Parklands were alive with a gymkhana event that was free for all South Australians to attend. It was a major event. As I understand it, there were over 100,000 people there. I thought at that stage we did not even have 100,000 people in South Australia, but history tells us that this was a very big event. In fact, all the constabulary of South Australia were in attendance to assist in the crowd management of such a major event for Sir Sidney Kidman.

We are told that what has happened in more recent times is that there are opportunities for sponsorship, which would be well known to members, to support the establishment and running of these events, but with that has been a growth of ambush marketing by others, namely, those who wish to cash in on the event by using the good investment and the resources of the sponsors—sometimes government entities, private organisations or charities—for their own benefit. There has also been ticket scalping, which of course has been well known particularly around football events, I think, when people want tickets for major sporting finals in the football arena, and so on.

Individually, these are not new but there is a claim that the good paying supporters and particularly the sponsors of these events are increasingly under attack by having to share their legitimate entitlements to profit or proceeds with someone else who is cashing in on the whole deal. This can also be detrimental to the sponsors et al., when there are unauthorised event associations and unauthorised broadcasting, so that, again, the publicity of a competitor and the benefit that they receive is able to be received by the person who is cashing in on the deal. I suppose there is another area that I think has not been covered by this bill and that is being able to monitor or control the distribution of information on people's phones and social media contacts.

As best as I can see, this does not outlaw somebody having a piece of material identifying a certain product, being photographed on the grounds and it then being emailed to somewhere else via an electronic transfer operated by someone who is at the event showing the description of this product, which might be displayed on a T-shirt or the like, so that someone who is attending the event is able to get the benefit of that with a background of the event.

There are a number of aspects that probably have not been considered, but we are advised that we need to hastily deal with this bill, because the Attorney-General has advised us that the 2015 Cricket World Cup, and in particular its sponsorship, may be at risk if we do not pass such legislation. Essentially, this is on the basis that there are certain sponsors who say, 'We're prepared to sponsor the 2015 Cricket World Cup. We would like South Australia to host that.' I think everyone in the house would be very pleased if that occurs, but the sponsors who are lining up to support it are allegedly presenting that, unless this legislation is in place at least 12 months prior to the event, their commitment to the sponsorship is at risk in some way.

I have not received any submission to that effect, but the Attorney-General has made that claim and, on that basis, he has asked that this matter be promptly dealt with. Similar legislation has also been passed in a number of other jurisdictions and of course we in the opposition take that into account. The claim by the Attorney-General is that there are a number of other bodies that require protection under the infringement of certain activities associated with the event. Apart from the International Cricket Council and the Commonwealth Games Association, it is claimed that it also applies to the International Rugby Board and the International Olympic Committee and FIFA.

The provisions of the bill do not provide us with any clarity as to how this will help tourism operators and/or regional tourism operators to increase the benefits of major events in South Australia. It is all designed to protect major event sponsors. The other aspect that is concerning—because we think it has produced some aspects that are unsatisfactory about this bill—is that there has been no requirement, if this bill is passed, to even consult with local communities before declaring a major event area. Obviously this relates to closure of roads, regulation of parking, the standing of vehicles, regulation of other public spaces, etc.

So, naturally, we in the opposition have been concerned, and this has been exacerbated by some entities, including local councils, who have contacted members of the opposition expressing their outrage, across to deep concern, across to inquiry, as to how certain aspects will operate, because really, to date, they have been out of the picture. Even under the declaration process that will be introduced by this bill, for the declaration of an event to be a major event, the detail has not been forthcoming.

Certain offences will be created for prohibited conduct. Firstly, there is to be a fine of $50,000 for a person or $250,000 for a body corporate for ambush marketing. I do not need to dwell on what that is; I think members are familiar with that practice. There is to be a fine of $5,000 for a person or $25,000 for a body corporate for the distribution and sale of non-approved goods and a fine of $5,000 for a person or $25,000 for a body corporate for ticket scalping.

Typical of the government's push in this regard, these offences will remove the presumption of innocence and put the onus of proof on the accused to show they had a reasonable excuse. I was reminded of how important this issue of change of presumption or burden of proof is when I saw a member of our very parliament on television last night pleading for consideration of the charges against him and the importance that he be entitled to the presumption of innocence until being proven guilty in the matters that have been brought against him. Nevertheless, it seems to be the wont of this government for everyone else to have the burden to prove they are not guilty, as distinct from the obligation for the prosecutor to prove the reverse.

The ambush marketing provisions and the use of logos and official titles obviously are to be restrictive. That is the whole nature of the structure that is proposed under this bill. The opposition is concerned that this could potentially penalise private property owners and small tourism operators seeking to leverage off some of the major events, such as the Tour Down Under. We all know that that is a successful cyclist event with international attention and recognition. It was a brilliant initiative of the former Liberal government and I am pleased to say that the Labor government in this state has continued it.

What is interesting here—and concern has been raised by small regional tour operators—is that bed and breakfast or mum and dad type small businesses may be prohibited from using logos or titles unless the minister has issued an authorisation for them to do so. Let's just take the example of someone, say at Clare, who has a part of the Tour Down Under event going through the Clare Valley—a beautiful part of South Australia on display—and they were to announce in their local community that they were going to have a Tour Down Under breakfast and the proceeds were to go to the local netball club, for example, but they were using this material. Is it going to be necessary for them to have to apply for an exemption for the purposes of being able to have authorisation for their little event just because the principal event providers were successful in their application for it to be declared a major event? The consequences may capture the smaller, well-intentioned projects around the state.

Private property owners who set up a Tour Down Under barbecue along the road of a stage of the Tour Down Under event. Again, let's use the Clare example. Somebody sets up a little get together at the end of their driveway on their property, everyone comes along and buys sausages, or contributes to the cost of it—whether that goes into the landowner's payment of the sausages or whether it goes to the local netball club—these people could be facing a penalty, remembering that for an individual person without authorisation it is up to a $50,000 fine. I declare that I am a member of the Country Women's Association and I had one of their sausages this year outside the Clipsal event. I am not much into car racing, I might add.

Ms Bedford: Multigrain bread?

Ms CHAPMAN: Offered a choice. The member interjects: 'Multigrain bread?' They very wisely offered a choice. Personally, I am not a big car racing person, but it is a magnificent event for South Australia, I accept that, many people attend it and sponsors genuinely put their funds in with the expectation that they are going to have some exclusivity in the benefit, profit or proceeds from it. So, there is the Country Women's Association, on the border of the area (they would be within the precinct of the event), they set up their barbecue facility and they sell sausages and provide a range of breads and I think even some healthy salads, from memory, although I did not have time to sample those, and some cakes and the like.

They were clearly setting up to take advantage of those who were attending this event and attracting some leverage off the event to ensure that they raised their money. Their property, I might say, immediately abuts the event precinct. They have a facility there as their headquarters in South Australia. They provide accommodation for country people to come for medical treatment and all sorts of things. Nobody, I think, would dispute that this is an organisation diligent in going about its business, taking the opportunity to share in the benefit to South Australia of one of these major events, and why shouldn't they? Why should they have to go through a process to have some exemption for the purposes of this legislation?

So, legitimate, reasonable leverage for those who are in the charitable area needs some consideration. Unlike, I might say, an event that has occurred in this state which I think, with the passage of this bill, would attract a prosecution, and quite rightly so. I speak of none other than the former premier Mike Rann. The Attorney-General may understand that legislation of this nature would have clearly brought into the spotlight the act of the former premier of this state, who gave money to Lance Armstrong to come to South Australia to be an attraction in the event. He paid taxpayers' money into that and welcomed his Livestrong charity with it.

