HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Fourth Parliament, First Session (54-1)
2018-06-20 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Fair Trading (Ticket Scalping) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 7 June 2018.)

Ms HILDYARD (Reynell) (16:57): I rise to speak in support of this bill, and of our amendments, and also to indicate that I am the lead speaker for the opposition on the bill.

Mr Pederick: Did you go to Adele?

Ms HILDYARD: You wait; I have some news for you. We sure know how to put on a show here in South Australia, and I do not mean just here in this house, of course; I mean all over our state. More often than not, the biggest acts in the world choose to come here, and if they try to fly over us between Melbourne and Perth we certainly put up a decent fight.

South Australia has a very strong sporting culture, and our games, matches and meets—whether they be footy, soccer, tennis, cricket, netball, swimming, athletics or pretty much any other sport—are very well attended. We also love our music and the performing arts. I am incredibly proud that I was part of the former Labor government that invested in venues, that had record investment in sporting infrastructure across our state, that promoted live music and that understood the value of bringing people together through sport, music and the arts as well as the many benefits that engaging in sport and the arts bring to the wellbeing of individuals, to the fabric of our community and to the state of our economy.

There was a lot of doubt from those opposite about the investment we made into Adelaide Oval and the footbridge, but you only have to go to one game or one concert to know that the investment was absolutely worth it. The Oval has played host to football finals, to Socceroos games, the A-League final taken out by our very own Adelaide United, the Rolling Stones, Midnight Oil, Black Sabbath, Guns N' Roses, Acca Dacca, Adele, and I could go on and on and on.

The footbridge has made the flow of people going to and from the venue smoother and easier, and it has absolutely and very positively added to the vibrancy of our beautiful city. We also look forward to the opening of our tram extension—just another way Labor made major events even more accessible. We all have some wonderful stories of the big gigs and games we have attended and how those very special moments have shaped our lives, our friendships and our love of sport and music.

It was very entertaining to hear more about the passions of those opposite: the member for Hammond's penchant for wearing Kiss make-up; the member for Morphett's crowd-surfing and mosh pit exploits (I thought I had seen him somewhere before); the member for Chaffey's favourite singer, Adele; the member for King's love of cricket; and the very lovely recital by the member for Elder of just a little Bob Marley. As do many of us on this side of the chamber, I share your passion for the excitement that comes with attending a big concert or the biggest match or game of the season.

I have very fond memories also of them: Midnight Oil, ZZ Top, INXS at Memorial Drive, the Divinyls and Hunters and Collectors at Thebby Oval and so many more. I have a very special memory of being 14 years old and catching the bus to the city with my friend, who was also 14, and waiting outside the Hilton Hotel to get an autograph from Barnesy. He came out just as we got there, and we talked with him about his concert that night. I had not been able to a ticket, and I lamented that there was no way I could afford one from someone out the front, but I wished him luck with his show. Lucky for my friend and I, he put our name at the gate and our dream to hear him and his band play came true.

There are other brilliant memories of gigs that were not as big, but certainly gigs that were just as loud and just as exciting, played by incredible, groundbreaking, iconic South Australian and other Australian bands across our state—bands like the Exploding White Mice, the Screaming Believers, Fear and Loathing, the Numbskulls and the Mark of Cain—played in iconic venues, including the Tivoli hotel, LeRox, Lark and Tina's, the Austral hotel, Adelaide UniBar, the Gov, in life saving clubs across our coast, at the Seacliff and Holdfast hotels, the Port Noarlunga Football Club and, of course, in the Flinders University Tavern. Many interstate acts also toured regularly including the Sunnyboys, the Painters and Dockers, the Stems, Radio Birdman and the Triffids, many of whom are enjoying re-formation tours in recent years.

This weekend, live music lovers can enjoy the amazing A Day of Clarity, being run by innovative South Australian business Clarity Records, owned by Matt Horvath, who organises the venues and artists. The festival is run in the East End of Adelaide; it is now in its fourth year and held in many traditional live music venues, such as the Crown and Anchor and Exeter hotels, as well as new venues, such as Château Apollo and Roxie's. The festival has grown to the extent that this year Union Street will be closed to traffic and will have a temporary stage and food trucks. The festival showcases many local acts such as Juliette Seizure and the Tremor-Dolls and the Young Offenders, and big interstate acts, such as Frenzal Rhomb. I encourage members of this house to get along to A Day of Clarity if you can.

