HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Second Parliament, Second Session (52-2)
2013-10-31 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

MAJOR EVENTS BILL

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I was wondering if I could ask the minister, who is it that it is intended will be the responsible minister for this act?

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: My advice is that it will be the responsibility of the Minister for Tourism.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I ask the government what its attitude is to the proposals from the Adelaide City Council in relation to both the letter that was sent to the government, as I understand it, and the proposed amendments to it, and what the government's response to the council's concerns were?

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: My advice is that the three concerns raised by the Adelaide City Council go to issues around the Parklands: one being remediation after a major event; another being conformity of an event with principles governing the use of the Parklands; and, thirdly—

The Hon. S.G. WADE: On a point of order, Mr Chair, can you ask the minister to offer his answer again? There is no point in getting an answer if we can't hear it.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: My advice is that correspondence from the Adelaide City Council went to three issues in relation to the Parklands: one is remediation after an event; secondly, the conformity of an event with principles governing use of the Parklands; and, thirdly, overriding parking controls. Our response to that is that regulations contemplate the requirement that any major event will have a major event plan. Common sense would say that major events require a major event plan, and that is what we anticipate doing. Our government's amendments, I am advised, will require the government to consult with local government over these issues, but the government is not prepared to offer a power of veto to local government over major event functions.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Hopefully visitors will stop talking so I can hear the answer. What would be the process if somebody is an event organiser? How will they go about having an event declared a major event, should they be organising something that they would like declared so? Will it simply be a letter to the minister, and will they need to know that process, or will there be some sort of promotion that this option exists more broadly?

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: My advice in response to the question of the Hon. Tammy Franks is that the minister responsible for the legislation will be in charge of the making of regulations which he or she will take to cabinet in the normal way. There are no specific requirements in terms of rules or a form to fill out, but if an organiser of an event would like to ask government to make it a major event, then they would enter into correspondence presumably with government or directly with the minister, and that would make its way to the responsible minister for a decision.

Certainly, regulations will be published in the normal way and one would expect that it would not be too long before promoters of events who are in the business of major event type issues would of course find out about these also in the normal way, but they will be public and transparent. They will be debated in this place, I am quite sure, and like all regulations, they will of course be disallowable.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: To clarify for the minister the specificity of my question, I have had advice from the drafters of this bill that, indeed, an event organiser of what might be determined to be a major event—although that is still somewhat unclear—would be able to avail themselves of the provisions with regard to ticket scalping under clause 9.

Certainly there is some interest and I would cite two examples. The Big Day Out organisers in this country have long wanted to be able to avail themselves of provisions to stop ticket scalping of their event and in my conversations with the Entertainment Centre, for example, in relation to the Bruce Springsteen concert that is coming up, I understand that Bruce Springsteen is very opposed to ticket scalping of his events.

I will not mention Neil Diamond at this stage, who likes to scalp his own tickets. Clearly he is not going to want to stop ticket scalping, but in terms of a Big Day Out promoter or the promoters for an upcoming large tour which would probably fall prey to those ticket onsellers, who in some cases do indeed exploit people, how will they be able to be informed about this; and what will be that decision threshold for those events to be considered major events? Where is the transparency? Will it have to simply rely on people being in the know or will there be some sort of promotion, say, on the website for the department?

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: My response to the Hon. Tammy Franks' question is in two parts, as was her question. It is not the policy of the government in this legislation to enact specific prohibition versus ticket scalping generally. That is something that the government will apply if it determines to grant major event status to an event. The expectation is that those people who are in the business of putting on such functions will know about this legislation because, of course, it affects their business.

A promoter that wants to avail itself of the provisions, for example, those raised by the Hon. Ms Franks in terms of ticket scalping or any other provisions listed in this bill, would need to apply to government, and it will be up to the government to determine on a case-by-case basis on the merits of the application whether it grants major event status.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: In terms of the government considering on a case-by-case basis to decide whether an event is a major event, does the government have any either draft policies or general intention in terms of what they mean when they talk about a 'major event'?

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: My advice is that there are no draft policies or written intention of what would qualify for a major event, the two reasons being: first, you do not want to put down in writing what might qualify in advance, you do not know what applications may come to you in the future, and those draft intentions may or may not rule out someone's application; secondly, having such draft rules does open up the government to some sort of legal challenge on the basis of any decision the government might make. So, the government's intention is not to have specific policies in that regard but, as I said, to make decisions on a case-by-case basis on the basis of the application and its merits.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I thank the minister for his answer. Referring back to the event organisers the Hon. Tammy Franks was talking about, I just wonder if the government runs the risk of having a large range of promoters, considering that they will not have any guidance on what the government means by a major event, deciding that theirs is such an event. After all, an event such as the Catholic schools sports day would have thousands of people, with major catering challenges and all sorts of other issues. That might be a major event. Certainly, Heaven nightclub on any Saturday night is a major event in a lot of young people's lives. I wonder—

The Hon. D.W. Ridgway: Liberal Party preselections are a major event.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: That's right. The honourable member reminds me that you do not need to have large numbers to have large significance. I appreciate the point the minister made about not wanting to invite litigation but, on the other hand, surely we do not want to invite a flood of applications that are not warranted.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: The Hon. Mr Wade is correct in one respect, I suppose, that we run a very real risk that every person in the Liberal Party might apply to have a major event function for, as he raises, Liberal Party preselections, but common sense has to prevail, and it is unlikely that Catholic sports days organisers will want to avail themselves as some of the functions under this legislation. They probably do quite well enough on their own.

The other aspect is that making an application will require some cost on the part of the promoter. They will need to have an extensive event plan that will require them to talk about, for example, traffic management plans, crowd management plans and private security. Not every person and their dog is actually going to come in and apply for a major events function licence or permission just because they can. They will have to go through a rigorous process to explain to government why it should be granted.

We think common sense will prevail. Those people who want to have major event status will do so because they require some of the protection of the provisions in the legislation, and they are the ones who will make the application to government.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Minister, following on from my previous questions in regard to the ticket scalping provisions, would an event organiser be able to apply for major event status for only one section of the act—in this case, obviously, ticket scalping?

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: My advice is no. Once you get the grant of a major event status, everything applies that is in the legislation.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I just note for the minister that that was not the conversation I had with parliamentary counsel on this bill and that was not my understanding of this bill. I was informed that, indeed, there would be provisions and mechanisms where one could apply to take advantage of only those provisions and that therefore an amendment to enable that process was not necessary to this bill. I just flag that at this stage.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: On further clarification from parliamentary counsel, I retract my previous statement. The Hon. Ms Franks is right in her contention.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: For those of us who were following that interchange, do I take it that the minister is suggesting that the Hon. Tammy Franks is correct—that an event organiser could apply for major event status and have only part of the act applying to their event?