I am sure it is an admirable charity in itself, raising funds for research into the identification and treatment of cancer. It is a very worthy cause, but Livestrong came into South Australia as a charity which the former premier championed during several Tour Down Under events, and yet the Tour Down Under event organisers had granted an exclusive charitable sponsorship to the Cancer Council of South Australia. They were to have an exclusive contract to be the charity for the Tour Down Under. What did the premier do? The premier brings in his mate Lance Armstrong with the Livestrong charity. And what does that do to South Australia's exclusive contract?

It undermines the funds that went into that contract over a nearly three year period. Money was encouraged by the Premier of this state to be invested into a worthy cause but in direct contradiction of what the Cancer Council here in South Australia had paid for: to have the exclusive charitable rights of sponsorship to the Tour Down Under. So, be careful what you wish for. I only hope, for the benefit of the former premier, that this legislation will not be retrospective, or an extradition application might be issued in London.

Mind you, I would still like to know how much money he paid Lance Armstrong; so would most of the taxpayers of South Australia. However, I make the point here: understand that this type of legislation has to be something that will be applicable to everybody. We are not going to have premiers swan into this place or make announcements around the country, saying that this is what they are going to do, this is going to be their little pet project, this is the privilege or benefit they are going to give to their favoured person, without expecting there to be consequences.

If the Attorney-General has his way, with the support of the opposition, with amendments, then this legislation will come into effect and Mike Rann might be a little more careful in what other role he might have in the future, if he comes back to South Australia, tail between his legs and facing prosecution, because this is the consequence. One of the things that I think will be important here is that the government needs to reassure the people of South Australia that, while they are squashing out the little people; while they are putting an onerous burden of process on those who are having a little barbecue or having a little fundraiser for their local netball club or supporting an agency such as the CWA, they are also going to have to act responsibly.

There will be no excuse for members of the government to be out there plugging their little cause off the back of an event and not be responsible and not be able to have some benefit. Let me be bipartisan in this, and let me identify an event which is commonly utilised for other benefits and purposes. I did not see the Attorney-General out on Sunday morning—it was Mother's Day and perhaps he was at home making sure that his partner or his mother was getting some reward for putting up with him, one way or another, over the years—but the Premier and the Leader of the Opposition both ran to support the cause on Pink Ribbon Day, for breast cancer.

I was there, and it was a great event. It is something I have supported for many years and I am sure that other members of the house, particularly the women, are also very supportive of this event. The first group I ran into was a whole lot of pink t-shirts with a federal member's name written across them, presumably promoting support for that member in the forthcoming federal election. The Premier and the Leader of the Opposition are, doubtless, committed to the cause—there is no reflection on that—but were also displaying apparel which, presumably, is designed to promote support for each of them.

Are they going to be caught under this legislation if the run and walk for breast cancer—which is now a huge event; thousands of people participate in this, from 7 o'clock in the morning until about 11 o'clock, and in the rain last Sunday—is declared a major event? If this is declared a major event, will people who are trying to promote themselves, whether it is for some political benefit, attraction of votes or support of a product, also be excluded unless they are a financial donor and identified sponsor?

Here is the real key to something like that. Will the government say, 'Well, we are making a contribution to a particular major event', or the state government or the Health Department say, 'Breast cancer is an important research area and we are happy to rattle the can, to kick in to support this as a sponsor, and we'll be recognised on the promotional material, etc.'? Will that give a licence for the Premier to go out there and promote himself as a product which he is attracting votes and support for at the March 2014 election?

Will he then be excluded from being able to promote himself in a circumstance where there is some benefit being sought under the guise of the state government, of which, of course, he is a member? Is he able to provide himself some immunity from any prosecution because he is able to say, 'I'm a part of the government which is an authorised sponsor of this event? We want some very clear understanding on this side of the house about how that is going to work.

I just want to touch on the crowd management aspect, because this is a proposal under 7(2)(g) which is to, 'prohibit disorderly or offensive behaviour', or under clause 7(2)(i) to 'prohibit or regulate any other conduct for the purposes of maintaining good order'.

In relation to the question of whether these offences are too open-ended in terms of both the offence and the enforcement powers, the government, of course, already has access (enforced enhancement powers) under the public safety order provisions of Part 4 of the Serious and Organised Crime (Control) Act 2008 and also has 'special powers to prevent serious violence' in sections 72A to 72C of the Summary Offences Act 1953.

The development of that legislation has had the scrutiny, obviously, of the legal stakeholders and the like, and remember that this is a proposal to introduce offences which arguably are not necessary but are broader and which provide some changes in respect of the burden of proof.

The penalties of up to $1,250 can be prescribed by regulation under clause 7. The fines imposed under the regulations could be for relatively minor breaches of regulation, like bringing food into an event where that is banned. These penalties go further than the current conditions of entry imposed by event organisers by allowing a fine to be levied.

Without this legislation, members would be aware, there are a number of events where you are not allowed to go in and take your own picnic basket and other produce to eat. Presumably, if you have your handbag, you could have a few Vita-Weat biscuits in it, I suppose, but in reality there are some public events such as football matches where you cannot take your own alcohol. There are a number of restrictions in relation to the food and beverages that are permitted to come in.

Some of this is to protect against the likelihood of unruly behaviour (for example, with alcohol, no doubt); some of it is to ensure that there is a monitoring of the sale and imbibing of alcohol; and some of it is to protect the operators within the event against people not accessing and buying their product. I do not doubt that Coca-Cola or the person who makes the hamburgers at a particular event want to ensure only their product can be acquired for the purposes of consumption during the course of the event—it might be for a day or an evening or over a period of time.

They have often paid a very significant fee to have access to a booth, tent or pop-up, or whatever the nature of the venue is. They pay a fee or a licence and they want some exclusivity of access to the crowd to sell them their product rather than have somebody else taking advantage of it. What they do not want, having paid that fee, is for someone to come down outside the event, set up a pop-up venue and sell Mexican tortillas instead of selling them the sandwiches, pies, pasties or hamburgers that are available in the event.

We all understand that, but we do note that quite significant fines will be imposed, as distinct from conditions of entry whereby someone is advised as they enter the premises that they are not to bring into the property any products for sale, any food, etc. It is a change of format, but it comes with some hefty fines, and so we want to make sure that it has been properly assessed.

The exclusion of local government in any serious consultation on this issue is one of the most concerning issues because, as we know, whatever the event, whether it is a major event like the Clipsal or the Tour Down Under, local councils have an investment and a necessary and important role, from public access to their own obligations to ensuring that their jurisdiction is properly maintained.

The protection of trees, wildlife, management of roads, accessibility via them, etc., are all matters which, of course, are important and in the daily consumption of the diet of responsibility of councils. What is concerning to us is that the minister need only consult with the event organiser before determining whether a person or body corporate can use the official logo or official title for non-commercial purposes.

The government has only consulted local government through the Local Government Association and not the councils directly. We have had some indication, through feedback from the LGA, that they are seeking now to have some further consultation with their councils—not surprisingly, given the correspondence that is coming in from councils and people who have a legitimate role in the management of events and who, largely I think, have been carrying out that role very responsibly.

The Attorney-General might think that he is clever or cute or being efficient. To just cut these people out as though they do not exist and to treat them so dismissively is reprehensible in itself but, nevertheless, councils are getting used to that, especially Mount Barker. I will go back to the Adelaide Hills Council, which moved a motion on the 9 April directing their chief executive officer to write to the Attorney-General to express concern about (a) the negative impact on council's decision-making ability, (b) the negative impact on their local community, (c) the lack of consultation with the council and community, and (d) the negative impact on council's finances and infrastructure for the hosting of such events.

I do not understand this government—they preach and pat themselves on the back for this alleged consultation, and I saw a lovely little booklet the other day which was written about consultation processes. It features a letter at the beginning from the Premier. It features a little story and picture of all the heads of significant departments in South Australia and their commitment to ensuring that consultation is embedded in the DNA of their departments; I paraphrase, but that is the thrust of it.

