HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Second Parliament, First Session (52-1)
2010-11-24 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

RECREATION GROUNDS (REGULATIONS) (PENALTIES) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 23 November 2010.)

The Hon. T.J. STEPHENS (11:07): The purpose of this bill is to amend the Recreation Grounds (Regulations) Act 1931 to incorporate increased penalties for crowd behaviour that is antisocial or has the potential to impact on public and participant safety.

The government argues that, as an events city, we need to have public environments that are safe and family friendly. This summer, South Australia will host a number of major events, including the second Ashes Test, our first International Twenty20 game and, with some luck, Hyundai A-League finals matches.

Whilst this is a great summer of sport for South Australians, the sports minister argues that it has the potential to be accompanied by a high risk ground invasion, antisocial behaviour and the use of flares. Recent experiences interstate have heightened concerns from international and national sporting bodies and venue managers about the possibility of such antisocial behaviour occurring and the need to increase the current statutory penalties that apply.

In Adelaide, we do not want to see incidents such as that which happened when a Pakistani player was tackled by a spectator at the WACA last summer. It is not good for the game, it is certainly not good for our image, and it is not something that we would condone in South Australia. The ICC noted this particular incident and expressed its disappointment, and this is an organisation that has the power to strip venues—and states—of their international status. Australian sporting fans love to have fun and enjoy the game, but we need to accept that some individuals go too far and, quite obviously, a $200 fine is not an effective deterrent to bad behaviour. The bill amends section 3 of the Recreation Grounds (Regulations) Act 1931 to:

(a) widen the regulation-making power of the act, with respect to securing orderly behaviour, to include persons in the vicinity of the ground;

(b) increase the maximum penalty that may be imposed by regulation from $200 to $5,000 to address serious behaviours, such as pitch invasion; and

(c) allow for expiation fees in the regulations (not exceeding $315) for minor alleged offences against the regulations.

I thank all the staff who provided a briefing to my office and clarified a few points for the opposition, such as the fact that the actual penalties will be at the judge's discretion in each case and that minor expiations will operate in a similar way to traffic expiation notices, in that recipients will be able to pay the fine, write a letter of dispute or elect to be prosecuted.

This bill is one part of the approach to managing poor crowd behaviour, and I note that major venues are reviewing and will continue to review their security procedures and conditions of entry to manage crowd behaviour generally. The amendments contained in this bill are consistent with other states and will enable effective and consistent deterrents to be in place. The bill will only impact on those whose behaviour is unacceptable. If you do not want a major fine, then the message is: do not play up in or around our sporting venues.

In an ideal world we would not be rushing this one through parliament as we are, but I understand the urgency to get this bill in place prior to the Ashes and other major sporting events. I want to put on the record the opposition's disappointment at having to rush the bill through the council. We do not see anything sinister about this bill but we do not think it is good parliamentary process.

One of the reasons I was keen to make sure this bill was put in place is that I am concerned about poor crowd behaviour at soccer grounds. We really need to make sure that we stamp it out. It is unacceptable the way in which soccer supporters behave themselves in some parts of the world. We have a proud tradition in Australia of supporting our teams and events without violence and disgraceful antisocial behaviour. With those few words, I indicate the Liberal Party's support for this bill.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS (11:12): I rise to indicate the Greens' in-principle support for this bill. We, too, express our grave concerns that we are rushing through legislation within a matter of days for an issue that was raised by the ICC with Cricket Australia as a grave concern for the security of the players, and it arose after the WACA incident last year. We are heartened to see the South Australian government take this issue up. We are disappointed to see how long the South Australian government has taken to get this legislation before us.

The Greens, as the Hon. Terry Stephens and the Liberal Party have indicated, support the safety of our players. We think that measures being taken here are worthy of support, and I thank SACA for the briefing that it provided to us and I thank the minister's office also for its briefing, which was held in the last few days.

In that briefing we were presented with a schedule of grounds that this may apply to. I would like to note that all of the discussion so far in the briefings largely has actually focused on the fact that we need to pass this bill before the Ashes start next week. The Ashes start pretty much the same time every year. We knew this was coming, and it has taken quite a long time for us to get this point where we are now in a rush debating a bill that may have other implications. The schedule of grounds is several pages long and certainly much more than the Adelaide Oval. It includes regional grounds, rural grounds, Elizabeth Oval and Glenelg Oval. We might expect to see all the SANFL ovals but also some of the smaller ones; I think Williamstown is in there, from memory.

The Greens raised in our briefing that there are also penalties and so on for flares but also for handing out printed matter. We have some concerns about what 'handing out of printed matter' might mean. We would like some clarification from the government of whether that means that somebody handing out a leaflet may be subject to the proposed penalties. When we were given the briefing, we were told that we would now see this bill enabling authorities to take action against somebody, say, carrying flares or possibly this printed matter outside of the grounds.

We would like to have some clarification from the government about how far outside the grounds we are talking about. Are we simply talking about the Adelaide Oval in this case or are we talking about somebody walking down the Elizabeth train station, for instance? Are they subject to being searched to see whether they have unauthorised printed matter or flares because they are close to the oval there? These questions may have very simple answers, but because we are rushing this bill on we have not had the proper consultation time to get answers in a more appropriate way; in fact, I am receiving the bill in front of me as I speak—handy, that.

