HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Second Parliament, Second Session (52-2)
2013-06-06 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

MAJOR EVENTS BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 15 May 2013.)

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD (16:10): Family First supports the Major Events Bill. We will consider our position as to any amendments at the committee stage and whether there may be some, but we acknowledge the need for legislation of this nature in this state. There has been some controversy surrounding this bill and Family First has considered those various points of view as put to us. In particular, we note that the bill will give the government—whoever that government may be, of course—certain powers that would otherwise be exercised by local councils over events held in those council areas.

We understand this concern and we think that some of the council concerns are warranted, but our view is that, on balance, where a major event is held, the overall control should be with one body, the senior body, and that of course is the state government in this case. We are persuaded that this approach is necessary. Many major events, such as the Tour Down Under, are only possible with sponsorship funds from the private sector. The money involved can be considerable indeed. It is simply not appropriate or even practical to leave commercial considerations out of the groundwork preceding these events. By 'commercial considerations' I am referring to such things as ticket sales, advertising rights, broadcasting rights and the sole rights to sell merchandise and memorabilia bearing the logo of the event, for example. There is also a need to have control of these matters at state government level.

The government has stated that the existence of legislation of this type may be a significant or even a determining factor in the decision of whether the private sector will bring a major event to South Australia at all. I can say from my years in private enterprise that the private sector does not grant major sponsorships in particular, or even minor sponsorships for that matter, without being confident about commercial risk and return considerations. For myself, these issues are the major considerations for this bill. This bill will give confidence to the private sector about commercial considerations and provide them with greater capacity in order to proceed and sponsor major events.

In saying this, I do not dismiss the concerns about such things as road closures for events that cause inconvenience to certain local residents. These are concerns, but there are also other concerns here that warrant consideration, such as those I have just outlined. The option of the running of major events being done through goodwill, trust and cooperation of various bodies does not guarantee the success of any event. Maybe those days are past. The stakes, in many cases, are too high, given the amounts of money involved.

Adequate powers to deal with the issues that arise simply do not exist at present, and hence this bill. I do not see this bill as indicating that the government will not consult with relevant councils about major events held in their areas. Indeed, I would expect that such consultation will occur in each and every case, and I note that there is a government amendment specifically requiring the government to do this, which will receive Family First support.

An alternative to this bill might be to have specific legislation for each major event itself—that is, each event would have its own bill—but I would not regard this as an appropriate or optimal solution. It is far better to have general legislation in the form of this bill that gives clarity at the commencement of discussions about such major events. The second reading explanation by the minister has given much detail about the particular issues covered by this bill and members will be pleased to hear that I do not intend to recount those in any detail or discuss those matters now.

In summary, this bill is necessary to ensure that South Australia does not miss out on the opportunity to stage major events. We are a small state competing with larger states and we need to have certainty in these matters in order to ensure that they go ahead, or to insist the likelihood of such events going ahead. It ensures that commercial considerations of risk and return by organisers and sponsors of events are not a hindrance to South Australia being successful in a bid for a major event, whatever that may be.

We are all conscious that major events can be of great benefit to our economy and, particularly in these times, I think that is a very good reason in itself to support this bill. Family First does support this bill, as I indicated. We are aware that there are amendments flagged; I do not believe they have been tabled yet, but have been flagged, other than the government amendment. We are somewhat sympathetic to the thrust of the amendments, as they have been put to us anyway, and we will look at them closely. I think the balance in this bill will be making sure that the government of the day, whoever that may be, does not run roughshod over the councils' jurisdiction. I see this bill as providing the regulatory framework for a working relationship between council and government, which is the optimal outcome, and that is certainly the outcome Family First is seeking through the passage of this bill.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. J.M.A. Lensink.

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