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: My advice is yes.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: Thank you for that clarification. How is the public supposed to know?

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I go back to my previous answer: I do not think every member of the public is going to be applying for an application with this legislation. Those people who are in the business of putting on an event that wants major event status will be aware of the regulations they need to conform to. They will know because they have to put in place a very comprehensive event plan which will take into consideration those major things they want to avail themselves of.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: The minister is picking up a different point to the one I was trying to make. I was not actually so concerned about the people who were receiving and giving letters. They are fine, they are in the loop, but what about the community organisation that wants to organise a community event and, unbeknownst to it, some bits of the legislation apply and some bits of the legislation do not apply? How are they supposed to know if they are vulnerable to the ambush marketing provisions?

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: My advice is simply this. We are not talking about functions like the Catholic schools sports days which were raised earlier. We are talking about major events, like the Santos Tour Down Under, which will be extensively publicised, and you would expect that obviously. My advice is that the department would also be in a position where it would publicise the conditions that it would operate under, potentially on its website or through other means of communication.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: The expectation of the government is that there will not be any obligation on the event organiser or the government to publicise which bits of the legislation do or do not apply, but somebody may see it is good practice to do that on a case-by-case basis?

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: My advice is there has been no obligation, of course, in the legislation, but it is good practice and there is an expectation that it will be undertaken for the strong reason that the organisers will need to protect the commercial interests of the partnership. If they have a requirement that something not happen they would, of course, be interested in publicising those requirements so they do not have to be in conflict with other organisations.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: The minister mentioned earlier that the major event declaration is disallowable. Now, considering that—and I am sure the Clerk will correct me if I am wrong—I think it is 12 sitting days pass before a regulation is no longer disallowable, that could be a matter of months, particularly if it breaches a summer or winter break. In that context I am just concerned about the commercial arrangements that the government and the event organiser have gone into. It may not be significant expenses for a government, but the undertakings of the commercial entity might be quite significant.

I am just concerned about the risk of a disallowance of a regulation representing a severe commercial problem for event organisers. If the government also sees that problem: is there an intention to have regulations declared early enough, if you like, so that disallowance will be cleared early enough that a commercial interest can go ahead and make their arrangements with lower risk?

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: My advice is that, yes, there is that provision, and I am reminded that we are talking about events of the size and scope of the Santos Tour Down Under, and those events are organised well into advance years—certainly months.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: As I move on to the next question, I just make the point that that seems to be a significant business risk for those involved, which brings me to the issue of the Tour Down Under. The bill was tabled in this place on 15 May, the other place earlier again, yet it has not been brought on to debate until 31 October, and we are now getting publicity towards the Tour Down Under. My understanding is that members of the opposition have been contacted by members of the tourism administration emphasising the urgency of the matter. I am curious as to why it was urgent before winter and was not urgent after the winter break.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: Mr Chairman, I cannot speculate on the Hon. Mr Wade's speculation.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I have some questions of a less technical nature in relation to the operations and how it will impact members of the public. I want to ask one question in relation to the World Cup. When we were briefed on the bill after it was tabled in the House of Assembly, we were told that it was a requirement to have it in place for the 2015 Cricket World Cup. We were also told in the briefing that the Tourism Commission, the government or whoever had had some correspondence with the World Cup body, International Cricket or whatever they call themselves these days. We asked for a copy of that, but we did not ever receive that, so I am interested to know: is it a requirement of World Cup cricket to have it or is just that we are falling in line with other states that have major events legislation?

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: We have a general view that it is a requirement, but I am not in a position to confirm that, neither is my adviser.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I will start with the cricket. We will have the World Cup here, and I think that we will have either Pakistan or India; I am not quite sure which teams are coming. Can the minister clarify that for a major event there will be a declared area, which I assume for Adelaide Oval would be the land that is sort of bounded by King William Road and War Memorial Drive and that area—the extension of Morphett Street that goes up the hill and across the top? I assume that would be the designated area, and the activities that would take place in that area would be under the jurisdiction of the major events legislation.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: My advice is that the designated area would be determined on a case-by-case basis, but my general advice is that, when you think about provisions for ambush marketing, the area may be larger than the specific function centre and car park; it might take in a little more area than that.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: From an ambush marketing perspective, I can understand that the area would be on a case-by-case basis, but if there is a certain branding that goes with a particular event, and I will use the cricket—let's say that Coke or a particular beer is the major sponsor, and that is part of the branding of that particular event, what I am interested in is the inadvertent advertising, such as two or three mates going to the cricket and they all have XXXX jumpers and actually it is a West End event. So, members of the public going to a major event and inadvertently sit together—and I know there have been examples where companies have paid for 200 or 300 people to wear their particular company logo and to sit together and be a brand inside a venue, but I am concerned more about, if you like, the accidental capture of half a dozen mates going to the cricket all wearing a particular jumper or T-shirt that is at odds with the event sponsor.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: My advice in terms of the definition of ambush marketing—and you can turn to clause 6, page 5, of the bill—is that you need to be able to qualify for that definition by taking advantage of the holding and conduct of a major event to promote a person, goods or services without the written approval of the event organiser, etc. So in the unlikely case that the Hon. Mr Ridgway suggests, where half a dozen blokes/mates—

The Hon. D.W. Ridgway: It could be girls.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: Could be, that is why I went to 'mates'—sat together wearing identical clothing, in the first instance you would probably say that is not accidental if they are all wearing identical clothing at that level but they probably still would not fall into the remit of the definition unless they were trying to take advantage of the situation.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I am also interested in activities inside the designated area, that nothing will be permitted inside that area that does not comply with the operator of the event, so referring to branding and products that are for sale. I assume that any activities inside the designated area will be a breach of this act.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: My advice is that the Hon. Mr Ridgway is a little bit too broad in his description.