It is a booklet of about 10 or 15 pages, and apparently it has gone around to all the departments. It talks about themes of consultation, including bringing people in at the start, whether it is planning, whether it is a new piece of legislation or whether it is something where there is an overlap of jurisdiction in their operation, and, 'Bring the people with you,' is the theme of it. It all sounds beautiful, but do we see it demonstrated? No, we do not. The Attorney-General, I suggest, is the worst offender—even worse than you, Mr Speaker, when you were the attorney-general. He really takes the cake. I do not think I ever called for you to come back, but—

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Point of order.

The SPEAKER: Is this a point of order to defend my honour?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: It is indeed, Mr Speaker. I think the way that the honourable member is comparing you, Mr Speaker, to me is terrible.

The SPEAKER: Member for Bragg.

Ms CHAPMAN: Time heals. I cannot often remember expressing my gratitude or appreciation, Mr Speaker, when you were the attorney-general of South Australia. In fact, I am struggling right at the moment to think of even one occasion when I might have done that, but I am sure I did. I thought your attempt to give a second reading speech entirely in Latin was quite admirable, when your government had decided—apparently overriding you—that they needed to get rid of the unnecessary and flamboyant and put plain English into statutes.

The SPEAKER: To the regnal year.

Ms CHAPMAN: To the regnal year, indeed. I thought you did quite a good job actually. I do not know that any of us could really be critics in any event. I do not know that many of us are fluent in Latin, but I am sure that the—

Mr Gardner interjecting:

The SPEAKER: I wasn't talking to you.

Ms CHAPMAN: —Minister for Health would have probably given you some advice on grammar. Nevertheless, there are little sparks of memory coming back of occasions when you excelled. To be fair, I think that, on a consultation basis, you were superior in that aspect in many ways to the current Attorney.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Mr Speaker, as interesting as this is—

The SPEAKER: And not saying very much.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: —it actually gives me an opportunity just to share with you, Mr Speaker, and the honourable member, these immortal words: 'Romani ite domum.' Aside from that, I think we are getting off the topic a little.

Ms CHAPMAN: I have to say in response—

The SPEAKER: I call the Deputy Premier to order.

Ms CHAPMAN: Thank you, Mr Speaker.

The SPEAKER: The Deputy Leader.

Ms CHAPMAN: He is no patch on you when it comes to Latin, may I say.

The SPEAKER: I thought he was quite good.

Ms CHAPMAN: What has been raised, of course, by the Adelaide City Council and now other stakeholders who have written to us is that they are obviously disturbed by the approach of the government and concerned at what may be inadvertent outcomes from the operation of this legislation, and they have made that very clear. I would hope that the government, in these amendments—some of which I have just seen—in some way will help to remedy that and will certainly cross-reference them with any amendments that we have tabled from the opposition in an attempt to remedy some of the defects of this bill.

If they do and if the approach by the government is close to or superior, then we would obviously consider our support for them. We would hope that, if there are similar aspects to be amended under the opposition's tabled amendments and they are superior in their effectiveness, they would also be considered by the government.

Can I also say that we have now received a copy of the Law Society's submission, which is a copy that was forwarded to the minister on 2 May, bearing in mind that this bill had been introduced on 21 March this year. The determination of the debate in this house was scheduled for a couple of weeks ago with very little opportunity for us to get hold of this material, but we now have a copy of the 2 May submission of the Law Society, which they have kindly provided to us.

Again, it exposes the government as seeming to be intent on opening its mouth or acting in some manner before it puts its brain into gear—as a collective I say, because cabinet obviously has to approve this. So, whilst I might be critical of the Attorney-General, this legislation obviously cannot go forward without that sort of corporate genius of the cabinet approving it. The government rushes it in, either because it is late under some national program or because somebody has said this has to be done, and it does not, in my view, properly assess the consequences. It seems that the government is completely without fear or concern that it might be imposing some inadvertent ill; nevertheless, it progresses in its own mighty cause.

The Law Society has raised a number of aspects. Obviously it recognises that the regulation of major events and the importance of protecting the integrity of sponsorship for major events in the state can attract a declaration process. It does not really comment on the general intent and recognises that that is a matter for the government and the parliament.

However, the Law Society does raise one matter which is really more an omission. Firstly, it suggests that subclauses 8(1) and (3) could be reviewed with a view to include offers for sale and invitations to purchase a prescribed article. In its current form, the provisions only include the sale and distribution of a prescribed article in a controlled area for the event and, clearly, they are identifying that if the intention is to regulate the sale and supply for that event, then offers for sale and invitations to purchase prescribed articles should also be included in both subclause (1) and (3) to make the provisions more effective in a practical way.

The Law Society has a lot to say about the creation of criminal offences by direction, and I do not propose to traverse all of those today. All of this material has gone to the Attorney-General. These are important issues of introducing a person who is not a police officer, having this army of authorised persons who then have powers of direction and penalties attached to them, and they are going to have a whole series of regulatory prescription of powers. This is not acceptable to the opposition.

Clearly, the Law Society has understood the significance of this. Again, it is textbook Labor government. It keeps coming in here wanting to create authorised officers outside of the precinct of those to whom we give special powers, namely the police force in South Australia, who are trained, regulated, and have, of course, significant codes of practice and conduct. There are processes which are there to temper and ensure that they act lawfully and appropriately.

They are the army of enforcement in South Australia, and if this government keeps wanting to introduce other parties with extra powers, with such high levels of financial penalty, and give rise to criminal offence aspects under this legislation, then I think it needs to take some notice of what the Law Society and others are saying, even if it does continue to be dismissive or ignore the opposition.

Again, there are powers of seizure of articles, and this is a power that is to be provided to laypersons. I have said a lot about the reversal of evidentiary burden and, not surprisingly, the Law Society says that this is completely unacceptable. Again, when we talk about the extent of ambush marketing as an offence, it has raised some criticism about that being pretty sloppy on the width of using such words as 'participate' and 'market activity', but these are not clear. Even if authorised persons are going to be out there identifying this for the purposes of enforcement, they need to have clarity. Obviously, we support the Law Society's position that we have police officers to do that.

Let me just give you one example of where, under state law, there is a distinction and it needs to be considered for this legislation. Police officers have special powers when it comes to the enforcement of road traffic laws, and I use heavy vehicles over 4.5—trucks—as an example. We are about to do some legislation on issues in relation to regulation, but under current South Australian law, police officers have power to enter a truck, seize property, use force if necessary, search, confiscate and impound, all of which are very important powers which police officers only have power to carry out.

We have transport officers in the Department of Transport who carry out other roles. They can issue notices, they can measure weights on vehicles and they can do all sorts of other things, but they do not have the same power, particularly over personal property, that a police officer has—and the reason is obvious. Police officers are vested with the responsibility, the training, the expertise to undertake that and to have the extra powers. They are the ones who are there to be involved in the detection of illegal practices, perhaps something like drug couriering, as distinct from the traffic management officer from the department who is there to make sure that vehicles are not overloaded, that they are not carrying vegetables in or out of the state—these types of things.

We have a different set of rules for different authorised personnel, and it is there for good reason. I would hope, Mr Speaker, if you have any influence on this government, that you would encourage them to remember the importance of keeping those responsibilities separate and ensuring that, when they want laypersons to have a role in the detection, apprehension or imposition of a notice to proceed to prosecute an offence under this type of legislation, firstly they are very mindful that they are asking persons who may not be sufficiently skilled or trained to do it, and secondly they create an environment, as clearly outlined by the Law Society, where it would be inappropriate to expand that past those who are.

The Law Society, just for the completeness of some of their concerns, also set out the offences of obstruction or interference at major events that are to be introduced. Again, they set out the use of particular terms of phrases such as 'obstruct', 'to interfere', 'conduct of', and 'reasonable enjoyment'. Again, these introduce a number of aspects not on the assessment by the relevant minister as to whether they declare it a major event, but on the enforcement of offences. This is something that is untidy and unsatisfactory.