We think that South Australia should be in line with all the other Ashes grounds, in terms of Adelaide Oval, and we have some sympathy for the raising of the provisions for penalties for somebody who does enter the field, particularly with the intent of hurting a player; even if they do not mean to hurt the player, tackling a player, running up to a player, could in fact cause that player serious injury and we think this is a serious matter.

However, we do not support rushing through legislation without correct consultation or all the facts before us. The government has known that this issue was coming up for at least half a year, and we knew this was an issue late last year when it was raised by the International Cricket Council with Cricket Australia. I think this is indicative of a government that could not even get its budget together in a timely manner.

We were the last state in the country to see a budget, yet Tasmania, which had an election on exactly the same day as us and which returned a coalition government as a new government, was able to get its done in a timely manner. This government should be ashamed of itself in the way it is treating Cricket Australia and its quite legitimate concerns, because we are now presented with a bill that we do not have all the facts on. I look forward to the committee stage and getting some answers.

The PRESIDENT: Order! The Hon. Ms Lensink will kindly remove that T-shirt. I have just noticed it. It is totally inappropriate.

The Hon. R.I. Lucas: She got away with it for 15 minutes.

The PRESIDENT: Well, you should not try those sort of things. I have just noticed it. It is a pity to cover up that rather attractive dress anyway with such garbage.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (11:17): I had no intention of speaking on this. I agree with the brief comments I have just heard from the Hon. Tammy Franks and my colleague the Hon. Terry Stephens that, evidently, this issue has been raised for weeks, if not months and, with two days to go, less than 48 hours, the government decides it is going to rush legislation through on the grounds that, I guess, it minimises any potential chance for asking questions or scrutiny.

On the surface of it, I understood this to be about Adelaide Oval, but I think it was the Hon. Tammy Franks who indicated that there are a whole variety of country facilities and other recreation facilities that are covered by this, including, my colleague says, facilities in Whyalla: Bennett Oval, Centrals Oval, Croatia Soccer Ground, Bradford Street Reserve, Club Italico Soccer Grounds; there is a list of 20 or 30 grounds that are evidently covered by this proposed legislation.

As I said, the pre-publicity that I had heard about this was that it was in relation to test cricket at Adelaide Oval—it was as specific as that. I will ask the minister: are the same penalties potentially going to apply to a pitch invader at Bennett Oval? My colleague the Hon. Mr Stephens would know much more about Bennett Oval than I would, but I cannot see why that is any different to recreational facilities in my home town of Mount Gambier, for example, and I cannot immediately see whether they are covered or not.

Could the government explain what the rationale is for some regional community facilities being covered when it would appear that many others in other parts of South Australia are not covered? What is the rationale for all of the different areas of coverage?

As I said, it is one thing to be whacking people with a massive fine for pitch invasion during test cricket at Adelaide Oval but, with due respect to my colleague the Hon. Mr Stephens, in relation to, say, Bennett Oval at Whyalla or an equivalent one in Mount Gambier, if you are going to start whacking people with fines for invading the pitch in those particular areas, then it raises a significant number of other issues that at least ought to be canvassed in this council before the legislation is rushed through under the guise of looking after test cricket next week (or this weekend or whenever it is) at Adelaide Oval.

I had not intended to speak until I had the benefit of listening to the contributions of some members of this council (and of the two houses of parliament, I would hope). At least let us have somebody answer some questions. The Hon. Ms Franks indicates she has only just received a copy of the bill (albeit having been briefed, evidently, beforehand in relation to this particular issue).

Are the offences only in relation to invading a pitch with the deliberate intention of hurting, or actually hurting, a participant, or something along those lines? Pitch invasions in country communities happen every day of the week. I do not know whether you would call them a pitch invasion, but people going onto country ovals—

The Hon. T.J. Stephens interjecting:

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: My colleague says kicking a footy at quarter time, but on any number of occasions there are examples. I am assuming it does not cover circumstances such as when in some country communities the local hero kicks his hundredth goal and his best mates, having had a few sherbets, jump onto the ground to celebrate it with him. This is not perhaps quite in the numbers that come onto suburban football ovals when, in the past, people have kicked their hundredth goal or some significant record has been broken.

Those cases, not that we condone them or see any intention to harm anybody, have been recognised as being part of our Australian or sporting culture for some considerable time. I do not think that this bill ought to be rushed through until the minister answers some of the questions the Hon. Ms Franks and others have put in relation to the legislation. I think it is entirely unfair to the chamber.

Given the debate that has been going on in relation to Adelaide Oval, I am interested in the issues the Hon. Ms Franks has raised about the handing out of leaflets potentially being an offence. Any number of us have been involved with occasions where, to put a particular point of view, leaflets have been distributed outside major events that occurred at Adelaide Oval over many years. Is that going to be made an offence?