The Hon. S.G. Wade: He's not. I'd say that is an offensive remark. He's trying to lose weight.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I certainly wouldn't make reflection on an honourable member's waistline. That would be throwing stones at glasshouses from my perspective. No, the terminology is 'any events or any activities' and we say that is too broad. It would need, again, to come back to the definition. It would have to be conduct that falls into the prohibitions that are in the legislation which are designed to protect the commercial interests of the promoter.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: Let's say it is the Adelaide Oval. It always seems outrageous the price you are charged for a bottle of water or a pie or a bag of chips, but you are there on the day and you are enjoying the cricket and you are hungry or thirsty so you line up. If somebody was offering food and beverages for sale outside, but inside the designated area—well, they wouldn't be permitted to do that inside the designated area, I would assume, because the operator would say that detracts from their event.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: In general that is correct, but it comes down again to the specific event and the regulations that are enacted.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: Outside of the designated area, and I will be hypothetical. Let's just say for the Adelaide Oval it is the area I described which is the bitumen roads surrounding the oval—War Memorial Drive, King William Street and the other two roads. If somebody was on the other side of the road with a sausage sizzle or a big box of bottles of water to sell or pies saying that pies are $8 in the Adelaide Oval and these are only $2 here, if they are outside the designated area, does the event organiser or the government have any jurisdiction over them?

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: No, they have to be inside the designated area to be captured by this legislation is my advice. If they are outside the designated area, they are outside.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I think we did ask this in the briefing, and this is in relation to the Clipsal, which I assume will be declared a major event for all of those reasons. I have had the pleasure of going to a number of events around the Clipsal, and I will describe one, which is on Dequetteville Terrace, it is a private grandstand and as you walk past there you walk past the CWA city headquarters and they always have a sausage sizzle, which is a great thing. You cannot see the race, but what I am interested in is where the boundary would be for the designated event, because clearly the CWA are absolutely exploiting the fact that there are people walking past who are hungry, who have maybe had a couple of refreshments late in the day and are even hungrier on the way home, and there is an opportunity to make some money out of an event that is there. I am just interested in making sure that those people, who are genuine charities doing good work, will not be captured by this legislation.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I cannot guarantee the member where a designated area or boundary is going to be, that will be part of the application of an individual event. Again, I come back to the position that common sense would prevail. I cannot imagine any promoter of a function wanting to incur the ire of an organisation such as the CWA, or indeed many others that you could think of, for such a thing as a sausage sizzle held for charitable purposes.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: That takes me now to the Tour Down Under, which I guess is a different event in that every year it changes its route, which is a great aspect of it, as it takes the event to country towns. I assume the designated area will be the road and the shopfronts that front the road they travel along. How will you deal with proprietors of shops that have—and I will use the Coke/Pepsi comparison again. Coke is the sponsor of the event and the shop right on the front row, who has been there for 100 years, has a massive Pepsi sign that will be visible on television. How do you deal with, if you like, people inadvertently being captured who are at odds with the intent of the legislation, to stop people getting that, if you like, unfair advantage?

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: My advice is that we should go back to clause 6 again, which is the meaning of ambush marketing. They would need to be shown to be taking advantage of the holding and conduct of a major event to promote a person, goods or services without written approval. So, if a shop, for example, in the situation the Hon. Mr Ridgway raises, is going on doing its normal activities, it has its normal signage up and is not doing anything out of the ordinary, I cannot imagine it could possibly be seen as taking advantage of the function, it is just doing its ordinary everyday work. If, on the other hand, they go out of their way to import new products to take advantage of it and put up a display then that could very well be captured by the legislation. We need to draw that distinction between normal course of events, normal signage, and going out of their way explicitly to take advantage of a function.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: In relation to the Tour Down Under where I described the designated area as probably the roadway and the shops fronting it, or the footpath, we have often seen a number of aerial shots, in fact that is probably one of the things that is so good about the Tour Down Under from a broadcast point of view, it shows our wonderful landscape, and we have often seen messages written on hay bales or somebody has gone and mown some stubble. That is not just a roadway, it is many of hundreds of metres, maybe a kilometre, either side of it. Will this legislation capture that, so that somebody is not able to put some message that is of a commercial nature out in a paddock?

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I go back to my earlier answer about sausage sizzles on the side of the road across from an oval, if it is outside the designated area it is outside and will not be captured by this legislation.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: So, technically, somebody could put a message, whatever it may be, promoting a product or a joke or whatever. I guess the designated area will only be the roadway and the immediate area that fronts it, not the paddock. So, somebody could do what they like in the paddock.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: The Hon. Mr Ridgway is being much too broad again in his description. Of course, if it is outside the designated area, it is outside the designated area, clearly, but if you want to do something in terms of a paddock a kilometre away a couple of things apply. You would have to, of course, get permission from the landowner, you would probably, of course, need to consult the council about its local regulations, and you take a very big risk that you probably will not be seen by anybody at all.

In addition, I am advised that under division 4, clause 14, you cannot also use official logos or titles, and that is covered on page 11 of the draft bill. So, you cannot do anything you want—you need also to take into consideration the other aspects of the bill in terms of logos, official logos and title, but also local government restrictions, private landowner requirements, etc.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: By way of clarification, I am getting creative in my thinking now: given that the Tour Down Under will be in the lead-up to the next election, would there be no restriction on a loyal Liberal Party member, who is a farmer, mowing a message in the paddock that could give the viewing public some guidance as to which way they should vote at the next election? He owns the land. When I was farming you could do what you like on your farm, and if it is not in the designated area, and if it is creative enough, I am sure it will get on TV.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I cannot imagine anyone saying that they should vote No.1—Mr Ridgway. However, there is a constitutional freedom of speech or implied constitutional right to freedom of speech, and I should think that that would trump almost anything in that regard.

Clause paused.

Clauses 2 to 6 passed.

Clause 7.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Wade–1]—

Page 5, line 26 [clause 7(2)(g)]—Delete paragraph (g)

Under clause 7 of the act penalties up to $1,250 can be prescribed by regulation. Fines imposed under regulations could be for relatively minor breaches of a regulation, such as bringing food into an event where it is banned. These penalties go further than current conditions of entry imposed by event organisers. Section 5(3) of the Expiation of Offences Act provides that these offences could be expiable.

The opposition does not object to the broad scope of the regulations, but we are concerned in relation to one aspect of clause 7, namely, clause 7(2)(g), which reads:

(2) Without limiting the generality of subsection (1), the regulations may—

(g) prohibit disorderly or offensive behaviour at the major event venue; and

Also, we have concerns about paragraph (i), which states that the regulations may:

(i) prohibit or regulate any other conduct or activities for the purposes of maintaining good order, and preventing interference with events or activities conducted, at the major event venue; and

The clause, effectively, would give the government the power to create special classes of criminal law through regulation for specific events. We are concerned that the power to make regulations in this situation is too open ended in terms of both offences and enforcement powers.