There are some subjective aspects of this; again asking a layperson to make some assessments in that. In certain circumstances we obviously empower police officers and other trained persons to make subjective assessments. In fact these days, for example, we even allow police officers to make assessments in relation to injunctive action, to protect people against imminent violence and so on. Again trained personnel are able to do this; we are asking this to be undertaken by laypersons, where the general public may be subject to criminal liability.

Overall, the section 23 offence is opposed; similarly, the 'failure to leave' offence. The powers of the authorised person and the facilitation of proof I think I have covered. All, of course, have a similar theme: sloppy, difficult to enforce, unreasonable expectation on the offender to be able to identify for themselves whether they may be committing an offence, and the enforcement by persons who are clearly not appropriately trained nor should have very extensive powers.

I would hope that, in the last few days at least, the Attorney-General has listened to the Law Society and ensured that the government is able to either present a sufficient argument to dismiss it—I am looking forward to that—or, alternatively, accept that this will provide significant improvement. I can hope only that the two sets of amendments (Nos 2 and 3) of the Deputy Premier and Attorney-General are in response to some of those issues. They look a bit thin, but I am ever hopeful, and I will listen carefully to what the Attorney has to say.

I indicate that, consistent with the matters I have raised, our amendments cover a number of aspects, and I will briefly refer to those. One is to oppose the reversal of the onus of proof and maintain the presumption of innocence; secondly, to ensure that regulations do not have the capacity to create public order offences or enforcement powers (obviously, if they are going to be an offence, they have to be in the act); and, thirdly, to confirm that charitable and community groups can use logos and titles. These are the aspects we are proposing in the amendments we have foreshadowed in 129(1), to which I trust everyone following this debate has had access.

Mr GRIFFITHS (Goyder) (11:57): I can sense some level of frustration from the Deputy Premier that others are speaking on this bill, but there are some aspects of it that other members want to put on the record. I commend the member for Bragg on her presentation of the aspects of the bill the Liberal opposition has issues with. I note that, when this was considered by our joint party room a few weeks ago, there was a good report undertaken, which has helped create that, but there were some aspects of it which have prompted me to put some things on the record, too.

In the report prepared by the Hon. Stephen Wade, I note that, in clause 7, there is no requirement to consult with local government before declaring a major event area, which could include the closure of roads, regulation of driving, parking or standing of vehicles and regulations of other public spaces.

It was on that basis that, when I received a copy of a letter that was sent to the Deputy Premier by the Adelaide Hills Council—and I have looked at it quite closely—I thought it was relevant that I put some of those aspects on the record, and that is why I intend to read a portion of that letter and to ask some questions later, during the committee stage, that relate to some of the clauses. The letter from the Adelaide Hills Council to the Deputy Premier is dated 12 April, and it is signed off by Andrew Aitken, the chief executive officer of the council. The letter states:

Major Events Bill 2013-05-14

The Adelaide Hills Council...was very disappointed to only learn of the Major Events Bill 2013 through the Local Government Association...Circular 13.5 dated 28 March 2013. Council notes that the State Government has not formally sought submissions and is disappointed by this lack of appropriate consultation.

This important Bill has significant implications for Council and our community. Several major events rely upon the Adelaide Hills, and some have taken place in controversial circumstances in recent years. The impact on Hills residents is likely to be heightened under the Bill as drafted.

Consequently the mater was considered by Council at a meeting on 9 April 2013 which resolved:

1. That Council notes the Major Events Bill 2013.

2. That Council delegates authority for the Chief Executive Officer to write to the Deputy Premier to provide comments and concerns on the...Bill...including:

a. the negative impact on Council's decision making ability

b. the negative impact on our local communities

c. the lack of consultation with the council and the community

d. the negative impact on Council's finances and infrastructure for the hosting of such events.

3. That copies of the above letter be forwarded to the LGA, [Southern Hills Local Government Association] SHLGA, Shadow Minister...local Members of the House of Assembly and Opposition, Greens and Independent Members of the Legislative Council.

Further to the above resolution, appendix 1 is attached to this letter, and I will read a portion of it, as follows:

Comprehensive comments and feedback upon the draft bill, and particularly its implications for the Adelaide Hills.

Mr Aitken went on to say:

In summary, Council's position is that although the bill could represent a positive step forward in the conduct of Major Events held in South Australia, there is an opportunity to improve the outcome by including an emphasis on local community and other stakeholder engagement. In the absence of such provisions, Council has to conclude that the bill as drafted is not in the best interests of Adelaide Hills residents.

I hope that the following comments assist in progressing this important bill through parliament in a satisfactory manner for all stakeholders.

Andrew Aitken

Chief Executive Officer

There has been a good assessment in an appendix that the Adelaide Hills Council attached. I will take the opportunity to read portions of that into Hansard also. It starts off:

Events in the Adelaide Hills Council context

Council supports, and continues to be involved in, many events that may be described as a Major Event, including Santos Town Down Under, Bay to Birdwood, Lobethal Lights Festival, Adelaide Hills Autumn Garden Festival, Crush Festival, Oakbank Races, Targa Rally and the Adelaide Hills Tarmac Rally.

Several events that require road closures have been the subject of community concern in recent years, particularly road rally events. In these circumstances, balancing the needs of the event organiser and those of our community can be challenging for council. Residents can be denied access to their own homes for at least two and sometimes five or more hours, often over weekends. For a number of [Adelaide] Hills communities, these impositions have been suffered on an annual basis for a number of years without relief.

Council is finalising its draft Festivals and Events Policy, intended to provide guidance for event organisers, Elected Members and administration on the support provided for events in the Council area. Community consultation has been undertaken, and feedback, including a submission from Events SA, has been incorporated. The draft policy will shortly be put to Council for its consideration.

With regard to their specific comments from the resolution, which comprised four different components, they provide the following:

2a) the negative impact on Council's decision making ability

Currently Council considers support for all [major] events occurring in the council area, including those that may be considered a major event. Where events require road closure(s), Council is the authority required to give consent under the Road Traffic Act 1961. This is important because only Council has a detailed working knowledge of the roads and the residents affected.

It is understood that the bill proposes that the Governor make Regulations to declare a major event, including the closure of specific roads for the purposes of the event. The Bill does not refer to Councils in this regard and therefore Councils' decision making ability is negatively impacted.

2b) the negative impact on our local communities

The interests of local residents will be similarly disadvantaged by centralised decision making without adequate consultation. The Adelaide Hills Council has a very high level of engagement with its community, and consultation is a key strategy in its decision making that enables the proper identification of all relevant impacts.

Council considers that the bill is silent about identifying the importance of any impacts that result from holding a Major Event in the local area.

2c) the lack of consultation with the council and community

Council continues to be a strong supporter of major events, including those noted above. Council has been publicly recognised for the support it provides to these events.

Council (and [by association] its community) should therefore be considered as important stakeholders in the development of the Bill to ensure that critical local issues are taken into account.

Council has not been specifically invited to comment on this bill.

2d) the negative impact on Council's finances and infrastructure for the hosting of such events

The bill is silent in relation to financial and infrastructure requirements related to Major Events. The success of these events often relies heavily upon Council resources and negotiated use of our suitable land and infrastructure, including roads. Provision should be made to ensure that suitable resources are appropriately secured and paid for.

The letter continues:

Council considered the proposed Major Events Bill 2013 of significant importance to local government and that Council's comments should be considered in its progress through Parliament.

They do have some general comments also. The general observation they make is:

There are many useful features detailed in the Major Events Bill 2013—

and I acknowledge that too, Mr Deputy Speaker—

which will assist in positioning the state as an attractive host for international events and in securing greater commercial investment. It is understood the Bill aims to clarify how and by whom an event is declared as a Major Event, and proposes what elements are to be considered in relation to that.