These are legitimate forms of protest, which in the past have been lawful or certainly have involved no intention to hurt anybody; there is no-one running onto a pitch to belt someone. If you are distributing a leaflet that says you do not support the Adelaide Oval redevelopment, or something like that, and you want the 50,000 people who are going to be there to get an alternative point of view, will that be deemed by the government to be an offence under this legislation? How has the government defined Adelaide Oval? The Hon. Ms Franks raises this issue. I cannot see it in the actual one-page bill we have, but obviously there is more detail somewhere that someone has.

The Hon. A. Bressington interjecting:

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Yes, from briefings or something. But there is a huge issue that is going to come with the Adelaide Oval redevelopment as to what is defined as the precinct. Football, for example, as some colleagues will know, wants to control the whole of the precinct from King William Road to Montefiore Hill—well, the four roads that bound the broader Adelaide Oval precinct, with all the car parking, Adelaide Oval No. 2 and the tennis centre in the middle of it. It is not just the footprint of Adelaide Oval: it is that whole precinct that football and the government are obviously talking about there.

Will these provisions be covering all of that area in terms of where you can hand out leaflets and such things? I do not know. These are genuine questions which, hopefully, the government can answer in the second reading reply or the committee stage. I suspect the minister is going to need an adviser or two to respond to a number of those questions.

The Hon. S.G. WADE (11:25): I share the concerns of the Hon. Rob Lucas, the Hon. Tammy Franks and the Hon. Terry Stephens about the breadth of this provision. Likewise, my concerns have been stimulated by debate in this chamber. Specifically on the point the Hon. Rob Lucas just raised in relation to how broadly this provision impacts, my reading of the recreation grounds act, which this bill purports to amend, is that it will be inclusive; it is certainly not just the pitch. It provides:

'recreation ground' means any enclosed area of land commonly used for playing sports or games, or accommodating the spectators at any sport or game, and any enclosed area of land contiguous thereto and used in connection therewith;

I will certainly be interested to hear the minister's response to the Hon. Mr Lucas's concern, because my reading of that is that it would basically include the whole of the Adelaide Oval precinct, including the recreation facilities.

My concern is actually divergent to that, in the sense that that definition of recreation ground is quite expansive, and I would like to focus particularly on the phrase that 'recreation ground' includes an area 'accommodating the spectators at any sport or game'. There is no limitation in that provision to the recreation ground being directly connected with the area for the containment of spectators, and I am led to think about sporting events such as the Tour Down Under.

That is a very expansive sporting event, and, clearly, it is a sport. Under this definition of a recreation ground, an area 'accommodating the spectators at any sport or game' reminds me of the stage of the Tour Down Under with which I am most involved, the Stirling and Hills leg, but even more so the Eastern Adelaide leg, where you have major areas for the containment of spectators who would, in my view, be subject to the definition in this act and therefore subject to the penalties of this bill.

One could say that if the government were concerned about the mischief of spectators disrupting sporting events, why should it not cover something like the Tour Down Under? We can all recall the incident where the dog upset the Tour de France, last year I think. So, in this context, we need to make sure that we do not increase penalties in a provision which is particularly expansive. I think all these concerns support the concerns expressed by other honourable members that this is not a bill that should be rushed, and I too look forward to the answers that the minister might offer.

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON (11:27): I just wonder how many times we have to have this conversation in this chamber, about getting legislation dumped on us at the last minute—

The Hon. P. Holloway: Perhaps you could go to the briefings. Instead of playing politics why don't you do the job that you are well paid for?

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON: Excuse me—

The PRESIDENT: I think the minister is saying that there were briefings.

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON: Well, gee whizz. They were talking—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON: Who expected to get a bill dumped on us after 6 o'clock last night and then be in here at 11 o'clock to debate it?

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON: Please, with everything else that is going on—

The PRESIDENT: Order! Make the contribution.

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON: As I was saying, how many times do we have to have this conversation in here about getting last minute bills and expecting this house to rubber-stamp legislation that comes from who knows where (because we would not know)? All the concerns that the Hon. Tammy Franks has raised, as well as the Hon. Rob Lucas, the Hon. Terry Stephens and the Hon. Stephen Wade do need to be addressed, because this will probably affect good old weekend sporting activities in the community.

Last week on the radio I heard comments being made about legislation being drawn up for this. Since when do the media get to hear about this stuff first, before we have even had a chance to look at a bill? It is really poor form. As far as coming back with, 'Why don't you do your job; that's what you are paid to do,' well, why doesn't the minister do his job and give us the notice that is in the conventions, that we are supposed to have time to consider these bills and go through them? It is not about us not doing our job: it is about you guys not doing your job.

The PRESIDENT: The Hon. Mr Brokenshire wants to have a go.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE (11:29): Yes I do, Mr President, because I am here to contribute. Taxpayers pay me to contribute and I will contribute. We support the intent of what the government was trying to do, and we have actually had a phone hook-up briefing with the minister's adviser, but we were initially under this understanding that it was specifically for the Adelaide Oval because Cricket Australia wanted this because they did not want to have any embarrassment during the senior cricket matches that are about to occur.