The criminal law is already well developed to manage public order and specifically to prohibit disorderly or offensive behaviour. If there are special risks, the government can already access enhanced powers under the public safety audit provisions of part 4 of the Serious and Organised Crime Control Act 2008, and, under the Summary Offences Act 1953, sections 72A to 72C, the special powers to prevent serious violence.

So, if there is a need to enhance the current provisions of the criminal law, then the opposition's view is that that should be done, but not through the introduction of broad offences by regulation. The opposition appreciates there is a need for some regulation-making power under this section, but does not think it is appropriate to include offence-type provisions.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: The government opposes this amendment and the other amendment to which the Hon. Mr Wade spoke, and I will come to that in a moment. In terms of his first amendment, this amendment deletes the paragraph of the regulation-making power that allows the making of regulations to prohibit disorderly or offensive behaviour at a major event venue. The amendment is opposed. It is true that clause 25 places into the statute itself a provision dealing with disorderly and offensive behaviour.

Clause 25(1)(a) empowers a police officer to require any person behaving in a disorderly or offensive manner to leave the venue under penalty for failure to leave, but that is a different matter, and deliberately so. It is different in two respects. First, it does not create any general offence of behaving in a disorderly or offensive manner and, second, there is no specific offence of types of disorderly or offensive behaviour. If there are to be such, these are to be left to the regulations in general or to regulations that govern a particular major event.

A good example—and we can all probably understand why this would be desired—might be the prohibition of the display of certain flags or national symbols at a soccer match. All of us, I think, would be aware of some of the situations that have happened even in this country in terms of display of national symbols, and it may well be a very desirable thing to have the power to, in fact, ban or prohibit the display of those symbols at such a function. The object of this bill is to be as flexible as possible and to be the least intrusive it can be on the ordinary freedoms of people. Removing that flexibility, we believe, is a retrograde step and should not be supported.

The other point the Hon. Mr Wade raised about this is that we are putting in place a special criminal offence as well. I am advised that, thinking about the Australian Road Rules, they are offences that are all comprised by regulations. In relation to the Hon. Mr Wade's concerns about paragraph (i), to which he will be moving an amendment shortly, can I say that this amendment deletes that paragraph of the regulation-making power that allows the making of regulations to prohibit or regulate any other conduct or activities for the purposes of maintaining good order and preventing interference with events or activities conducted at a major event venue.

The amendment is opposed for much the same reasons I have stated about the other amendment. In general terms, it is at least highly desirable that this kind of behaviour be dealt with. It is all very well to think that it should be covered in the bill itself, but that detracts from a desirable flexibility just described in my example. It is also paradoxically contrary to the desirable legislative objective in maximising freedom. If everything must be in the bill, then all possible objectionable behaviour will be subject to extensive criminal sanction all the time, without discrimination as to the event or the practical need for that. Removing the flexibility inherent in the current scheme is a retrograde step and should not be supported, we say.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I thank the minister for his comments. The minister's comments have tended to focus on the choice of having offence-type provisions in the regulations or having them in the major events act itself. The focus of my comments was actually: why does the general law not do the job? If I could distinguish particularly in relation to (g) and (i), the term 'disorderly or offensive behaviour' does conjure up issues of the Summary Offences Act and criminal law more generally.

Admittedly, (i) is broader and more general and does not have the same flavour, if you like, but if I could put it in these terms: could the minister explain why the government does not think that the general order offences available under criminal and other laws will suffice in major events? I accept the minister's point about, shall we say, inflammatory acts, but those acts themselves are acts threatening public order.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: My advice is in two parts. First, in reference to earlier parts of the discussion, where people wanted to see more clarity in terms of legislation, what we are trying to do in this instance is create a self-contained package, providing the single source of information and rules in one place so that people can be comforted, if you like, to see what will be applied to them. Secondly, major organisations, overseas organisations in particular, do want that package. What they do not want to be told is, 'Just rely on the general law. Go and look up the Summary Offences Act or the Criminal Law Consolidation Act and be comforted by that.' They will not find that attractive and the very real risk to this state is that they will bypass us and go to another state that gives them more clarity and is willing to deal with them.

In the situation of the hypothetical we talked about earlier, about national flags and symbols at a function, it is not clear, I would say, that police would have powers to confiscate flags or other national symbols before an altercation eventuated. The whole provision of this series of amendments is to make sure that such a confrontation does not eventuate and that they could prescribe those certain national symbols and flags so that there is not such an altercation. That is the purpose of the legislation. The police probably would not be able to confiscate those on entry; they could only do so if a fight broke out, for example, and that is why these provisions are so important.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: The opposition does accept the government's point, that to a certain extent this is—and I do not want to use an offensive word—an omnibus piece of legislation which significantly duplicates other legislation for the comfort of major event organisers and, as the minister said, they may be overseas interests who do not want to go to the inconvenience of getting an understanding of South Australian law. I do doubt, though, the issue about clarity, particularly in relation to this section. That may be true of all the ambush marketing and the duplicated provisions that are in others, but this is a regulation-making power. All they are being told is that the relevant minister can issue a regulation in that area.

Moving on, though, could the minister suggest what might be picked up under (2)(g) which would not be activities relating to the maintaining of good order in paragraph (i)? For example, the national flags, which I think is a good example, might well be something that you might need to impose. We could avoid criminal offence-type wording in (g) if we managed the behaviour in (i). I appreciate that I have another amendment that proposes to knock out (i), but let's put it this way: I am much more comfortable with (i) than I am with (g).

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: In an attempt to answer the honourable member's question, I am advised that there are different heads of power in the different sections so that they cover different things: in (g) we are covering, for example, disorderly behaviour; in (i) we are covering any other conduct.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I am sorry; I didn't understand that. With the heads of power, we are referring to sections within the act, are we? If that is the case, what sections does (g) link to and what sections does (i) link to?

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: Each of those sections, I am advised, provide heads of power to make regulations. They refer to, as I said earlier, different terms: (g) disorderly behaviour and (i) any other conduct.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I do appreciate I am thick, but what sections do they refer to? Which sections does (g) link to and which sections does (i) link to?

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: We have not understood the Hon. Mr Wade's question, but I am advised that these are just regulation-making powers: they do not link to other sections.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: So, the heads of power you are referring to are actually the sections themselves. So, (g) is a head of power to deal with disorderly or offensive behaviour, and (i) is a head of power in relation to maintaining good order, which I think means that I am still unclear as to what activities that would be classified as disorderly or offensive behaviour in (g) would not come under good order and, therefore, could be dealt with under (i).

