Page 3232 - Week 10 - Thursday, 25 September 2014
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
the person may choose to comply with the request or not enter, or attempt to enter, the event venue within 24 hours after the time the request is made. Similar to amendment 17, this amendment supports a person’s right to privacy, as they have a choice about whether to provide details to police officers.
Amendment 20 provides that an authorised person giving a direction to a person to leave or not enter an event venue for a period of 24 hours may only give such a direction where the authorised person has already asked the person to leave the event venue and not re-enter for a period of 24 hours and the person has refused to leave or has attempted or has entered or attempted to enter the venue. Similarly, amendments 20 and 22 restrict the powers of an authorised person at a major event or sporting event to direct a person to leave the event, and these provide greater clarity to both authorised officers and event attendees.
Amendment 21 is a technical amendment consequential to government amendment 20. Amendment 22 provides that a direction given by an authorised person must state that the direction applies for 24 hours and may be given orally or in writing and similarly restricts the power of an authorised person at a major event or important sporting event to direct the person to leave the event.
Amendment 23 is a minor correction. Amendment 24 provides that, where an order is sought banning a person from a major or important sporting event, the court must consider that there is a significant risk that an offender may disrupt a major event before such an order is made. This introduces a more objective standard for measuring risk, and therefore the necessity of a ban order.
Amendments 25, 26 and 27 provide that, in an order to give notice that a symbol for an event is a protected symbol, the minister must first be satisfied on reasonable grounds that such notice is necessary and appropriate. Amendment 26 provides that, in order to give notice that an area is a “clean zone”, the minister must be similarly satisfied on reasonable grounds that such notice is necessary and appropriate. And amendment 27 provides for the same thresholds for the minister to be satisfied in order to give notice of protection of ticketing arrangements. These are important amendments to those provisions.
In relation to amendment 28, this removes clause 59 from part 6 of the bill to allow clause 59(1) to apply to other provisions in the bill. Amendment 29 is related to amendment 28 and provides that compensation may be sought for loss or expense suffered because of powers exercised by an authorised person under part 6 of the bill and clause 16 of the bill. Clause 16 provides that it is an offence to not permit an authorised to search personal property where the person is entering, about to enter or is in an event venue. This amendment ensures that, where inappropriate searches result in damage to property during the course of a search, that person may be compensated for such loss where it is just for such compensation to be ordered.
Finally, amendments 30 and 31 are technical amendments to the bill, as are amendments 32 to 37. I should also point out that amendment 38 is the formal repeal provision for the Major Events Security Act 2000, as this bill will replace that act in its entirety.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video