Of course, we want to promote our state in the best way, so we could understand that, but I just have to say three things briefly. Firstly, again, we have been expected to rubber stamp legislation. This state is going backwards on the quality of legislation coming through this parliament at the moment. We are intimidated. I had two ministers behind me when I moved one amendment on the River Murray handover bill, which we should never have supported. Look at the damn mess with the River Murray legislation and the independent authority’s draft basin plan, etc., now. We were intimidated on that.

We had ministers sitting at the back saying, 'How dare you even move an amendment?' We were supposed to rubber-stamp that because it goes through ministerial council meetings. We have got bad legislation coming up into this house because there is very little work being done in the lower house. They were up at 10 past five last week, and at quarter past five as well, two days in a row. What is happening in the House of Assembly is a disgrace. This house is the house of review. We should have a right to be able to consider this and to go out and negotiate with our constituents.

Now, we will be supporting this bill, because we do not want the state and the government embarrassed over the possible innuendo that might occur during these matches. I just want to say: number one, we need more time. There used to be a convention in this place that a bill sat for at least one full week, if not two full weeks, plus the recess in between the sitting weeks, so we could go and consult. There have been several times, since I have been privileged to be in the Legislative Council, when that has not occurred. That leads to bad outcomes for legislation and it leads to amendments coming back into this house.

With respect to this, if they are going to rush this through and probably get the Governor in Executive Council to sign this off on Thursday, then they must have the regulations drafted somewhere now. I think that it is in contempt of this Legislative Council that they do not give us a copy of the regulations. I have never seen a piece of legislation like this before; one page. This is a record; one page. The second thing I want to say is, as a country person myself, you see a few antics that our community get up to. It is the only time they can lead off any steam.

At the end of the minor round, clearly at a grand final, often at the end of a grand final, during cricket and other sporting events and community events as well, like the Compass Cup, people let their hair down. I hope it has not got implications for that type of event, because things are a little different there. I don't know and I am being asked to pass this legislation with my colleagues in the next half an hour or less.

We wanted to look at things like scalpers. If you are going to be worried about people running onto Adelaide Oval, perhaps we should be a bit worried about the scalpers who are profiteering and pressurising people into cash transfers at the gates of these bigger events. There are many other issues. In defence of the government, my adviser has been told that the government does have a much larger bill, to do with major events, which they are going to bring in.

We will take what the minister’s adviser has told us with goodwill, but we expect to see proper consideration for members of parliament to move amendments that we can consult with community about first, because this has to stop. I hope that next year colleagues of all colours—Independents and crossbenchers, other than the government who are told what to do—will actually say, 'We have had enough of this and we will not support or debate legislation if it is rammed down our throats at this short notice.'

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY (Minister for Mineral Resources Development, Minister for Urban Development and Planning, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister Assisting the Premier in Public Sector Management) (11:34): I thank honourable members for their contributions to this debate. I think I need to point out exactly what it is that we are debating here. It is an amendment to the Recreation Grounds (Regulations) Act 1931. This is a very simple act of just two pages which basically provides the Governor with the powers to make 'regulations necessary or convenient for any of the following purposes'. It then goes through regulating entry and egress of persons and vehicles into or out of any recreation ground or any enclosure or building thereon and a range of other conditions.

Of course, the current regulations were actually implemented back in 1996, so I am surprised: the Hon. Mr Lucas must have been asleep when they went through cabinet in 1996. The Recreation Grounds Regulations of 1996 contain the penalties and conditions of issue in relation to those grounds covered in the schedule to the regulations. Also, in respect of Ms Franks' question, clause 8(2) of those regulations back in 1996, states:

A person must not deposit litter, refuse or waste matter in any place other than a receptacle provided for that purpose or distribute any printed matter or erect a sign or offer an article for sale or take up a collection or drive or ride any vehicle or bring a dog or, if the owner or person in charge of a dog, allow the dog to remain on a recreation ground, except as authorised by the controlling body or these regulations: maximum penalty $200.

This bill seeks to change the head power which limits the penalties that can apply. Whereas it is a $200 penalty for a person depositing litter, and so on, it would simply enable the penalty to increase to an expiation fee not exceeding $315 for an alleged offence against the regulations. Section 3(1)(j) of the head act provides:

The regulations may create offences punishable summarily and prescribing penalties not exceeding $200 for such an offence.

That was put in there back in 1931. The regulations to cover these events, about which the Hons Mr Lucas and Ms Franks are talking, were put in place in 1996, but the maximum penalty had to be $200 because it was restricted as such by the head power under the act. All this amendment will do is, in the head act—this two-page measure—enable the prescription of expiation fees not exceeding $315, delete the $200 maximum set back in 1931 and substitute $5,000. That is in line with the sort of penalties that apply elsewhere in the country.

The Hon. R.I. Lucas: That is a pitch invasion. All these other things—

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: Well, it is a maximum penalty. The Recreation Grounds (Regulations) Act 1931 states:

3(1)(j) Power of Governor to make regulations

Creating offences punishable summarily and prescribing penalties not exceeding $200 for any such offence.