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I am advised we can assist the honourable member by considering a couple of hypothetical situations. One is that, for example, disorderly behaviour may include racist sledging of a sportsperson on a playing field, whereas the other is not necessarily disorderly or offensive but requires, for example, people to queue up at the entrance and open their bags for inspection. There is nothing disorderly about it, but it is required to maintain good order.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: Thinking about, if you like, the capacity to have clarity and consistency, and particularly thinking about these regulation-making powers, I wonder if there might develop a need to have, shall we say, venue specific regulations. For example, the disorderly behaviour that might be a risk at a particular venue might relate to the infrastructure of the venue itself. They might have metal wires holding up certain pieces of infrastructure so, therefore, there might be value in having regulations that are specific to the venue.

My understanding is that Victoria does have venue specific behaviour rules, but my reading of the regulation is that the regulations have got to relate to a major event. So, in other words, even though we might have dozens of events at Adelaide Oval, we could not make a standing regulation, if you like, for Adelaide Oval. Could the minister clarify that for me?

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: My advice is that the honourable member is correct. The Victorian legislation has a head of power specific to, for example, the MCG. I think that is the only specific one, but I am not 100 per cent on that. It was something that was contemplated, but was not proceeded with. We do not think that we are in the same area in terms of number of events and number of participants but, having said that, with different functions that would be having an event at Adelaide Oval, even though there are not venue-specific regulations, you would imagine that the regulations imposed for disparate functions at Adelaide Oval probably would be very similar in many respects.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: I think members would agree that Family First has had an established history of supporting the police, in particular, but also other organisations in giving them the powers to ensure good public order, but we do not do so lightly and we do so when we think there is a clear need. On this occasion I think—and I do not mean any disrespect to the minister—I have not heard a specific compelling reason as to why these extra powers need to be enacted and for that reason, in the absence of any particular example that the government might want to put to us, we would be inclined to support the Hon. Mr Wade's amendment.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I can only reiterate to the honourable member my concerns, that if we do not have these specific powers in place we will find international event promoters leaving South Australia and going to Melbourne or Sydney instead. Is that something he wants to contemplate? Secondly, I come back to my point that, in fact, existing law might very well cover the police doing something after a fracas has broken out, but will not prevent that from happening by giving them the powers to remove, for example, national symbols or national flags at a soccer game. That is what these specific regulations are required for, and I would ask the honourable member to reconsider his position.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: The honourable member and the minister referred to police, but my understanding is that these regulations, (g) and (i) in particular, could actually be enforced by people under section 26—authorised persons. Could the minister clarify this? Are these going to be in the hands of trained and sworn police or are they in the hands of contract staff?

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: My advice is they could be in the hands of security personnel, for example, as I indicated earlier in my example about the two different heads of powers, if you like. You have one that stops people at the gate and asks them to open their bags for inspection which is a standing practice. I would not imagine you would be using police to do that work.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: The minister mentioned security staff. My reading of section 26 is that an authorised person does not need to be a licensed security or investigation officer under the relevant legislation, so the government clearly intends that we will have untrained private sector people exercising police-like powers at major events.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: My advice is to draw the honourable member back to my earlier answers. Let us think about the major sort of functions that are going to be captured by this legislation. Again, it is not going to be Catholic sports days. This is the Santos Tour Down Under and cricket world cups. If you seriously think that these event promoters are going to take the risk of having untrained staff at such major functions, I would say you would need to think again.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: My understanding is that events do use contract staff regularly. They are not highly trained. In fact, a number of my friends have those roles and I would not think they would regard themselves as highly trained. Let us look at subsection 26(3):

A person must not, without reasonable excuse, refuse or fail to comply with a requirement of an authorised person under this section. Maximum penalty: $2,500 or imprisonment for 6 months.

We have a SERCO contract staffer enforcing police-like powers at Adelaide Oval and they risk six months' imprisonment. I should say that I do not think that I have amendments on clause 26. All I am saying is that, if we are having—

The CHAIR: Come on!

The Hon. S.G. WADE: Sorry, Mr Chairman; I was making the point that it is very unusual for the parliament to allow offence-type provisions in regulations, and I would say to the parliament that it is particularly a risk if we are talking about untrained personnel enforcing them.

The committee divided on the amendment:

AYES (10)
Brokenshire, R.L. Darley, J.A. Dawkins, J.S.L.
Hood, D.G.E. Lee, J.S. Lensink, J.M.A.
Lucas, R.I. Ridgway, D.W. Stephens, T.J.
Wade, S.G. (teller)
NOES (7)
Finnigan, B.V. Franks, T.A. Gago, G.E.
Hunter, I.K. (teller) Maher, K.J. Parnell, M.
Wortley, R.P.
PAIRS (4)
Bressington, A. Zollo, C.
Vincent, K.L. Kandelaars, G.A.

Majority of 3 for the ayes.

Amendment thus carried.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I move:

Amendment No 2 [Wade–1]—

Page 5, lines 30 to 32 [clause 7(2)(i)]—Delete paragraph (i)

I suggest to the council that it is consequential on the amendment just dealt with.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: The government does not accept that it is consequential and we will be opposing it for all the reasons we have outlined earlier.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: Sorry, it is not consequential in a technical sense but considering both the minister and I spoke to it that is the sense in which I took it as consequential. Nonetheless, I move it.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I am not quite sure I understand the sense of the term 'consequential' in that usage, but we say it is not consequential in a technical or any other sense and we will be opposing it.

The committee divided on the amendment:

AYES (10)
Brokenshire, R.L. Darley, J.A. Dawkins, J.S.L.
Hood, D.G.E. Lee, J.S. Lensink, J.M.A.
Lucas, R.I. Ridgway, D.W. Stephens, T.J.
Wade, S.G. (teller)
NOES (7)
Finnigan, B.V. Franks, T.A. Gago, G.E.
Hunter, I.K. (teller) Maher, K.J. Parnell, M.
Wortley, R.P.
PAIRS (4)
Bressington, A. Kandelaars, G.A.
Vincent, K.L. Zollo, C.

Majority of 3 for the ayes.