In relation to the Major Event however, there is no apparent consideration of local authorities or the impact on their finances and/or infrastructure. The impact on the community appears to be similarly ignored. Nor is there any consultation of those stakeholders in the planning or declaration of a Major Event/venue, and finally there is no review of previous Major Event impacts on stakeholders.

He finishes off by saying:

The Bill is silent about other Acts that may be of relevance to Major Events, for example the Road Traffic Act 1961 (for road closures) and the Local Government Act 1991 (community land and public land use).

I recognise that the legislation creates a process that will help things to be undertaken. I know that there is an authority extended to government to ensure that legislation is proposed that sometimes is not universally supported, and I appreciate that too.

As the person with the shadow portfolio of responsibility for local government, I am concerned that negotiation and consultation appear to have been relatively minimal. It has been through the LGA, but only late in the process, not long before the bill was introduced. Individual councils that do have a significant role to play in hosting major events also seem to have been excluded from that.

I hope that in the committee stage we will be asking questions about issues the Deputy Premier is able to expand upon in reply to this letter that was given to many members of parliament and that we get a bill that is right for all people to use so that we can continue to attract these events for the economic benefit of the state.

Mr PEGLER (Mount Gambier) (12:07): I rise to indicate that I will be supporting this piece of legislation; I think it is a good step forward. It will certainly protect those organisers of major events, and it will ensure that they are not undermined by others. Also, importantly, it protects the sponsors of those events without whom they would not happen. They often put up a fair bit of money, and through this piece of legislation they can be assured that they will not be ambushed by others who have not put up their goods and money to make sure that these events can happen.

This legislation also protects those allied vendors who are approved by the organisers. Those vendors basically sell food, drinks and another knickknacks, and it is important that they are protected because they are all a part of those major events. I indicate that I will be supporting this bill, but I will have a couple of questions when we go into committee.

Mr VENNING (Schubert) (12:08): I rise to speak in general support of the Major Events Bill, with the various amendments the shadow minister has already highlighted. I commend her on the work she has done and her presentation this morning. South Australia is very lucky to have some key major events, which we all very much support, and some are quite unique to South Australia.

I will list a few of them: the Royal Show (which I declare an interest in, as a life member, and as one of those things I will be getting involved in when I leave this place); the Bay to Birdwood, the largest motor rally in the world and the most unique rally anywhere in the international sphere of motoring; the Clipsal; the Tour Down Under; WOMADelaide; the Adelaide Festival; the Fringe; and, of course, the cricket.

We have various cricket events, and I understand it is important that this law be enacted because it is a proviso for the 2015 world cricket to come to Adelaide South Australia. The minister shakes his head, so fair enough; I can certainly understand that. I think a major event could also be created when Port Adelaide plays Richmond in the grand final; it would be a major event.

Members interjecting:

Mr VENNING: It is all about fun and frivolity and it is certainly good to see our football teams back on the national stage. I believe the sponsors and managers of these events are entitled to some protection from scalpers or non-official merchandising people cashing in on the deal, so to speak. However, how will this assist tourism operators, particularly in my case, the ones in our regions? I believe that not only should the LGA be consulted (and it says that in the bill) but so should the local councils in all the regions because these major events certainly have an impact on them, particularly the Tour Down Under.

Certainly the Barossa Council is greatly involved with the Tour Down Under and does a huge amount of work in relation to preparing the streets, closing the streets, helping with the clean-up and everything else. It is a major event for the council to be involved with, especially the closure of roads and managing the huge amounts of traffic, particularly in Tanunda where it can be quite a headache. I know that generally the council is consulted but it ought to be in the bill to ensure that that happens.

Also I would like to particularly raise one major event which I have been involved with and that is the Bay to Birdwood. As I said, it is a unique event in the world but I do not think we appreciate how unique it is. There are usually well over 1,000 vehicles participating. I was very concerned when I was told a few months ago that the organisers were asked to pay for the provision of police operations on the day for traffic management. I heard that the organisers had to pay a figure of $50,000.

I was pleased to be told this morning that it was $30,000—and I have it here in writing from an event organiser. Last year they had to pay $30,000 to maintain the one-way traffic for the event. I thought that it was pretty rough to expect them to pay that amount of money because of what this event brings to the state.

I am also a bit concerned that apparently this year the event will now go up the freeway. I do not think it will be the same spectacle going up the freeway because it will not be going through the little communities. As you go through the towns (and I have been a participant for many years) people are there with their tables and chairs, lace tablecloths, golden candlesticks, beverages and beautiful food—it is all part of the day out—and, weather permitting, it is a wonderful event.

However, to go up the freeway I think is going to kill off a lot of that for the sake of this money. I hope the minister can address that because I do not think it will be the same. That is something extra the event gives not just to the people participating in it but also to the people sitting on the side of the road enjoying it. Where are they going to sit on the side of the freeway? It is not going to work, and I was very concerned about that.

I certainly appreciate the work that SAPOL does. The police do a fantastic job, particularly when maintaining a one-way highway, which has to be done because where there are old vehicles (veterans mixed up with vintage vehicles) you have to be able to pass and pass safely. These things are not exactly pace machines and you cannot get past very quickly, particularly when you are driving a 1912 Hupmobile—every vehicle goes past you, or most of them.

I note that the bill includes measures to deal with ambush marketing, ticket scalping, unauthorised event association and unauthorised broadcasting. I note from the discussion we had that the distribution and sale of non-approved goods is $5,000 for a natural person and $25,000 for a body corporate.

It does not say whether or not it is manufactured overseas. Obviously, a lot of merchandise manufactured overseas anyway but I am concerned about somebody making a product with a slight difference—again, here we would have a court case about proving it—obviously a copy but not quite the same. There are legal grounds to be considered because these products can be produced so quickly and so cheaply overseas, and I am always a bit concerned about that.

I also have a concern, irrespective of any legislation, where these offences remove the presumption of innocence and, instead, put the onus of proof on the accused to show that they have a reasonable excuse. I think the presumption of innocence should not be negotiable in anything we ever do. I cannot understand why this particular act should attract special attention like that.

The Hon. J.R. Rau: What about the Road Traffic Act?

Mr VENNING: Irrespective of where or what, it is wrong. I note that my party also agrees with that; that it should not be the case. I do not believe it is okay to say that. Generally, we are blessed in South Australia to have a lot of major events. I support the bill because there is nothing worse than people sticking their neck out organising events, putting up the huge costs and then for somebody to come along and cash in on the day. I hope that the government will agree with the opposition's amendments and our deputy leader has already flagged those, so I will not do it again. With those provisos, I certainly support the bill.

The Hon. R.B. SUCH (Fisher) (12:15): I will make a few brief remarks. I think it is great to have functions and activities which people can enjoy and which create employment and so on. The only point I would make, given that some of these events affect people in my electorate, is that property owners should get proper and fair consideration for access to their properties during any major event. I have had situations where we have had students in year 12 doing exams and farmers who are denied access and egress in relation to their property for a considerable period of time, and I hope that when people plan events provision is made for people to have access to their property.

A lot of people say, 'Look, they are being difficult,' but I do not think it is unreasonable to be able to access your property. I do not think it is fair and reasonable to be denied access for hours and hours to your property and to close off roads for a long period of time on a small section of the population. These people are not killjoys; they are farmers, small farmers, who want to get on and do what they do. There are people who have special needs, medical or otherwise, and I think they should be catered for. With that proviso, I am more than happy to support the bill.

Dr McFETRIDGE (Morphett) (12:17): The lead speaker on this bill, the member for Bragg and Deputy Leader, made a lot of exceptionally good points about the legislation. I would like to add a few more for consideration. The major event industry in South Australia—and I think we should be embracing the term 'the experience industry' in South Australia—is one that is a huge employer and economic driver of much of our economy. I like to include sport and recreation, performing and visual arts, and tourism in the experience industry.

