Page 2715 - Week 09 - Tuesday, 16 September 2014
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Before I go on I would like to foreshadow that I will be moving during the detail stage government amendments to address a number of issues that have been raised by the scrutiny of bills committee in their report No 22. I wish to thank the committee for the thoughtful attention they have given to this bill.
I will provide a summary of matters to be addressed by way of government amendment shortly. The committee’s close attention and the government’s willingness to address these concerns and questions underscore the importance of the subject of this bill—the safety of the community at major events. I will therefore also table a revised explanatory statement at the detail stage to address a number of issues raised by the committee. The revised statement will also address a minor error that I drew to the committee’s attention in writing on 4 September.
I saw and heard Mr Hanson in this debate indicate that he felt that it would be desirable for debate on this bill to not proceed ahead of consideration of a similar bill by the New South Wales parliament. The bill that Mr Hanson refers to is the New South Wales Fair Trading Amendment (Ticket Reselling) Bill 2014. It is not an event security bill. It is not a bill that deals with the management of events. It is a bill that solely deals with the issue of ticket reselling, which is an element—an element only—of this bill.
The provisions in that New South Wales bill appear to apply a blanket approach which prohibits any selling of tickets contrary to terms and conditions; that is, if the terms and conditions specify no resale then the legislation would prohibit such resale. These new provisions would apply whether or not an event is declared or otherwise applied by the relevant New South Wales minister. Therefore the New South Wales bill would directly affect any forum advertising to sell tickets, including websites, magazines, newspapers or other publications.
The approach proposed in the ACT bill is far more limited than that proposed under the New South Wales bill. Reselling provisions and prohibitions on resale and limits on their resale will only apply if an event is declared—not the broad-ranging provisions that appear to be proposed in the New South Wales bill. For this reason any proposal to delay consideration of the ACT bill to await the outcomes of the New South Wales parliamentary committee’s views on their own bill is, in the government’s view, unjustified. I would also make the observation that the New South Wales bill was only referred to the committee on 10 September this year; therefore any report will be some time away.
Turning to the ACT bill, it is the intention of the bill to repeal the Major Events Security Act 2000 and replace it with a comprehensive and transparent regime for dealing with major events so that they can be hosted safely and effectively. The bill, as my colleague Mr Barr has pointed out, helps to promote the ACT nationally and internationally as a welcoming place to visit, to live in, to study and invest in. Provisions in the bill allow the intellectual property and other commercial rights of sponsors to be protected. That helps to ensure the ACT is competitive when it bids to host such major events.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video