Amendment thus carried.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I do have some questions of the minister in relation to this clause. The opposition appreciates the need for regulations to support good order, and I certainly appreciate the arguments the minister made in relation to national symbols at certain events. I would indicate the opposition's eagerness to talk to the government between the houses to see if alternative words could be used. We believe that regulations might be necessary to support good order, and national symbols are a good example; we simply seek to avoid having criminal type offences being laid down in regulations, so if we can perhaps look at a way forward there.

If I can ask some questions of the minister in relation to clause 7(2)(j). Who has the minister—and when I say the minister I mean here the Minister for State/Local Government Relations—consulted about the proposal to overrule local government in relation to road closures?

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: My advice is that the government consulted with the LGA and some councils over these provisions.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I appreciate the minister may not have the information to hand, but would he be able to identify which councils were consulted?

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: No, but I am sure that something could be determined between the houses when we come back to fix the problems the honourable member is creating with this bill.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I thank the minister for that touch of arrogance. The fact of the matter is that this council repeatedly improves legislation and we look forward to doing so in this case as well. I ask: have draft regulations been provided to the council?

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: There are no draft regulations to be provided.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: How is it intended that the regulations will interact with other powers, such as those under section 33 of the Road Traffic Act 1961, which give councils the power to close roads?

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: Sorry, Mr Chairman—

The CHAIR: The Hon. Mr Wade.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I asked the minister: how will the proposed regulations interact with other powers, such as those under section 33 of the Road Traffic Act 1961, which give councils the power to close roads?

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: My advice is that the government does have power to override local government, but apparently the process is cumbersome and difficult. This is a much more targeted approach, and again we come back to the situation of putting into the code the powers that an international event promoter would want to see in one place to assure them that they will be able to run a successful event here in Adelaide. Once again, we run the very real risk of saying to these international event promoters, 'No, we aren't going to provide you with an easy point of approach into Adelaide—go away, go to Melbourne, go to Perth or go to Sydney instead.'

For example, in terms of road closure, the promoters would want to know that the government does have the ability to close roads—for example, the Tour Down Under—over the objections of a local council that may be sandwiched between two other councils that are fully supportive of it. We will need to have these provisions and this makes perfect sense to do so.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: Will the regulations have the capacity to provide that, rather than closing a full road, arrangements might be put in place such that a particular resident might lose access to their property, either in part or in full? I should declare that I am on about stage 4 of the Tour Down Under.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: The answer is, yes, it could for a period of time.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I thank the minister for his answers. I move:

Amendment No 3 [Wade–1]—

Page 5, lines 33 to 37 [clause 7(2)(j)]—Delete paragraph (j)

As I indicated earlier, the opposition is keen that councils be engaged in relation to managing major events in their area. The Adelaide Hills Council in particular—and perhaps I need to again declare that I am a resident of the Adelaide Hills Council—has indicated deep concern about the changes. Council moved a motion on 9 April 2013, directing their CEO to write to the Attorney-General to express concern about:

(a) the negative impact on council's decision-making ability;

(b) the negative impact on our local communities;

(c) the lack of consultation with the council and community;

(d) negative impacts on council's finances and infrastructure for the hosting of such events.

The Adelaide Hills Council has suggested that local government should retain the authority in relation to road closures, that local government be the decision-making body that consults about its decisions and that councils be compensated and resourced to provide the required infrastructure for such events.

In relation to the first point, about the council retaining the authority in relation to road closures, the opposition is inclined to agree. Accordingly, we are proposing to delete clause 7(2)(j). We believe that local councils are well placed and well experienced to consult with residents and make appropriate accommodation for their concerns.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: This is an absolute joke! What the honourable member over here is saying to us is that he agrees—the Liberal Party agrees—that absolutely councils can say, 'We don't like this and we're going to stop a major international event coming to our city.' That is what they're saying: they are saying, 'We are going to give councils the right to veto a major international event into Adelaide.' Let's be absolutely clear that this is what they are after.

This amendment deletes the paragraph in the regulation-making power that allows the making of regulations to close roads. We oppose the amendment, clearly. The government is quite aware that there are some elements of local government, and one council in particular, that want to remain the sole arbiter of what roads in their area can be closed and when. The government does not, and will not, accept that the planning and viability of a declared major event can be stymied at the whim of one local government authority.

I refer the honourable member to the extensive provisions for road closures in the New South Wales Major Events Act 2009 and division 5 of the Victorian Major Sporting Events Act 2009. I also foreshadow that two government amendments coming up at clause 7 actually say that we recognise the arguments of the Local Government Association and that we agree to consult with them about these issues.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: Do I take it from the minister's comments that the Adelaide Hills Council is the only council that has expressed concerns about this provision?

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: This provision applies to every council. We do not accept that a council or a collection of councils should have the power of veto over major international events in this city. What the Liberals are doing through their series of amendments will drive international events away from Adelaide.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: We supported the last amendment but we will not be supporting this one. I do believe that, whilst it is important that councils have input—and I understand that the bill allows for that, anyway—when we are talking about major events as we are dealing with in this bill, in our view it should be the domain of the state government, whether that be Liberal or Labor, to be at least the primary negotiating force in these decisions.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: The Greens will not be supporting this amendment.

Amendment negatived.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I foreshadowed these amendments. I move:

Amendment No 1 [AgriFoodFish–1]—

Page 6, after line 26—After subclause (4) insert:

(4a) Before a regulation is made declaring an event to be a major event, the Minister must consult with any council in whose area the event is to be held or whose area will be directly affected by the holding of the event.

Amendment No 2 [AgriFoodFish–1]—

Page 7, after line 10—After subclause (8) insert:

(9) In this section—

council has the same meaning as in the Local Government Act 1999.

This is the first of the two government amendments and I will speak to the second as well because it is consequential, we believe. After the bill passed in another place, the Local Government Association wrote to the government asking that the government amend the bill so as to allow for formal consultation with local government on a declaration that an event be treated as a major event. The government has decided on balance that there is merit to this argument and has brought in these amendments to give effect to that.

Amendments carried; clause as amended passed.

Clause 8.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I move:

Amendment No 4 [Wade–1]—

Page 7, lines 21 and 22 [clause 8(2)]—Delete subclause (2)

Once again, the government is attempting to undermine the basic rights of individuals through a series of clauses in this bill. It is putting the onus of proof on the accused in a number of cases. The opposition fundamentally disagrees with that change in approach and so in 10 instances will be seeking to put the onus back on the authority.

These are offences like ambush marketing which has a penalty for a natural person of $50,000 and for a body corporate, $250,000; for the distribution and sale of non-approved goods, $5,000 for a natural person and $25,000 for a body corporate; and ticket scalping, $5,000 for a natural person and $25,000 for a body corporate.