You add all of those together and you have a massive driver of employment and a massive driver of both metropolitan and regional economies. So, we would be very remiss not to recognise that, not to sponsor events and not to drive these events along as often as we can and get tourism to become the absolute backbone of our economy and the other activities surrounding these sorts of events.

The major events we talk about in South Australia all the time—and I had a quick look at the website this morning and I was interested to see that there weren't that many listed on the face page—such as the Tour Down Under, the Clipsal 500, the Royal Show, the Christmas Pageant, and Tasting Australia are those that come to mind. The Tour Down Under is a fantastic event, and I note what the member for Fisher said about the inconvenience that can be incurred by closing off access to your property. We all tolerate that for what is an absolutely fantastic world class event but there are cases where you do have other closures for lesser events.

I can give an example. One of my friends who lives at Ironbank had access to her property closed for most of a weekend (a Saturday and a Sunday) because of a motoring event going through there. It caused a lot of inconvenience for her. We need to consider the impact on private property owners around our events and consider the impact on the local government of these events but at the same time we should be doing everything we can, as I have said, to encourage the events involved in the experience industry.

The second reading contribution of the minister and some of the speeches that have been given in this place are about sponsoring major events. This bill is not about sponsoring a major event. It is about the investment that is being made in a major event. It is about return on that investment and protecting that investment. It is a purely commercial decision; that is what it is about. It is about bang for their buck. It is about getting the advertisers, the people who have the naming rights for these events.

They are putting in big dollars and they want to make sure that those naming rights and that exposure for their brand, that recognition of their brand, is going to be protected. I think it is fine and good that they are investing in an event, but let's not confuse it with the philanthropic sponsorship of an event. It is not that at all: it is a commercial investment that they are making and they are doing it on commercial terms. They are getting a return for their investment time and time again, and we are also getting a return for this state, so it is a good thing.

Having said that, the rights and the far-reaching restrictions that are being introduced in this bill, by investors wanting to protect their opportunity, I think are a bit over the top in some areas. I will talk about some of those now. There is ticket scalping. I think the changes are great. Let's stop people ripping people off and buying thousands of tickets at a time. If members saw the ABC television program, last week I think it was, called The Checkout, they talked about ticket scalping.

They said that for many large events the number of advertised tickets were nothing like the number of tickets that are actually available, and the number of tickets that were actually being scalped, as we call it, was minuscule. Having said that, if there are people being ripped off, this legislation is going to do something towards protecting those people, so perhaps it is not a bad thing, but let's be real about all that we are trying to achieve here and let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Another thing relates to transmitting sound or moving footage of the event. How you are going to do this with Twitter, with their four-second videos, I do not know. Getting names and addresses from the Twitter people is just about impossible, so let's think about how you are going to enforce this legislation, if that is the case, because social networking is like a tsunami moving along, and to try to stop that is going to be impossible. We need to make sure we can manage the outcomes of legislation like this.

It has been said that this legislation has to be in place 12 months before the Cricket World Cup. That may be something that is in the contracts and the negotiations, but I cannot see for the life of me why people who are putting on events like the Tour Down Under, Cricket World Cup, rugby sevens, or other events that are televised worldwide, are going to stop coming to a location like South Australia because somebody might be wearing a T-shirt with a rival industry's logo on it or because some group is having a party to celebrate the event but is not associated with the particular investor that has the naming rights.

I cannot see for the life of me that television will stop televising the event worldwide, because that is where the audience is. It is not the 1.5 million people in South Australia and the 50,000, 100,000 or 750,000 people who come and watch the Tour Down Under, it is the millions and millions of people around the world that are watching on television, and they are not looking at individual people standing in the background, unless they are perhaps wearing some bizarre suit or wearing nothing at all in some cases.

What they are looking at is the countryside, the locations and the event itself, such as the cricket, the rugby or the cyclists in the Tour Down Under. I do not think we should be quivering in fear that they will not come to South Australia if we do not have this legislation in place, because I guarantee that they will come. There is going to be a brand new Adelaide Oval, whether you love it or loathe it.

The Cricket World Cup is a fantastic event. It is a worldwide event with worldwide audiences, and money is being made not just in South Australia—in fact, it would be a very small amount of money that is actually being made in South Australia—but big bucks are being made all around the world, such as in India, Europe, England and places like that where they are watching the Cricket World Cup. That is where the money is being made, so to tie ourselves up in knots with the government saying, 'They won't come; it won't happen if we don't have this legislation,' I think is a bit of an overreaction.

Regarding entering of restricted areas, I do not think the $105 expiation fee will stop the streakers. They may get thrown out afterwards, but it is going to be interesting to see whether people who take a bet, and probably get the expiation fee paid for, are willing to undertake that activity.

The seizure and forfeiture of goods is something that I have always had a bit of an issue with. If you go into an event and you have a T-shirt with a rival's logo on it, you will not be admitted to that event or you could possibly have your T-shirt seized if you are actually in the event. To me, once again, I think it is an overreaction because the real money is being made not in the arenas, not in the events: it is being made with television, and that is what we are talking about with these major events.

There are a few other things that are noted in the second reading explanation of clauses. It talks about a major event definition—a public place or any part of a public place within 50 metres of a major event or any place prescribed by the regulations. I assume that will not be private property. While you can have your access to your own private property blocked for a while with such things as the TDU, I do not mind that and I guarantee that the vast majority of South Australians would not mind that, but how far is that going to go?

As the member for Goyder said, where is local government property being considered? What consultation has been undertaken with local government as to the impacts upon them? As I said, unauthorised broadcasting is another issue with Twitter, Facebook, Instagram and all those sorts of things. How are we going to control that? How are they going to enforce the legislation there? There is a $5,000 fine for a natural person.

I did notice in regard to the control of airspace that aircraft are not to enter or operate within controlled airspace. The flight path is very close to Adelaide Oval. I hope that Qantas, Jetstar and all the other airlines coming in here, such as Emirates, do not have to divert around Adelaide Oval if they are not one of the major sponsors. I do not think that is going to be the case, but how far do you go?

I can understand the use of logos provisions if you are trying to pass yourself off as being somebody you are not—and we know what happens there with dodgy how-to-vote cards—but the fine here is $50,000 for an individual or $250,000 for a body corporate. That would have to be something that I think we should consider very carefully. I do not think people who are having a Tour Down Under party or a Clipsal party or something like that and using the logos should be in any way subject to a $50,000 fine. We should be encouraging people in South Australia to celebrate what we do have here in South Australia and that is a fantastic state. We do have a big industry here, an experience industry, that we can capitalise on if we do it right.

Having said that, there are some amendments that the Liberal Party wants to move to this legislation. They have been gone through by the deputy leader (member for Bragg) and I will not go over those again, but certainly I think the government should consider those amendments very carefully, because we want this legislation to work. We want major events to work, and we want South Australians to benefit from the fantastic opportunities we have and the experience that is South Australia.

The Hon. J.R. RAU (Enfield—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General, Minister for Planning, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for Business Services and Consumers) (12:28): Can I thank all those people who have made a contribution today. I think it is really important, actually, in this place to offer praise and so on where it is due. Can I congratulate the member for Bragg and her colleagues for today having done us the great courtesy in the House of Assembly of actually having shown us amendments.

This is a privilege we do not often get. More often than not, when legislation that is the province of the Attorney-General comes into this place, we get general waffle about, 'We don't like this; we don't like that', but we never get a chance to comment on anything. Today, the member for Bragg has done the honourable thing, the decent thing, the correct thing and actually brought amendments before this house.

In doing so, she is paying due deference to one half of the parliament and, even though I do not necessarily applaud the actual amendments themselves—and we will come to that in due course—I do think we should just stand here for a moment and reflect on what a great improvement this is in the tactics and behaviour of the opposition since the deputy leader has taken on her role.