The Hon. R.I. Lucas interjecting:

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: Well, that will be the maximum offence. The amendment provides for expiation offences not exceeding $315. The regulations of 1996 cover such things as behaviour of persons on ground, that is, where there are more serious offences, but for matters that may involve a person depositing litter, and so on, it is obviously the government's intention that under the new power you would apply the expiation fine.

The only way the government can increase the penalties under this 1931 act, where the penalties are restricted to $200 maximum, is by changing the act to allow a high level of penalties. The regulations themselves set out the offences with the appropriate penalties, and the schedule defines the recreation grounds covered by the act. In relation to Adelaide Oval, the current description, under the 1996 regulations (of course, they could go back further), is 'that part of the north parklands at Adelaide leased by the Corporation of the City of Adelaide to trustees for the South Australian Cricket Association Incorporated under and by virtue of memorandum of lease dated 30 November 1994: controlling body the South Australian Cricket Association Incorporated'.

That is the current regulation as it defines Adelaide Oval, but there are a number of other ovals. Most of the SANFL ovals are in here and a number of other local ovals. Of course, they must be included in the schedule (the recreation grounds), so some of these other particular regulations can apply, for example, the littering and so on—what one might describe as minor offences.

Unfortunately, at the present, all those offences are limited to a $200 fine under the regulations because that is all the act allows. What we are seeking through changing the act is to allow a higher level of penalty (up to $5,000) and also to allow for expiation notices so that we can have a much better balance of penalties for appropriate offences, but these will be in the regulations. After all, the act we are amending is called the Recreation Grounds (Regulations) Act and is simply a head power to create regulations under that act. With those comments, I commend the bill to the house.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I thank the minister for his response. I want to clarify a number of questions that were put at the second reading stage. The first question is: if the major problem is, as we understand it, pitch invasions of international cricket but particularly test cricket this coming weekend at Adelaide Oval, why did the government not just amend that particular provision? It is administratively convenient, I accept, to change the $200 penalty to $5,000, but then it potentially applies right across the board. There is a difference between a $200 penalty and $5,000 penalty. Even the debates in the House of Assembly acknowledged that; that is, $200 is a relatively modest penalty.

The Hon. P. Holloway: It probably wasn't in 1931.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: No, but in 1996 (whenever this regulation was brought in) clearly it was a relatively modest penalty and clearly $5,000 is a significant penalty. I think even the minister would have to concede that a pitch invasion of Adelaide Oval in front of 50,000 is a bit different from a pitch invasion of Bennett Oval at Whyalla in front of 46 people. I do notice that Richmond Oval—my beloved West Adelaide Football Club—is listed. A pitch invasion in front of 1,461 people at a West Adelaide South Adelaide game is a bit different again, and I think the minister would even acknowledge that. If the problem is Adelaide Oval and major events at Adelaide Oval—and we can all understand that and I think everyone accepts that the penalty there should be appropriate—why could the government not have chosen that particular course, that is, amend it in a way so that it only applies to those events at Adelaide Oval?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: The point I tried to make earlier is that it is the Recreation Grounds Regulations 1996 that apply, but they have a maximum of $200 because the Recreation Grounds (Regulations) Act 1931 restricts any penalty under that act to a maximum of $200. That was section 3(1)(j) where the Governor may make any regulations necessary or convenient for any of the following purposes, namely:

creating offences punishable summarily and prescribing penalties not exceeding two hundred dollars for any such offence.

When the regulations came down in 1996, there were a number of parts to those regulations. The relevant regulation is 'behaviour of persons on the ground', but the maximum penalty is $200 because that is all that could be applied then under the terms of the act.

The Hon. R.I. Lucas: But they relate only to Adelaide Oval.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: No, these are under the Recreation Grounds (Regulations) Act. They cover all penalties for all grounds, and a schedule to those regulations includes the names of the recreation grounds, that is, Hindmarsh Stadium, the SANFL grounds and Adelaide Oval.

The Hon. R.I. Lucas: Are you saying that, say, at Bennett Oval at the moment it would incur a penalty of $200?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: It is behaviour of persons on the ground. A person must not, while on a recreation ground, obstruct or interfere with the conduct of a sporting or other event. The maximum penalty is $200, and that applies across the board for all of those grounds.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I thought the regulations the minister was referring to from 1996 related only to Adelaide Oval, but he is confirming now that they relate to all of them. So, what the minister is saying is that the government's intention under this regulation is to say, in essence, that a pitch invasion that interferes with a game at Bennett Oval attracts a penalty of $5,000 as opposed to $200. Forgive me for common sense, but I do not see the element of common sense in relation to how one equates a pitch invasion at Bennett Oval, Whyalla or at Richmond Oval in the western suburbs—

The Hon. P. Holloway: That is what the courts are for. They determine the penalty for that.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I accept that, but we are the parliament and we are setting the guidelines and we are saying, in essence, that we the parliament agree with you, the government, that, ultimately, the court should interpret Bennett Oval and others as being applicable to the same penalty of $5,000. I do not see the logic of why the government would want to have a penalty for a spectator who, because he has had a sherbet too many, runs on to join his mate, who has kicked 100 goals at Memorial Oval or Bennett Oval, or whatever it is, in Whyalla, to celebrate with him. He gets shooed off or whatever it is.