These are not insubstantial offences. We are not challenging the offences themselves but we believe that, the normal approach in English law with the presumption of innocence has been removed in these offences and instead the onus of proof is on the accused to show that they had a reasonable excuse.

In the particular circumstances prohibited in this clause, if a person is charged with selling a prescribed article in the controlled event area, they are liable for a $5,000 fine as an individual or a $25,000 fine as a body corporate. A prescribed article may be simply merchandise or other marketing material. Rather than the burden of proof resting on the event organisers to show that they were selling or distributing the material and did not have approval, instead the burden of proof rests on the accused person to show that they had been approved.

Examples of this kind of reversal of proof are, as I said, repeated throughout the bill. The opposition strongly believes that individuals should have the right to be presumed innocent, particularly if they are going to facing fines of up to a quarter of a million dollars such as in the ambush marketing case, and that the case should have to be made out against them rather than having to prove their innocence. The Law Society specifically commented on this aspect of the bill and said:

The Society objects to placing on the accused the evidential burden of establishing that the accused had the approval of the organiser. The general rule is that it is incumbent on the prosecution to prove all aspects of a criminal offence against an accused. The accused need not do anything.

The submission later goes on to say:

The prosecution should be able to readily lead evidence as to whether the event organiser has given approval. There is no proper policy or practical reason why the accused's right to silence should be abrogated.

The government's approach is not supported and we would seek the support of the house to maintain the appropriate onus of proof and the presumption of innocence.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: This is the first of a list of amendments in the name of the Hon. Mr Wade that delete what looks to be a reversal of the usual onus of proof from the prosecution to the defence in minor prosecutions, so I will speak to them all. I do not know whether they are consequential, but they are all identical. These amendments are all opposed and the reason for doing so is very much the same in each case. The first point to be made is that it is a general principle of criminal law that the onus of proof is on the prosecution to prove the elements of the offence beyond a reasonable doubt but defences justifications and excuses are not elements of the offence and should in general be proven to some degree by the defence. Allied to this is the idea that the burden should be on the accused to prove defences justification and excuses, particularly where the facts in question are peculiarly within the knowledge of the accused.

That means very little to me but I am sure it was written very well. We can have a look at an example which might make more sense to the chamber. The fact in question is whether the accused had the approval of the event organiser to sell or distribute merchandise related to the major event. Who is likely to know that? Who is likely to have the proof of that? More importantly, who should have the obligation of keeping the required record? The person selling the merchandise will well know whether he or she had the required approval and should be obliged to keep a record of it in exactly the same way as any owner of a business is in fact and in law required to keep records that he or she had required licences (if any) and has complied with tax obligations and similar provisions.

You can see in this instance when you talk about the actual cases that might be captured by this, how it is practically no burden for a person who is setting themselves up to sell licensed goods to be able to show that they have a licence to do so or permission to do so. It should also be noted that the onus is only on the accused in each case to discharge an evidential burden. That is, it is not required that the accused prove approval or licence beyond a reasonable doubt and it is not even required that the accused prove on the balance of probabilities. All that is required by this formula is that the accused raise sufficient evidence of the fact in issue to raise a reasonable doubt about the issue and, if that is done, the onus shifts back on the prosecution to prove that there was no approval beyond a reasonable doubt.

It is not too much to ask we say. In addition, the defence of reasonable excuse which is involved in some of these amendments is invariably placed on the accused but more harshly on the balance of probabilities. See section 5B of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 sections 18(4), 33DA, 33GB and further, of the Controlled Substances Act 1984, and section 5 of the Summary Offences Act 1953.

Lastly and vitally, the amendments will make the offences unworkable. It is clear law that as the offences will be constructed if the evidential onus is removed, the prosecution will have to negative every possible defence, in some cases every possible reasonable excuse, beyond reasonable doubt in advance. This is plainly impractical. It will render some plain prosecutions impossible. There is no harm at all, we say, and no breach of principle in letting the prosecution know what case it has to meet. It is now being recognised that defence by ambush is unreasonable, unfair and unjust and so it is too here. So, for those reasons, all of the amendments in the name of Mr Wade in relation to this issue will be opposed.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: Amendment No. 4 [1], that we are discussing now, relates to the sale and distribution of prescribed articles. Subclause (1) provides that:

A person must not, without the written approval of the event organiser for a major event, during the sales control period for the event, sell or distribute, in a controlled area for the event, a prescribed article.

Subclause (2) provides that:

Subsection (1) places an evidential burden on the accused to show that the accused had the approval of the event organiser.

The only element of that clause that I am seeking to remove is subclause (2), which goes to the need for the person to prove that they had written approval of the event organiser.

The minister raises the question of who is in the best position to prove it. I think it is moot as to whether the person who is carrying it or the person who issued it—for example, the event organiser—is in the best position. The point is it is quite likely that the prosecution will get full cooperation from the event organiser. In fact, I am not even sure if the event organiser might be taking the proceedings. The case I make is that it is a very focused burden but, still, it is being shifted. I cannot see how it is unreasonable that the event organiser should not be expected to keep copies of written approvals that they have issued, and I cannot see the need to shift the burden.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: Can I attempt to give the honourable member another example that might be closer to home for him. We say it is not an unreasonable burden for the person who is doing prescribed activities—selling prescribed products, for example—to carry on them some evidentiary proof that they have permission to do it.

I can only draw his attention to the example of being a scrutineer at the last election, as I was down at Glenelg with Mr Duncan McFetridge. We had to carry with us a form that we gave to the booth returning officer to prove to them that we had a licence, if you like, to scrutineer on behalf of our respective candidates. So, it is expected of us to actually carry on us a piece of paper to prove that we have the permission of the candidate to go and scrutineer for them. How can it be any different to require a person who is doing prescribed activities or selling prescribed products to actually have a letter on them, or a licence on them, to say they have the permission of the organiser? How is that any different?

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: Family First will be supporting this amendment. We have had a history of supporting changes to various pieces of legislation that have passed through this place which have reversed the onus of proof in various circumstances. To refresh members' memories, we have dealt with that in serious and organised crime and other, what I would consider, very high-level legislation, which has attracted a lot of attention and made very significant changes to the law.

It is very hard for me to justify that sort of approach when it comes to carrying around pieces of paper. I just think that is not something that requires an exception, if you like, to the normal way of doing things. That being the case, we will be supporting the amendment.

