Page 2713 - Week 09 - Tuesday, 16 September 2014
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
few tickets for you and your mates and one of your mates cannot come along, I think it is quite appropriate to be able to sell them at the gate to someone who is trying to get in. But I believe the legislation allows for that in its reference to selling essentially at face value and any costs incurred, which would cover the fees that go with buying tickets and the like. I do not think that that is an unreasonable thing. My interpretation, having looked at this provision, because I think that is an important consideration, is that the legislation allows for that sort of conduct.
The reality of major events such as the Olympics or, locally, the Cricket World Cup and the Asian football cup is that the organisers and rights holders put a significant amount of money and effort into the events and they expect to be able to control the merchandising and other commercial opportunities and to refinance the event and get some return on the money that has been invested. The events are typically subject to opportunistic efforts from people or businesses who seek to profit from the event through activities such as pretending they are an official sponsor or official merchandiser, creating pirate merchandise, or buying and reselling tickets for a profit. I think it is acceptable that the government take some appropriate measures to help protect the rights holders of these events, noting that the legislation is designed in a way to apply only to special declared events.
I was interested in Mr Hanson’s comments on what would be considered a specially declared event. From the discussions that I was involved in in cabinet, when I listened to Mr Corbell’s explanation of this, I think there is a clear expectation that it will be only limited to particular events. If we saw it more widely applied, that would warrant further discussion here in the Assembly.
I would like to turn to the issue of security questions. A key part of the major events bill is the new security arrangements which will apply at declared major or important events. I have noted with interest the comments made by the scrutiny committee, and I believe they raise some important issues. These warrant close attention, and I have sought further information from Mr Corbell about his response. As was touched on earlier, I understand he is working to respond to those, and that is why we are only discussing this in principle today. I look forward to seeing the further amendments and how some of those concerns raised by scrutiny are addressed to ensure that we get the right balance there. We always have to be very careful about the intrusions that parliaments can make on people’s personal rights and liberties, particularly in the name of security. I understand there is a balance to be had—after all, the police and the parliament have a job to ensure safety—but security laws are also an area where individual rights can be eroded away if great care is not taken in the drafting of legislation and the powers that are granted under that legislation.
As an example—and this is one pointed out by the scrutiny committee—clauses 16 and 17 allow authorised officers “stop, detain and search powers”. The bill contains no criteria to guide an authorised officer as to the circumstances in which it is appropriate to exercise this power. Imagine a situation in which this can be used. It essentially allows these authorised officers to stop anybody at a declared event—it could be a football or cricket match, for example—and search them. The person has no right to refuse and in fact faces a strict liability penalty if they do.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video