My younger years, and indeed all my years since, have been shaped by happy memories of enjoying live music, live performance and some iconic sporting contests—SANFL grand finals, the Diamonds at the Entertainment Centre, the Lightning and 36ers, the list goes on. But some of these memories are also about sitting outside a concert because we had missed out or had not been able to afford it in the first place, or listening to a game somewhere because were unable to get in. Ticket scalpers ruin the fun for a lot of people, and they prevent equality of access to many events for many members of our community. I hope that this bill can put a stop to that.

I have many friends and know lots of local community members who save literally for months to get to their dream concert or sporting clash. When a major event is announced, there is a mad rush to get tickets and some careful planning to do. You need to find a friend who can guarantee that they are not going to be in a meeting, at an appointment, working somewhere without access to a PC or soothing a child the second tickets go on sale.

That friend also needs to have decent internet and a credit card with credit on it ready to go. Sometimes, it is only a matter of minutes until all the tickets are gone. If you were not able to secure tickets, you are of course left even more disappointed. The disappointment is one thing, but that disappointment can turn to fury and a sense of deep frustration when you know that many of those tickets were purchased by bots, and when you later see the tickets on a resale website at astronomical prices it is worse.

As Mick Jagger said, 'You can't always get what you want. You can't always get what you need.' That is the way of the world, but when people miss out because of scalpers it is not fair, and it is this unfairness that we want to see stopped. When people save up their money to go to a major event, they know that they are up against a lot of other eager fans, but they should not be up against bots and sneaky people wanting to onsell for a heap of cash.

Labor wants events to be accessible to as many people as possible, not put out of reach by ticket scalpers driving up ticket prices. Labor supports this bill because we want the system to be fairer for members of our community who genuinely want to go to a major event, who want to make those memories that so many of us treasure. One of our amendments aims to assist people who do need to sell a ticket because of a genuine inability to attend by making sure they are not left worse off.

As it currently stands, the bill before us does not include transaction costs as part of the original ticket cost calculation, so it is possible that in some cases people are unable to recoup the entire cost of the ticket when needing to sell it. The limit of only being able to sell a ticket for 110 per cent of the original cost does not include the cost of booking and transaction fees, which can sometimes exceed 10 per cent of the actual ticket cost. Labor does not think that is fair. Those fees can add up, and we think that they should be included in the 110 per cent. We want people who legitimately need to sell a ticket not to be disadvantaged by this bill. They are not the target, and we do not want to inadvertently make them one. We want greater fairness and equality of access.

Our second amendment limits the number of tickets that can be purchased in one transaction. We know that the bots are hard to beat and are always changing, but we would like to try to curb their purchases, as we hope the legislation more broadly will be able to do. Our amendment limits to 30 the number of tickets that can be bought by any one person. We think this strikes a good balance. That means that school groups, sporting clubs and community organisations are unlikely to be affected if purchasing for a large group. They are not, as I said, our target for this legislation: ticket scalpers are.

There are some details that we understand will be decided during a consultation process, including which events and venues are deemed exempt from the legislation and which are part of it. It is important that the community is happy with how this legislation works, including these details. I look forward to working with the Attorney-General, her office and her department and taking part in these consultations to ensure that the regulations make this legislation as fair as possible for all South Australians.

I look forward to our deliberations about this legislation and our amendments, and I very much look forward to ensuring that South Australians continue to make great memories, enjoying the acts and concerts that make them happy.

Ms WORTLEY (Torrens) (17:08): I rise to speak briefly on the Fair Trading (Ticket Scalping) Amendment Bill 2018. According to media reports, ticket scalping or the resale of event tickets, often bought in large numbers for the purpose of selling for profit, has caused many cases of disappointment for members of the general public. I think it is fair to say that, if not ourselves, we at least know people who have been very disappointed by missing out on purchasing tickets to a major sporting event or concert.

Sometimes, this is a result of a high demand for tickets to an event and the actions of what we have come to know as ticket scalpers. The deliberate purchase of multiple tickets to sporting events or concerts and the sale of these tickets with a considerable mark-up on the original price creates a situation whereby individuals miss out on purchasing a ticket at the authorised price simply because they have been purchased in large numbers by scalpers. This leaves the individual who wants to attend the event with the option of purchasing a ticket at a hugely marked-up price or missing out on attending the event altogether.