Why should that sort of offence be subject to a $5,000 maximum penalty and be equated to some idiot who runs on to Adelaide Oval in front of 50,000 people, with live television coverage and all that sort of stuff, clearly with much greater ramifications for that particular event than it would at a country oval, whether it be Bennett Oval or any of the others there, even though that is the way it was done when it was $200? I accept that. At $200, it was an administrative convenience to do all of them together.

If you are going to whack it up to $5,000, it is possible for the government, if it so chooses, to either amend the act, if need be, and say that it just relates to Adelaide Oval, or take legal advice as to whether it is possible to have a regulation that applies to Adelaide Oval. It might not be possible; it might be that you have to amend the act, but that is what you are doing at the moment, anyway. You have come in here had said, 'For major events at Adelaide Oval, the penalty ought to be $5,000. For the other odds and sods, there hasn't been a problem; let's leave it as it happens to be.'

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: It would not just be Adelaide Oval. At Hindmarsh Stadium, one of the real concerns is the use of flares, which are an increasing problem at some soccer games, and that is the sort of behaviour that could be very dangerous. I think the best way to answer the Hon. Mr Lucas' point is by analogy with speeding. Speeding has a particular penalty, but obviously the circumstances in which one speeds could be far more dangerous in some cases than in others. I admit there is gradation of offences. It is now mainly expiation notices that would be offered but, if it goes to court, the penalty the judge would give for an offence like that would obviously depend on the severity of the offence.

I would have thought that it is pretty common practice here that we would just set a maximum penalty, and it is really up to the courts to determine the relative severity of the offence. Clearly, if someone obstructs a match or interferes with a sporting event at Adelaide Oval when tens of thousands are people are present, undoubtedly, they would regard that with greater severity than an offence where there were fewer people. The courts do that all the time in relation to a whole lot of other offences, whether it is assault or—

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: Yes, drugs. The courts take into account the severity in applying it. It would certainly be possible in theory to create a new offence of obstructing a major sporting event. I guess it would even be possible to do it under this act, but we need to deal with a whole range of behaviours here as well.

As I mentioned earlier, letting off flares, which unfortunately has become a habit at soccer matches in the Eastern States, is a highly dangerous activity and should be covered. At some of these small grounds where you have soccer matches, if you have strong ethnic tensions, it may not be a particularly large match but it could be quite dangerous behaviour. One would expect that police in the first instance in terms of prosecution and, secondly, the courts would take into account how dangerous the behaviour was in both making a decision to prosecute and then the courts in applying the penalties.

A number of other offences under the recreation grounds regulations, such as the littering and distributing offences or bringing a dog in and so on, are obviously candidates for an expiation notice. Again, it needs an amendment to the act to allow that to happen. In relation to these more serious penalties such as pitch invasion, we should have a higher penalty at $5,000 maximum. I understand that the penalties in most other parts of the country are as high as or higher than that. I know they were spelt out in the debate in the House of Assembly as to just what other states do in relation to some of those penalties. But it is not the government's intention that we should apply the maximum $5,000 penalty to all offences under the regulation, as was done back in 1996, but rather that we need to have a maximum of $5,000 to enable us to apply that to the particular offence of behaviour of persons on the ground.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: If I could clarify the minister's last comment in particular, because it pre-empts the question I was going to ask: do I take it that the only penalty which will be increased under the regulations the government is planning is to the regulation clause 8, behaviour of persons on grounds? If that is the case, is that in relation to all of the five subcategories of behaviour of persons on grounds?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: My advice is that it is the government's intention to restructure that part of the regulation so that it would just apply to behaviour in the two instances of pitch invasion and also paragraph (d) dealing with flares which provides:

except as authorised by the controlling body, carry or be in possession of a flare, firework, explosive device or missile;

Also, it applies to paragraph (a) 'obstruct or interfere'. They are the two that would be restructured to have the more serious penalty. The one about climbing on a fence, tree and so on would presumably be at the lesser level.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: So the government's intention is that the maximum penalty corresponds to the current 8(1)(a) and 8(1)(d) and would be at $5,000. All other penalties would stay at the $200 level?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: No; it is the government's intention to look at some of those areas but there probably is the scope for scaling up some of those penalties. For example, if we are making the expiation penalty not exceeding $315—that is the prescribing expiation—obviously, the expiation notice at that level would suggest a penalty somewhat greater than that. The government will be looking at some of the other penalties. We will be looking at penalties of $250. For example, regulations part 2—Use of recreation grounds, clause 6—Entry to and exit from grounds, the maximum penalty is $200. It would be the government's intention to increase that to $250 with an expiation notice of $80.

It would be proposed that the maximum penalty of $5,000 would only apply to a person being in the vicinity of a recreation ground in possession of a flare, firework, explosive device or missile without lawful excuse, proof of which lies on the person; a person in the vicinity of a recreation ground, which is the old provision (a) obstruct or interfere with the conduct; and damage to property. So, those three would have the maximum penalty of $5,000, every other one would be increased with an expiation penalty to a lesser amount.

