Page 2712 - Week 09 - Tuesday, 16 September 2014

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video


MR RATTENBURY (Molonglo) (11.25): Let me first turn to the reasons I did not support adjourning the bill. I do think it is reasonable that we get on with the business and debate the bill in principle; I do not think there is a reason to adjourn the entire bill today. I understand that the government would like to debate the bill in principle and defer the detail to a later stage. This acknowledges that there are several concerns about how the bill will operate, particularly in relation to the limitations it places on the rights and liberties of people. I have raised those specific concerns with Mr Corbell, and I understand that at the moment he is working with the directorate on a series of amendments which I hope will address the issues that have been raised.

In principle I do support the intent of this bill, and that is actually what we are debating here this morning. The bill intends to ensure that major and important ACT events operate safely and efficiently. It deals with security at these events as well as the commercial arrangements accompanying them. On the first of these issues—the security—I do have some concerns, which I will talk to in a moment.

The suggestion this morning was that we adjourn the entire bill to a later date. Mr Hanson noted in particular that New South Wales has just sent a bill to committee called the New South Wales Fair Trading Amendment (Ticket Reselling) Bill 2014. That is something that I and my office have had a look at. The first point I would make here is that New South Wales already has anti-scalping provisions in place that are essentially the same as those in the proposed ACT bill. Secondly, the bill going to the committee is different from the ACT bill. It is an extension to the existing laws. The bill in committee, for example, would require photographic proof of tickets that are being resold; it sets a 10 per cent threshold on resale price over the original price; and it requires websites to remove sellers that are in breach or face fines.

I also think that there will almost always be a reason to delay this legislation based on an argument of inconsistency between jurisdictions or diverse views from stakeholders. Some major stakeholders, it seems, support anti-scalping legislation; some do not support it. There are certainly a range of different approaches that have been put on the table. We are seeing an area where there are a significant range of views. I think that here in the ACT we need to come up with a position, and I think we should seek to move forward on that.

There have already been committee reports looking at this issue. The federal Senate committee, for example, talked about the benefits of coordinating efforts across Australia, such as through an industry code of practice. I agree that this would help, but it does not seem to be forthcoming, and I note that major industry stakeholders such as Ticketek and Ticketmaster do not actually agree on an approach to ticket scalping. In the meantime, it is appropriate that the ACT introduce some kind of ticket scalping protections, particularly given the hosting of large sporting events in our city soon, including the Asian football cup and the Cricket World Cup.

I really think it is appropriate to try and tackle something that I consider to be a scourge of sporting events, and that is the practice of people who obtain large numbers of tickets and then seek to sell them at significant profit. I do not think there is any problem with reselling a ticket if you cannot attend. And if you have bought a


Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video