I know that, particularly for concerts where fans have missed out, they may congregate outside on the lawns of the venue so that they can at least hear, if not see, the artist they wanted to see. I am sure many in this chamber have experienced that. I have heard some of the speeches already given in this chamber, and I think I even heard about some experiences going back as far as the Rolling Stones, so that was interesting. I know that people have had to do that over the years, very often because there were not enough tickets available; it was a sellout. That may have been in the days before scalpers, but certainly now it is something that happens on a regular basis.

The bill before us today seeks to address this issue with amendments to the Fair Trading Act 1987 by, firstly, making it an offence to resell a ticket to an event for more than 110 per cent of the original price, plus booking fees and charges, and removing the need for the minister to declare it a major event. Secondly, it outlaws ticket bot software that enables scalpers to quickly buy large numbers of tickets online. It includes a significant fine of $100,000. For the record, ticket bot software enables one to acquire a large number of tickets quickly by using multiple IP addresses, leaving fans who want to purchase tickets to a popular concert with a significantly reduced opportunity to do so.

The bill allows event organisers to seek a court injunction against scalpers using ticket bot software. It also recruits event organisers to publicly disclose details of tickets allocated for public sale, and it requires owners of advertising publications to ensure that no prohibited advertising of ticket resales above the cap is published. This also requires a ticket resale advertisement to include the original supply cost of the ticket and details of the location from which the ticket holder is authorised to view the event, including the bay, row or seat number associated with the ticket.

While we support the Fair Trading (Ticket Scalping) Amendment Bill 2018 before us today to stop ticket scalping, it is our view that people who genuinely need to sell a ticket or tickets they have purchased because they are no longer able to attend the event due to illness, work commitments or any other legitimate reason should be left no worse off. That is why we will be moving an amendment to clause 4 that would see 110 per cent apply to the cost of the ticket and the booking fees. This would enable transaction fees to be recouped. A further amendment limiting the number of tickets that can be purchased to 30 enables sporting clubs, schools and community organisations to purchase group tickets so that they are able to sit together in the same area.

Labor is committed to making the purchasing of tickets to events as fair as possible, and it looks forward to playing an active role in the consultations that we are advised will take place before the regulations are formed. Importantly, when enacted, the law will apply to ticket sales for all sporting and entertainment events in South Australia where the event is subject to a resale restriction. Labor wants major events, including sporting events and concerts, to be accessible and without ticket scalpers driving up the prices, so we will support the bill.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER (Morialta—Minister for Education) (17:13): I thank the opposition for their indication of support for the bill. I thank members for making contributions to the debate. They are almost too numerous to remember them all, so I will not attempt it. I commend the bill to the house.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

Ms HILDYARD: I have a couple of general preliminary questions. Minister, how does the bill differ from the New South Wales legislation?

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: Compared with the New South Wales legislation, the offence under the New South Wales act occurs when a person sells a ticket for an amount that exceeds 110 per cent of the original acquisition cost, being the original supply cost of the ticket plus the transaction cost, which is essentially, as I understand, what the member's amendment proposes to do. From a compliance and enforcement perspective, that would require being able to prove what the transaction cost was, which in many cases would, of course, be quite difficult and would possibly involve having to obtain bank statements and so forth to prove that an offence has occurred.

To enable effective enforcement of the provisions, the South Australian bill defines only original supply cost and transaction cost and it is proposed that the offence under South Australian legislation would occur where a person sells a ticket for a price exceeding 110 per cent of the original supply cost, excluding any transaction cost. I think that is the main difference.

Ms HILDYARD: As you mentioned, our first amendment seeks to change the bill in that regard. I am happy to ask those questions when we get to that particular section, but is there any reason that the legislation has been drafted without those similar provisions in the New South Wales legislation?

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: Yes, because we believe our legislation is superior. I can go through the reasons why now, if the member would like, or we can wait until the amendment is moved. I would indicate, though, that we are a government that is willing to listen to the opposition and the community and if, having had the amendment for the time that we have had, we become convinced between the houses by the good efforts of the member that her amendments will improve the bill, the government will contemplate that.