Obviously, these ought to be reviewed from time to time, but certainly in the immediate future my understanding is that they are only looking at those three instances for a maximum penalty. I think removal of persons from ground also had a maximum penalty. It says a member of the police force or special constable may remove from a recreation ground any person reasonably suspected of having committed an offence while on the recreation ground. The person who has been so removed on a particular day must not re-enter the recreation ground on that day.

Again, I think a lot of these regulations will require some level of redrafting, but the proposal is that that would have a penalty of $1,250. Similarly, for the powers of an authorised person, that is regulation 10(3):

A person must not, without reasonable excuse, refuse or fail to comply with a requirement of an authorised person under this regulation.

The maximum penalty would also be increased to $1,250.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: Considering the redrafting that the minister has rightly pointed out will be necessary, when does the government expect that the redrafting of the regulations will be promulgated?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: Clearly, once the act is approved these will need to be in place, hopefully, before the test. One would think that they would need to go through a special gazette, or something, before the start of the test, so it will have to be done within the next week or so, if this bill is assented to.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: As I indicated in my second reading contribution, I think that 'recreation grounds' can be read very broadly, but I appreciate that the recreation grounds are as specified in the schedule. Does the government have any intention of changing the scheduled recreation grounds?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: I have been advised that there is some consideration being given. For example, the current schedule does not include the Morphettville Racecourse. I believe the SAJC is currently considering whether it should be included as part of that. The Adelaide Super-Drome is another which is not included under the current schedule.

The Hon. R.I. Lucas interjecting:

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: Yes, the recreation grounds are a schedule to the regulations, so they would simply be added to that schedule.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I have a question about the distribution of printed matter. That is actually one of my main concerns here, because what we are doing in this bill is that we are increasing the scope of some of the alleged offences against the regulations to be in the vicinity of a recreational ground. So, with distribution of printed matter, what is that defined to be? Does that include handing out pamphlets? To me, that is what distribution of printed matter might be. If so, what does 'in the vicinity of' specifically mean? Does it mean 50 metres, 100 metres, a kilometre? What is 'in the vicinity of' meant to mean in this bill?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: It is not proposed that the government would change the current regulations which say a person must not deposit litter, distribute any printed matter, etc., on a recreation ground except as authorised by the controlling body or these regulations. The definition of a recreation ground, as appears in the act, is: 'a recreation ground means any enclosed area of land commonly used for playing sports or games or accommodating the spectators of any sport or game and any enclosed area of land contiguous thereto and used in connection therewith'. So that is the interpretation of the act.

I am not quite sure where 'the vicinity' comes from, whether it is that part the honourable member is talking about, namely, 'land contiguous thereto and used in connection therewith'. That could mean 'the vicinity', but I think that is just a legal interpretation. Clearly, if one is outside a sporting ground, the reason that would be there—and it would be up to the police and the courts to determine how that would act—is that, clearly, if you had a flare, for example, and set it off just outside a ground, that would be just as inflammatory and dangerous. If you were waiting outside a ground to do that within the vicinity, it would be really up to the police and the courts to determine whether it was close enough. So it does not have to be a specific distance.

Otherwise, if you said 50 metres and someone wanted to do it, they would stand at 51 metres and do it. That is why the laws have to be general enough to cover behaviour but, ultimately, it is up to the courts to determine whether that would be a fair interpretation or not. I would suggest that the regulations—and the act does have to cover the proximity of a ground, because behaviour could take place on the outskirts of the ground—that could be contrary to the public good, and that is why you need these sort of the regulations to deal with it. Setting a specific distance would not be helpful in terms of defining that behaviour. It is better to use the general terms which the police and then the courts can use their discretion with in interpretation.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I will reiterate my question. My question is specifically regarding the distribution of printed matter and whether the distribution of printed matter 'in the vicinity of' (which we have just now been informed could be anywhere near a ground; it could be kilometres away because we are going to leave it ephemeral) is going to be subject to expiation fees of $315. Will you be able to get into trouble for handing out leaflets outside a sporting ground? That is what I want to know.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: What the current regulations say, and we are not proposing to change them, is that a person must not distribute any printed matter on a recreation ground except as authorised by the controlling body or these regulations. Now, it says 'on a recreation ground'. The definition of 'a recreation ground' is contained in the schedule so, if it was, for example, Elizabeth Oval, it is the whole of the land described in the certificate of title; register book volume and folio numbers are given and an area of 6.75 hectares or thereabouts, being section 140, allotment 2 of the hundred of Munno Para.