Before she became deputy leader they used to treat this chamber with contempt and now—and I hope this is a trend we will see more and more from the deputy leader—we are getting the great privilege of actually seeing amendments upon which we can at least reflect. I congratulate her again and again about that. I cannot really do it enough, but I do not want to take up my whole time with congratulations, because not all of what I have to say to the member for Bragg is in the same vein, but never mind. I just wanted to start on a high note.

I am not going to take up a lot of time in the second reading, because I suspect all of the nitty-gritty questions are going to be there in the committee stage. Can I say, as is my normal practice with the committee stage of the bill, I will not be attempting to be pedantic about each person having three questions and so forth and so on. I am sure that the members will not be repetitive and we can do as we normally do, get through the thing with everyone having a chance to ask their questions. That is how I plan to approach that.

I wanted to just say a few things about the legislation just to get it in a bit of context. First of all, this legislation—let's ignore for the minute the detail in there and simply ask ourselves: to what will this apply? Whatever is in it, just say, 'To what will it apply?' The answer is that there is a process to be gone through before this legislation will apply at all, and that process means that there has to be formulated a regulation. I am advised that, for example, in respect of the opportunity for the cricket to come here at some point in the future, that regulation would have to say, for World Cup Cricket on whatever the dates might be, 'The precinct that is going to be associated with that will be the following.'

There would be a demarcation of that precinct, and presumably in respect of the World Cup we would expect the precinct would roughly correspond with Adelaide Oval. That then comes by way of regulation to the parliament, and then the parliament has 14 days within which to disallow the regulation, and in the event of that occurring, this act is not engaged at all. If that does not occur, this act then enables the provisions to be applied by reason of the regulation. That is how it works.

I can assure that when you are bidding for a major event like World Cup Cricket, you do not commence the process of bidding a couple of weeks before the game is on. You start years before the game is on. So, the people in Events SA and in tourism are in negotiation a considerable period in advance with the organisers, sponsors and various other people. After discussions with them, they want to be able to say, 'As part of South Australia's bargain with the organisers, your sponsors, who are very important to you because without your sponsors you do not have your game, are going to be protected if the game is played in Adelaide.'

If the game is played in Sydney, it is protected. If the game is played in Melbourne, it is protected. If the game is played in Perth, it is protected. What we are doing is making Adelaide competitive with other Australian destinations who are all competing all the time for a limited pool of significant events. That is what we are doing: we are making Adelaide competitive. I can assure members that, when the people in Events are talking about something as big as this cricket, of course they will have a conversation with the Adelaide City Council. Of course they will have a conversation with SAPOL about traffic management, and goodness knows what else. That is what they do.

To give you another example, the Tour Down Under: if it were to be the case that the Tour Down Under were going to be taking advantage of this, what would have to happen is because the tour does not follow the same route every time—as you would be aware, there is a competition that goes on between various local councils. They say, 'Come to me, come to me!' and then the nice people from Events go out and talk to them. They have a bit of a chat and they work out whether they are going to go to this council or that council. There is actually competition between councils—'I want it to start at Unley,' or 'I want it to start in Norwood.'

Ms Chapman: They pay for it.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: They do, but they compete for the opportunity of being involved. So, of course events are going to talk to those councils. That is what they do. With respect to the Tour Down Under, if that were going to be one of these events—because the Tour's itinerary changes from year to year, with different dates, and the Tour's routes change from year to year because they want to give different councils an opportunity to be participants in the show—there would be a new regulation brought to this parliament well in advance of the Tour, once those destinations and routes had been ascertained, to enable that to occur under this legislation, if indeed this legislation were to be used for the Tour.

So, is everyone clear on how complex and consultative the generation of this thing is and how much advance notice there is? This is not going to be occurring five minutes before the Tour Down Under because it cannot. The parliament gets 14 days to disallow something if there is a real problem with it, somewhere.

So, that is the first thing. The second thing is the old chestnut about local government missing out. The LGA is in the marketplace purporting to be the peak body that speaks for local government in South Australia. That is what they are called: Local Government Association. They have an executive. The executive is made up of mayors who are individually elected by some of the 69 local government authorities in South Australia.

Ms Chapman: It's like going to Don Farrell and not going to caucus.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: She is good today, isn't she? The point is the government has engaged with the LGA. I do not actually control the LGA, nor do I control its internal processes, but I have observed that the LGA, if left to its own devices, is capable of consulting itself for a very long time before it does or does not come up with a conclusion, and often—and people can nod if they want, you do not have to go on the record here—they do not come up with a conclusion, after interminable consultation.

So, it is not unreasonable that the government, in preparation of this, consulted with the LGA, which we have done. First, if the criticism is that we have not been out to the Streaky Bay council and had a bit of a chat to them and given them a bit of time to think about it, etc., I honestly do not think that is a fair criticism. Secondly, in what decade do we want this bill ready to be passed?

Next point: the Law Society (another one of our old friends). Again, the opposition has outsourced its critique to the Law Society, and fair enough, that is not unusual. All of the speakers for the opposition have said that they support the bill, but ultimately I will contend, and I think with some considerable evidence, that they do not support the bill at all. They support the bill with all the bits that are important to the sponsors pulled out.

In the end, we are putting this bill up because we want to support the people in Events SA who work extremely hard to give South Australia a profile in a very competitive marketplace within the commonwealth, and let us not be coy about this, other states have a lot more money than we have. The bigger states, Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria and WA, have a lot more in their piggybank than we have, and those states are hunting the same events that we are hunting.

They are hunting the same opportunities because they know, just like our events people know, that a major event like the Tour Down Under, for example, last year had 750,000 plus people involved—an astronomical involvement—and put $45 million plus into the South Australian economy, and gave Adelaide an international profile. What else but a major event is capable of delivering that sort of profile and that sort of boost to the South Australian economy?

This bill is about enabling the events people to play on a level playing field with people in the other states; that is what it is about. I say again, I have checked just recently, in the last hour or so, and I am advised that the New South Wales and Victorian comparable legislation is almost indistinguishable from this, and that in Western Australia they achieved similar outcomes using a different methodology. So, are we in the game or are we not? Ultimately it is about this: do we support events, do we support South Australia, or do we say that we are going to let the Adelaide Hills Council, for example, be an arbiter as to whether this is a state event, an event worthy of state recognition?

The last point I want to make, just so that it is very clear to everyone in the room, is that there are presently only two events that have expressed any interest in taking advantage of this. They are the cricket, as has been stated, and the Tour Down Under; that is it. If the bill were passed tomorrow, they are the only two events that I have received notice of that would wish to take advantage of this—and who would not want to help them? It might be that down the track an old favourite of mine (and the member for Bragg might recall this as well), the Milk Carton Regatta, if we can get that back—which is something I wanted to achieve during my period as minister for tourism, but unfortunately I did not stay in the role long enough—

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Hang on, I have another favourite as well; there was the Milk Carton Regatta and the Birdman Rally. I tried desperately to get them back on. I thought I did okay in tourism, but I did not achieve those two things. Never mind, I would rather 'fess up in front of you all than have someone else say it about me. However, if those two events came back on, if they applied, it is very likely they would not get major event status; they would not get it.

So it is not going to be any Milk Carton Regatta or Birdman Rally that will even be asking for this; that is the first point. The second point is that the minister of the day will take advice from the events people and work out whether it is a major impact event for South Australia that has major sponsorship requirements which justify even considering doing this. So, when people debate and vote on this, please bear in mind that at the present time I am advised that we are likely talking about the World Cup Cricket and the Tour Down Under. Everyone will have an enormous lead time to wrap their head around this because of the nature and sophistication of those events.