But we have made a decision as a government that we are seeking to support the rights of consumers. They are our priority and we believe that the legislation as drafted does that as best as it can. We will have a look at any amendments that come forward and if we believe that they improve the bill, we will accept them, but at this stage I am not convinced, by a long shot.

Ms HILDYARD: To clarify, are you talking about the amendment that has just been raised, in terms of the 110 per cent/100 per cent issue, or both of the amendments in that regard?

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: Yes, amendment No. 1.

The CHAIR: Member for Reynell, you really need to focus your questions on the clause that we are dealing with, so what I might do—

Ms HILDYARD: I did indicate to the minister that there were just a couple of general questions to start, but I will move that way.

The CHAIR: Alright, but you did not indicate that to me, though.

Ms HILDYARD: As the last of those general questions, is there an intention for there to be exemptions for certain events or venues?

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: Can I ask the member to restate the question?

Ms HILDYARD: Is there an intention for there to be an exemption for the application of this legislation to any particular events or venues?

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: Thank you for your forbearance; I genuinely appreciate it. Not at this stage. We are open to suggestion as part of the consultation, but not at this stage.

Clause passed.

Clauses 2 and 3 passed.

Clause 4.

Ms HILDYARD: I have a question on new section 37E, if I could ask that first.

The CHAIR: We are up to clause 4, and you have two amendments filed for clause 4.

Ms HILDYARD: Yes. Would you like me to ask questions that do not relate to the amendments first, or to go straight to the amendments?

The CHAIR: We will take a question, member for Reynell. The minister is happy.

Ms HILDYARD: Thank you. Minister, on new section 37E, can you please confirm that if someone wins a free ticket as part of a promotion they also have to give that ticket away for free?

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: Yes, as it currently stands.

Ms HILDYARD: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Hildyard–1]—

Page 4, line 15 [clause 4, inserted section 37E(1)]—Delete 'excluding' and substitute 'including'

If I can make a brief comment in relation to what the minister said, this amendment is also about protecting the interests of the consumer, because we understand that, from time to time, a consumer purchases a ticket and the transactional costs of purchasing that ticket can exceed 110 per cent of the cost. So the purpose or the intent of this amendment is to ensure that a consumer can recoup all of those transactional costs when on-selling their ticket as well. That is the intent of the amendment. I just want to make that clear. I think that the minister may have already indicated their position, but I will see if there is anything to add.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: I was happy to provide some of the technical advice earlier about the difference between the New South Wales act and this bill. I was further happy to answer the shadow minister's other question. In relation to the original supply costs, as opposed to including transaction costs, the bill currently defines the original supply cost of a ticket as:

…the amount for which the ticket was sold to the first purchaser by an authorised seller, excluding any transaction cost.

The exclusion of transaction costs from the meaning of 'original supply costs' is quite intentional. Prohibiting the sale of tickets for an amount that exceeds 110 per cent of the original supply cost essentially caps the amount that a person reselling a ticket can recoup for any transaction costs associated with the purchase at 10 per cent of the original face value of the ticket.

I note the concerns raised regarding a person's ability to recoup all the fees associated with ticket purchases; however, we believe—and we will take further consultation between the houses—that the 10 per cent figure strikes a reasonable balance between preventing ticket scalping and enabling someone who legitimately needs to resell a ticket to an event that they can no longer attend to recoup the cost of the ticket, plus any associated fees. We believe it is a reasonable balance. It also enables other consumers who may have initially missed out on attending an event to purchase tickets via the secondary market at a reasonable cost.

One of the primary aims of this bill is to broaden the scope of existing ticket scalping provisions to protect consumers purchasing tickets via the secondary market. It is for the purpose of protecting the consumers that the government is at this stage certainly opposing the amendment. There are two groups of consumers we are particularly concerned about. The first group is those purchasing the tickets on the secondary market and ensuring that they are not paying an unreasonable cost. We believe that an additional 10 per cent is a reasonable balance. Secondly, it is indeed all consumers. The purpose of the bill is to overcome the fact that the previous government's approach to ticket scalping did not work. There were no convictions. I do not believe there were any prosecutions.