Similarly, there are definitions of Football Park, Glenelg Oval and all the other ovals for which this applies. They are the current regulations and definitions. They have been in place for some time and, one hopes, the police, ground officials and others interpret them like all other laws, with common sense.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Common sense would mean that you would answer the question: what does 'in the vicinity of' mean? I understand that currently we have laws that stop people from distributing printed matter on a recreation ground.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: In the bill. In the bill we are deleting 'about to enter, entering, being on, or quitting, any' and substituting 'or in the vicinity of'. That is why I am asking what 'in the vicinity of' means. Does it mean kilometres away, does it mean on the doorstep? Can we get a clarification?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: One needs to go back to the original act, which is the Recreation Grounds (Regulations) Act. It amends 3(1)(d), which provides:

The Governor may make any regulations necessary or convenient for any of the following purposes, namely…

(d) securing orderly and decent behaviour on the part of all persons about to enter, entering, being on, or quitting, any recreation ground and providing for the comfort and convenience of all such persons;

That is to be changed to 'or in the vicinity of'. I am not a lawyer but, as I understand it, 'in the vicinity of' is a common term used throughout the law. Obviously, it is subject to the interpretation of the police in the first instance in terms of prosecution and the courts. The reason it is inserted there, as I said earlier, is to allow for behaviour by someone who may be on the outskirts of one of these recreation grounds and be creating a public nuisance. Clearly, it would have to be established—before the courts, presumably—that that behaviour was in some way related to an event taking place on a recreation ground, or was in some way connected to a recreation ground; otherwise it would not be 'in the vicinity'. I do not think this is a new form of law we are talking about; it is very common.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Does that mean that clubs could not, for example, hand out leaflets for their drinks night or awards night outside the ground?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: The point I was making was that in 3(1)(d) it is about securing orderly and decent behaviour, so it will not relate to that particular regulation that deals with distributing material. We are only talking here about 'in the vicinity of' in relation to those more serious offences such as those involving flares and damage to property. Obviously, it would not be necessary for pitch invasion because one would be in the ground, not 'in the vicinity'. I guess it is in there specifically to cover instances of flares; as I said, if someone was outside clearly they could create a nuisance. I am sorry that I did not clarify that earlier; the amendment will really only relate to those two more serious offences, and not to the more minor offences of handing out literature.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: That is very reassuring.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I think the minister has clarified, through some of his responses, some of the questions raised by members, and I think it has been a worthwhile debate. At this stage I can express only a personal view, because these issues were not raised in our party room discussions on the matter; most of us believed this related just to Adelaide Oval. My personal view is that I think the minister has now confirmed that the government's intention is that a pitch invasion of Largs Reserve in the Port Adelaide Enfield area, or a pitch invasion of the Noarlunga Downs oval, or a pitch invasion of Bennett Oval in Whyalla, is the equivalent of a pitch invasion of Adelaide Oval and subject to a maximum fine of $5,000.

I do not think that passes the common-sense test. Given this late stage—we have only today and tomorrow and, certainly, our party room does not meet again at this stage—I think that is why the points were made earlier that if these issues are raised early it would give all the parties, and their party rooms, the opportunity to further consider them. As I said, my view in relation to this $5,000 fine is that it ought to be applied to the areas where there is a problem. If Adelaide Oval is the area where there has been a problem, then let us apply that particular fine to Adelaide Oval.

We are distinguishing a whole range of these other offences between various areas. We could have targeted this legislation so that it addressed the problem that is evidently there—that is, major events at Adelaide Oval—and had a maximum fine of $5,000, then have a more modest fine for pitch invasions of suburban ovals.

I remain of the view that a mate invading a suburban football oval to celebrate his mate's 100th goal in a football season, or whatever it is, in good nature and good humour, then being sent off the field, should not be potentially legally subject to a fine of up to $5,000. Now he, in those circumstances, might not get $5,000, as the court considers appropriate, but it will be some gradation of $5,000. It will not be a gradation of $200. If you only get half of the penalty, it is $2,500 for invading the Largs Reserve recreation ground where a suburban amateur football match is being conducted.

It is the government's intention that they be treated in the same way with the same penalty of $5,000. As I said, I don't think that passes the common-sense test, but the only option available to this house is to delay the legislation when the prime purpose is for the Adelaide Oval test coming up in the next few days to have this increased fine. Given that the government refuses to sit in the scheduled optional sitting week next week, when we could have tidied these things up, those options do not remain available for the upper house.

The Hon. Mr Stephens has indicated the Liberal Party's formal position. I think the debate, from my viewpoint, has been worthwhile. It has actually, again, I guess, pointed to the reasons why there are processes and conventions in the house. On occasions they need to be short-circuited. This is not one of those occasions because the minister had been telling people for a month or so, at sporting and other events, that parliament was going to need to consider this legislation. So, it is not as if it is something that has occurred in the last week. The minister has been telling people at sporting events, for more than a month, that this is coming. We have had the opportunity to introduce the legislation much earlier and much of this debate might have been circumvented if that process had been followed by the government and the minister.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: I don't want to comment on the debate, but I just think that, in relation to the common-sense argument regarding the pitch invasion being different at some ovals than others, one has to look at the circumstances. We also have to look at things like flares being used. As I said earlier, the use of a flare could be more dangerous at some venues. It is not just at Adelaide Oval where there could be a risk. I think we can rely on the courts, or indeed, the police and prosecution service to interpret the law fairly.

Clause passed.

Remaining clauses (2 and 3) and title passed.

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

Bill read a third time and passed.

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