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I have been asked, 'What about Clipsal?' The answer to that question is that I am advised that no-one has come to us and asked about Clipsal. That is not to say that might not happen; who knows? If it did, the minister of the day would, presumably, ask for advice and make a determination on the basis of that advice. So when we are going through this, can we please bear in mind that this will not be applied to the Kangaroo Island Cup or the egg and spoon race at—

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Or the bay surf carnival. I just do not think this will be out there interfering with people's lives all over the place. It will be something that is used infrequently for very specific purposes which have a state-wide significance in terms of a major event. That is what it is designed for, that is what it will be used for. With those few words I ask that we go into committee, and I am happy to discuss whatever provisions are in contention.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

Mr PEGLER: For the record, I want it explained exactly what the process will be for declaring a major event. I also would say that I think it is important that when the Deputy Premier says the parliament has 14 days to disallow, that he explains exactly how that works, and if that is 14 days, and so on.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I thank the honourable member for that question. I am looking here in particular at Part 2 clause 7 of the legislation, and subclause (1) provides, 'The Governor may make such regulations as are necessary...for the purposes of this Act,' so it is the Governor in Council who makes these rules. Then, without limiting the generality of that, the regulations may declare a major event, may specify the period of the event, may specify a venue, may designate a person as the event organiser, or require the event organiser to prepare a major event plan in connection with the event.

By way of digression, for something like the Tour Down Under, I would have thought that was an absolute no-brainer. There would have to be a plan presented because of the fact that it traverses all sorts of different territory. Also, the regulations may prohibit disorderly or offensive behaviour at the event, regulate eating and drinking of liquor, and so forth. There is a whole bunch of things that can be wrapped around the regulation.

The regulation, then, is like any other legislation, and it has to be placed before the parliament and there may be a motion to disallow that regulation at any time within 14 sitting days. If the disallowance motion is agreed to, the regulation fails. If there is no disallowance motion that is passed within that 14-day window, then the regulation becomes effective—the regulation stands: it is not 'effective'. The regulation is there until disallowed: if not disallowed, it continues. That is probably a better way of putting it.

Mr PEGLER: I have one other question for the record, and I will give an example first. We would have a rally in the pines at home and we would organise a bit of a barbecue on a friend's property for a few of the locals but not as part of the event. Through this Major Events Bill, can you stop people having barbeques on their own property not as part of the event but watching the event?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: No. You cannot stop anybody on their own property having a barbecue but you could prevent them advertising the Tour Down Under with the Tour Down Under logo and having a barbecue because they would be pinching the intellectual property of the Tour Down Under. Another way of looking at this would be if I decided I was going to—

The Hon. J.D. Hill: It's a bit like the Maslin Beach Nude Olympics.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: The Olympics is a problem, particularly if they have the five rings, but the other thing I was going to say is if I decided I was going to start making soup and I put it into a tin which looked suspiciously like Campbell's soup, I would have a problem, not because I was selling soup, although I am not sure how big the market would be for it anyway, but because, in effect, by using somebody else's label, I was misrepresenting that I was somehow connected with them or that was their product. It is the same as using the Coca-Cola label, which is not something I can do because it is their property.

Basically this is saying that, where there is a logo or something associated with the Tour Down Under or the cricket or whatever it is, we recognise that that logo is their property, they have spent money investing in that logo, having some sort of recognition in the public mind and that investment is considerable. If you look at the Tour Down Under, that investment has gone over 12 years or more—15 years of getting the public to appreciate that logo and have some view about it, just like Coca-Cola does. So, as much as anything, this is about pinching somebody else's intellectual property and, in effect, using it without their permission and without paying them anything. That is basically what it is about.

Ms CHAPMAN: I have some general questions, if I may, on clause 1. I just want you to consider this situation, Attorney. If I go back to 1993, you will recall that we had the Grand Prix race here. It was another motor vehicle spectacle, and I think we had it for 10 years. I think 2001 or 2002 might have been the last year, but in any event, it was around that time after a sort of decade of having it here and it was clearly a very major event. Now whether it would come under the declaration process, let us assume those people want to come to you.

In fact, on those occasions, not being a big petrolhead myself, we would advertise on the Sunday of the main race to come to the Derby Barbie, which some might argue would be interfering with the intellectual property of the Victorian Derby, but we would have somebody there to do a race call and it was a bit of fun and there was the Melbourne Cup and we raised a bit of money. If anyone wanted they could bring their children, in those days in bassinets and whatever, and we would have a great day and unquestionably it was going off the back of a major event.

Instead of the Derby Barbie, what if we had called it the Grand Prix Barbie or the Bernie Ecclestone Party or the Mike Rann Party? He was the then minister for whatever the equivalent of sport and recreation and tourism was, but it had something to do with sport and recreation in it, I recall, at that time. The member for Kaurna is only a young chap, but he remembers this period.

This is, of course, just before Ron Walker from Victoria took it from Bernie Ecclestone under Mike Rann's watch but, nevertheless, we lost it. It was a major event and one day we might get these sorts of events back, like the World Series cricket we were talking about, and they might apply under your process.

Is it realistic to say that it should not have some automatic exemption for local activity, particularly if there were no demonstrable commercial benefit? Why should the people of Adelaide, like we were, not be able to say, 'Well, come around to our Tour Down Under Barbecue or our activity', and if there were a fee, it might go to a local charity? Why should people not be able to do that without the process of going to some agency in your department to get exemption to do that? Why should all South Australians not be able to enjoy that? Clearly, it is not an activity that is a threat to the commercial viability of the sponsor and the investment they have at the event. Why should they not be able to do that?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I thank the honourable member for her question. The really good news is that they should not be prohibited, and they are not. If you go to clause 14, it says, in subclause (1), that the minister may declare a logo or an official title. I presume we do not have an issue about the logo point; the title is the issue that is concerning you. If we go to subclause (2), it says:

Before making a declaration under subsection (1), the Minister must be satisfied 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 or titles.

In other words, you could not pinch the Tour Down Under logo, but you could say, 'We are going to have a Tour Down Under barbie and invite all our friends.' The minister could only be making one of these declarations if the minister was satisfied that your event is going to adversely affect the use of the title or adversely affect the authorised event. I just cannot see how that can possibly be the case.

Ms CHAPMAN: I understand what you are saying, Attorney, and I am warming to the softening of the approach on this. The logo is there and we understand that. There are all sorts of trademark and patent entitlements with intellectual property—we understand that. The two events you have said are really under the spotlight, because they are the only applicants indicating that they would come to you at this stage—

The Hon. J.R. RAU: As far as I know.

Ms CHAPMAN: —as far as you know—are the World Series and the Tour Down Under. The problem is not that you do not make the declaration. The problem is that, whilst these are the qualifying features for you to make the declaration and you can still make conditions on that, what I suppose I am seeking is that you would be telling the parliament that, in issuing a declaration, your reading of this is that you would not be excluding people from having an event on their own private property that would use the title—i.e. World Series or Tour Down Under—in their invitations, or in a publication like a work newsletter, for example, or union chronicle or whatever, to get people to come to it, and you would not be issuing the declaration without ensuring that it would not have any adverse effect on those parties. So, you would be ensuring that that would be permissible. Is that what you are saying?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: The assessment is made, I am advised, in general terms. Once the assessment has been made—in other words, once the logo or whatever has been declared—then it is not to be used. I must say though that I cannot conceive of how a person who has decided to have a Tour Down Under birthday party and sent some notes out to friends that clearly do not contain the logo and do not represent themselves as having an origin with the official organisation could by any stretch of common sense fall foul of anything. We can talk more about it when we deal with your particular amendments.

Ms CHAPMAN: I will look forward to that. The other aspect is this: whilst the Attorney is not alerted yet as to whether there are any other applicants, clearly, there are a number of other events in South Australia which, I think, would qualify as being major events. Of course, whether they would be suitable for application for declaration is another matter. I suppose the other question is: if the organising party or entity of the event does not apply for it, can some other party apply for it, such as a minister?

Progress reported; committee to sit again.


[Sitting suspended from 13:00 to 14:00]


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