HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Second Parliament, Second Session (52-2)
2013-09-24 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

MAJOR EVENTS BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 4 July 2013.)

The Hon. S.G. WADE (17:38): I rise on behalf of the Liberal opposition to indicate our support for the passage of the Major Events Bill 2013. On 21 March 2013 the Attorney-General introduced the bill in the House of Assembly. The bill proposes to allow the government to declare an event to be a major event and thereby increase the level of control of people, products and promotions related to that event, designated event areas and airspace.

South Australia is one of the few mainland states that does not have an overarching piece of legislation which regulates commercial activities associated with major events. The bill includes measures to deal with ambush marketing, ticket scalping, unauthorised event associations and unauthorised broadcasting. I am not clear about how this bill intends to help tourism operators to increase the benefits of major events in South Australia and the opposition holds concerns about the particular implications the bill will have on local councils and community organisations.

During his second reading speech, the Attorney claimed that increasingly international sporting bodies such as the International Cricket Council, the Commonwealth Games Association, the International Rugby Board, the International Olympic Committee and FIFA require protection against the infringement of certain activities associated with their events. He specifically went on to claim that:

It is a requirement of South Australia's 2015 Cricket World Cup bid that the protection that would be afforded by this proposed legislation be in place for at least 12 months prior to that event.

Yet, at the government briefing on the bill, the government adviser admitted that there was no such demand from the Cricket World Cup organisers. It became clear that the government was more focused about protecting its own commercial interests in events such as the Tour Down Under.

Recently, the Attorney-General was also caught out criticising the Legislative Council for holding up the liquor licensing bill when the bill had not even passed the House of Assembly, where they had the numbers. The government cannot be trusted to tell the truth to the parliament or to the public.

Many of the proposed legislative tools in this bill currently exist under other types of legislation. The bill creates multiple offences for prohibited conduct, such as ambush marketing, distribution and sale of non-approved goods and ticket scalping, all of which carry hefty penalties. The opposition is concerned about the disregard the government has about maintaining the presumption of innocence for citizens in the bill, through the reversal of the onus of proof onto the accused person to show they had a reasonable excuse in acting how they did.

The ambush marketing provisions and the use of logos and official titles in the bill are restrictive and could potentially penalise private property owners and small tourism operators seeking to link to major events such as the Tour Down Under. Under the bill, a small tourism operator would be prohibited from using the logo or titles of an event unless the minister has issued an authorisation for them to do so. For example, a Tour Down Under breakfast would be prohibited without authorisation, carrying penalties of a $50,000 fine for an individual or $250,000 for a body corporate. The opposition seeks to confirm that charitable and community groups can use logos and titles without fear of penalty.

The opposition is concerned that the power to make regulations under clause 7(g) to prohibit disorderly or offensive conduct, or clause 7(i) to prohibit or regulate any other conduct for the purposes of maintaining good order, are significantly open ended in terms of both offences and law enforcement powers.

Enhanced enforcement powers already exist under the public safety order provisions of part 4 of the Serious and Organised Crime (Control) Act 2008 and the 'special powers to prevent serious violence' in sections 72A to 72C of the Summary Offences Act. The opposition seeks to ensure that the regulations do not have the capacity to create public order offences or enforcement powers.

In addition, penalties of up to $1,250 can be prescribed by regulation under clause 7, and fines imposed under the regulations could be for relatively minor breaches of regulations, such as bringing food into an event where it is banned. There is no requirement to consult with legislation before declaring a major event area, which could include the closure of roads, regulation of driving, parking or standing of vehicles, and regulation of other public spaces within a local council jurisdiction.

The cooperation of local councils in such events is essential. The Adelaide Hills Council, for example, has expressed concern about the negative impact of this bill on their decision-making ability, their local community, and their finances and infrastructure for the hosting of major events.

Concerns have been raised from multiple constituents about the lack of justification for the bill, including the lack of information available about the economic benefit, whether the powers already exist under current laws and that in the past residents' rights have been infringed by road closures. The opposition looks forward to the government's response at the end of the second reading stage and to exploring these issues further in the committee stage.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. K.J. Maher.

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