The committee divided on the amendment:

AYES (8)
Brokenshire, R.L. Dawkins, J.S.L. Hood, D.G.E.
Lee, J.S. Lensink, J.M.A. Lucas, R.I.
Stephens, T.J. Wade, S.G. (teller)
NOES (10)
Darley, J.A. Finnigan, B.V. Franks, T.A.
Gago, G.E. Hunter, I.K. (teller) Kandelaars, G.A.
Maher, K.J. Parnell, M. Wortley, R.P.
Zollo, C.
PAIRS (2)
Bressington, A. Vincent, K.L.

Majority of 2 for the noes.

Amendment thus negatived; clause passed.

Clause 9.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I am almost scared to use the word because the minister has a different understanding of the word consequential to me, but consequential or related or whatever it might be—

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. S.G. WADE: Yes, they look a lot like each other to me. I propose not to move amendments 5, 6, 7 and 8.

Clause passed.

Clauses 10 to 18 passed.

Clause 19.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I move:

Amendment No 9 [Wade–1]—

Page 12, after line 30—Clause 19—after subclause (1) insert:

(1a) A person may use an official logo or an official title without authorisation under this Division if—

(a) the use is for a public, charitable or other community purpose; and

(b) the use would not suggest to a reasonable person that there is any official sponsorship, approval or affiliation with—

(i) a major event; or

(ii) the event organiser of a major event; or

(iii) any event or activity associated with a major event.

Major events in South Australia are intended to bring the community together and build community spirit. Indeed, many of our state's major events achieve this brilliantly. South Australians who come from far and wide to join the festivities build our regions, build our state. They set up breakfast parties and barbecues. Again, declaring the fact that I am on a Tour Down Under stage, I know full well that they come in the early hours of the morning to make the most of the day. These events serve to build community spirit for both locals and visitors. Our concern is that this bill may make much of that activity illegal.

The ambush marketing provisions and the use of the logos and official titles of the bill to us seem so restrictive that they could potentially penalise community organisations, private property owners and small tourism operators seeking to join in the spirit of some major events, such as the Tour Down Under. For example, small regional tour operators, bed and breakfasts or mum-and-dad type small businesses are prohibited from using the logo or titles unless the minister has issued an authorisation for them to do so; for example, a Tour Down Under breakfast would be prohibited without authorisation.

If a property owner sets up a Tour Down Under barbecue along the road of a TDU stage, under the act this would be an example of an unauthorised use of a title and make them liable to a fine of $50,000 for an individual or $250,000 for a body corporate. The Country Women's Association barbecue at the Clipsal 500 may potentially attract a fine if the barbecue has any unauthorised logos or titles. There is no assurance that charitable and/or community groups will be able to participate in major events without penalty.

I would be surprised if it is the government's intention to stop groups such as this; they, in many ways, enhance rather than detract from major events. To that end, the amendment creates an exemption for this kind of community engagement. It does not allow groups to indicate any sort of commercial relationship or arrangement with the event or to claim any sorts of rights over the logo.

Intellectual property rights over the design of a major event logo and title continue to apply; the amendment merely provides an exemption from the penalties of up to half a million dollars proposed in clause 20. I hope that members will support the amendment so that we can continue to support community engagement in major events in the life of our state and regions.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I thank the honourable member for his contribution. In great extent, the government is fully supportive of the ideas and the intentions the Hon. Mr Wade is trying to pursue in this amendment but, for various reasons I am about to go through, I would like to encourage honourable members not to support the amendment because we think that it does just the opposite. In fact, it legislates for ambush marketing, and I will be arguing that we do not want to be in a position to be doing that. We have discussed it; the Hon. Mr Ridgway raised it in an earlier contribution in terms of the CWA and the sausage sizzle.

The argument is that, in theory, the prohibition might catch, for example, the CWA holding a Tour Down Under cake stall at the local church hall, for example, and there are two answers to this, one of which I gave earlier. The first is that, in practice, it is simply not realistic to expect that the resources of the state would be thrown at such a trivial breach. It would be a waste of time and resources and, quite frankly, as I said earlier, hold the prosecuting authority, if not the event promoter, up to widespread public ridicule. Why would we do that?

Secondly, I do not accept that the prohibition on the use of the official logo is too widely cast. It seems to me that, if a person or organisation is using the official logo, they are necessarily suggesting affiliation with the major event and, really, what they should be doing is asking permission from the event organiser to do so. I do not think that any of us should be in a position where we are allowing, opening up, the possibility for an official logo to be misappropriated by anybody; if someone wants to use it, they need to get permission to use it.

Thirdly, the amendment is just too wide. Apart from the reference to the official logo already mentioned, the amendment is too wide in that it does not recognise what a big business charitable sponsorship is these days and what is put at risk by such a hole in the scheme. For example, the Cancer Council involvement in the Tour Down Under is worth many millions to the Cancer Council, and it is a fact that a rival charity set out to leverage off the tour with a black tie fundraiser in the past. That did not amuse the potential sponsors and it puts at risk large sums of money. I put it to this council: why would we as a parliament want to set up a provision like this that would set charity against charity? We do not want to be doing that; that is not our business. Why would we be there?

There is no obvious solution to the issue, otherwise the government would have proposed it. It is not possible to define minor or insignificant charitable interests. People who want to use the official logo, as I said, and protected symbols need to seek permission, but to think that the government would actually go out to seek to prosecute small organisations like the CWA or local churches having a cake stall is really nonsense. We would be bringing ridicule upon ourselves and on the event promoters and we just would not be doing that.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: Yes, I had intended to support this amendment, frankly, when we came to the debate but I am persuaded by the minister's points that he raised. The particular issue is the unauthorised use of the logo, but if the minister would put on record that the government would not prosecute these small groups that he is mentioning just once and for all, then I think we would be satisfied not to support the amendment.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I am very happy to take the opportunity to say that is not the intention of the government at all. We would be very mindful of the ridicule we would face were we to do that.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: To make it clear, the Greens are not supporting this amendment.

Amendment negatived; clause passed.

Clause 20 passed.

Clause 21.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: If it would assist the council, I indicate that I do not intend to move any other remaining amendments because I regard them as having been determined by the test clause at [Wade-1] 4.

Clause passed.

Remaining clauses (22 to 27) and title passed.

Bill reported with amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER (Minister for Sustainability, Environment and Conservation, Minister for Water and the River Murray, Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation) (12:58): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.


[Sitting suspended from 12:58 to 14:16]


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