Ensuring that the bill is enforceable is absolutely critical. The government has excluded transaction costs from the original meaning. As I said, it was intentional. As I mentioned also, and I will just reiterate that, from a compliance and enforcement perspective, the amendment proposed would require being able to prove what the transaction cost was, which, as I said before, in many cases may be difficult as it could involve having to obtain bank statements and so forth to prove that an offence has occurred. I realise that the member has moved this amendment with positive intent. We will consider it further between houses, but at this stage the government will not be supporting the amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Ms HILDYARD: In relation proposed section 37F, are advertisements for tickets for events being held outside of South Australia still covered by this bill if the advertisement is shown in South Australia?

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: It only applies to events held in South Australia.

Ms HILDYARD: I have some questions on proposed section 37G. In terms of the penalties, how did the government come to the maximum penalties of $100,000 for body corporates and $20,000 for individuals?

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: If there is further information to what I am about to provide, then the Attorney's office will provide it between the houses and clarify. I am advised that the expiation fee is consistent with that of New South Wales. My experience in this house is usually that these fees are determined on a comparable basis with comparable penalties in other South Australian legislation or, indeed, interstate.

I imagine that it is most likely that these figures equate to the New South Wales penalties, given that I am advised the expiation fee equates to the New South Wales penalty and whatever units the New South Wales penalties have in dollar terms. I imagine that is the answer. However, if the drafting instructions were different from that, or if indeed there is any other reason, then we will advise the opposition between the houses.

Ms HILDYARD: Thank you, minister; I appreciate that. Has any individual or any body corporate been penalised in New South Wales?

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: We are talking to New South Wales about the experience they have had since the legislation came in, in March this year. I would note that the government's position on the opposition's first amendment was fundamentally as identified. One of the key reasons we opposed it was that we wanted to ensure there was a capacity to achieve the aims of the bill. If the New South Wales experience has been that since March there have been many applications of it, then we are obviously going to be interested in talking to them about how that has taken place, but it has only been in place since March this year.

New section 37GA.

Ms HILDYARD: I move:

Amendment No 2 [Hildyard–1]—

Page 5, after line 2—After section 37G insert:

37GA—Restriction on number of tickets purchased per transaction

(1) A first purchaser must not, in a single transaction, purchase more than 30 tickets to a sporting or entertainment event from an authorised seller.

Maximum penalty:

(a) in the case of a body corporate—$100,000;

(b) in the case of a natural person—$20,000.

Expiation fee: $550.

(2) A person does not contravene this section by purchasing more than 30 tickets if, before the person purchases the tickets, the Minister approves such action in accordance with the regulations.

The CHAIR: Do you want to talk to that amendment?

Ms HILDYARD: I have covered most of it in my words earlier, thank you.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: Can I speak on that?

The CHAIR: You can speak on that, minister.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: I thank the member for Reynell for putting forward the amendment and note the comments she made earlier about the purpose for it: to ensure that school groups and others are not disadvantaged by this. The government will seek further consultation between the houses on the amendment. I am very sympathetic for the reasons the member for Reynell has identified, but there may well be compliance issues.

I note, for example, that there are selling agencies at the moment that restrict tickets in any individual transaction, and we would want to ensure there are no unintended consequences from people trying to do the right thing. It may well be that in the upper house we are able to support this, or a version of this, depending on whether we are able to achieve the proposed intention. We will consider this further in the coming weeks and deal with it in the other place. At the moment, while we are sympathetic and may well be able to come to an agreement on this, we will not be supporting the amendment at this stage.

New section negatived.

Ms HILDYARD: I do have questions on new section 37I.

The CHAIR: That is fine.

Ms HILDYARD: Minister, what consultation has been done with Gumtree and the like to ensure that they are able to put in place mechanisms to notify sellers of their obligations under this legislation?

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: I am advised that further consultation with Gumtree, and potentially other websites that CBS deals with from time to time that offer similar arrangements, I expect will be taking place particularly ensuring that they understand the responsibilities. There has been some correspondence in the past between CBS and websites such as Gumtree on some similar matters, but further consultation will take place.

Ms HILDYARD: How much time will Gumtree and other organisations of that type be given to set up notifications, or is that just to be part of that consultation?

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: The government proposes to engage with companies—and Gumtree is one that keeps being identified; I am told there are others—in that consultation; if they have a good case to make in terms of timing, we will take that on board.

Ms HILDYARD: In the case of a company like Gumtree, if a ticket is sold for more than 110 per cent of the original cost, would both Gumtree and the seller be penalised? How would that be policed?

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: So, 37I is reasonably clear in that the owner of an advertising publication—in this case, Gumtree or others—must ensure that no prohibited advertisement is published in the publication or website. Gumtree would be in breach, as would the person selling it, I am advised.

Ms HILDYARD: What avenues will members of the public have to report prohibited advertising on Gumtree and other sites?

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: To CBS through the usual avenues.

Ms HILDYARD: This is the last one on this section. Will CBS be given any additional resources, for example, a telephone line specifically for people to call when reporting behaviour that contravenes this legislation?

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: In the usual course of receiving complaints and concerns, CBS, I am advised, is capable of managing that. My personal ambition, of course, is that the government's bill going through the houses, as introduced, and the Legislative Council hopefully following, will see a new dawn for South Australia as this government has heralded, a new dawn that not only provides more jobs, better services and lower costs but also no more ticket scalping.

Ms HILDYARD: On new section 37K, minister, how will the government monitor use of ticketing websites to identify those who have engaged in prohibited content?

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: There is an opportunity potentially for CBS to investigate as required but I note that under the existing legislation, the Major Events Act, I can think of a number of examples in recent years. I suspect that some of them may have even been identified in the second reading debate where there were egregious examples of ticket scalping that were brought to the government's attention in the media—all forms of media—and in the parliament, and occasionally a major event would even be declared.

I think when I say—and I promise you I am not trying to be glib—that we would be seeking to rely on members of the public to bring it to the attention of the department in many instances, I am confident that that will happen because there have been so many occasions where members of the public have brought this to the government's attention in the past. The opportunity provided by this legislation is that there will be an opportunity to remedy that behaviour.

Ms HILDYARD: I think you have answered my next question which was: who will be responsible for reporting misconduct? I think the answer is members of the public. Will those reports go straight to the police or to CBS or another agency?

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: It is expected that it will be CBS and, if required, SAPOL could become involved.

Ms HILDYARD: On new section 37L, minister, can the responsible minister ask any event organiser or class of event organisers to disclose the total number of tickets made available by authorised sellers for general public sale?

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: I am advised that the bill provides that the minister may, by notice in the Gazette, declare that a specified event organiser or class of event organisers be required to disclose the total number of tickets made available by authorised sellers for general public sale, but the minister must notify the event organiser of his or her intention to make such a declaration, and the event organiser must be given a reasonable opportunity to make submissions in relation to the proposed declaration. As the member would be aware, 37L provides:

The total number of tickets specified in a public notice required under this section must be a number that the event organiser believes, on reasonable grounds, is not more than 10% greater or less than the total number of tickets that are to be made available for general public sale before the day on which the event is held…

Ms HILDYARD: In what kinds of circumstances would you see the minister foreseeing a requirement to disclose those numbers?

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: In relation to examples, I am told there have been occasions in the past where organisers have presented potentially misleading information to the public about the number of tickets for sale in order that the apparent value of those tickets might appear greater. If there are specific examples that the Attorney wishes to provide between the houses that is something she may be keen to do, but I think that probably covers it. The purpose of the legislation is to ensure transparency for consumers.

Ms HILDYARD: Can the minister confirm that once a disclosure is made the number of tickets will be made public?

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: Sorry, can you repeat the question?

Ms HILDYARD: I guess what I am trying to get to, minister, is if you should require a disclosure, how would that be made public?

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: Through the Gazette.

Ms HILDYARD: Has the New South Wales minister requested numbers for any events to date?

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: As we identified earlier, the legislation has been in only since March. I am not aware of that having been done, but it is possible. It is equally possible that, the legislation having been in only since March, that has not taken place. Again, if there are any particular examples that the Attorney wishes to bring to the attention of the opposition I am sure she will do so, if we receive that information from New South Wales.

Clause passed.

Schedule and title passed.

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER (Morialta—Minister for Education) (17:44): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

In doing so, I thank the opposition for their support and the good-natured conduct during the committee stage. As we have identified, we will consider further the amendments proffered. Probably the second one is particularly something that we will have a look at. I thank members of both sides who have contributed to the debate. I particularly want to commend the Attorney-General and the Minister for Sport for their long pursuit of this legislation. I also identify my gratitude to the officers from CBS and the Attorney-General's office who have assisted me in the time we have spent together on the bill this afternoon.

Bill read a third time and passed.

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