Major Sporting Events Bill 2009

Ms PENNICUIK (Southern Metropolitan) -- The Major Sporting Events Bill 2009 repeals the Sports Event Ticketing (Fair Access) Act 2002, the Major Events (Crowd Management) Act 2003 and the Major Events (Aerial Advertising) Act 2007 and makes consequential amendments to other acts. The purpose of the bill as outlined in the words of the explanatory memorandum is to, in effect, 'control and protect', along with quite a few other verbs, 'major sporting events'. The notion of protecting a major sporting event is interesting.

It is claimed there is a need for this bill, but the need has not been demonstrated in terms of the community or public interest.

The only benefit of this bill really goes to the organisers and backers of major sporting events, whoever or whatever they may be in the future, because this bill does not mention any particular sporting event; it is whatever sporting event might pop up in the future, as defined under the bill.

It is of benefit to government agencies that such organisers of events may deal with the efficiencies, which is always trotted out. In my view there is no public interest advanced by this bill; in fact it is degraded by this bill.

I am not in principle opposed to sporting events or even major sporting events. I have a full degree and a teaching qualification in physical education and a long and abiding interest in fitness and health. I will admit that I lean towards fostering broad participation in physical activity among the general population, and I would prefer to see more public money invested in those sorts of activities than in the so-called major sporting events.

I note in the budget some $30 million is put aside for major sporting events, most of which will be swallowed up by the Australian Formula One Grand Prix, which the government has to subsidise to a higher and higher level every time it is staged. I refer to the Australian grand prix in this regard because it is the type of sporting event that we might find covered by this bill.

Mr Dalla-Riva -- What publication is that?

Ms PENNICUIK -- Save Albert Park. They are the only people who keep -- --

Mr Dalla-Riva -- That is a credible document!

Ms PENNICUIK -- It is a credible document; they are the only ones who keep an eye on it, besides the Auditor-General, who has kept an eye on the Australian grand prix and has cast aspersions on its benefits to the public.

The Australian grand prix's own figures show that in 2008 its revenues were nearly $35 million, down from $41.5 million; its sponsorship was $7.3 million, down from $10.9 million; its expenses were $45.8 million, nearly $46 million, up from $32 million in 2005; licence fees were $32 million, up from $22 million -- off to Mr Ecclestone; and the recurrent engineering costs were $25.3 million, up by $3 million since 2005. Its operating loss -- it is quaintly called its 'operating loss' but is really the government contribution -- in 2008 was $40.1 million, up from $13.6 million in 2005. The cumulative losses by 2008 have reached $160 million. Those losses are subsidised by the taxpayer. If the race contract lasts until 2015 and current trends continue, operating losses will reach more than $600 million. That is the type of major sporting event about which we should have concerns, and I certainly do have concerns.

However, as I was saying, I have attended many of the sporting events that are listed in the bill, such as the cricket and the Australian Open Tennis Championships. I have also attended the Bells Beach Surf Classic many times over the last three decades -- I note that was mentioned by a speaker in the lower house. But I am not a fan of motorcycle racing or car racing, and I regard the Formula One grand prix in particular as an anachronistic and ridiculous event to be promoting in this day and age.

I turn to deal with the bill. Part 1 is the major innovation of the bill in terms of the legislative framework. The regulations and guidelines, which, as mentioned throughout the bill, will supposedly

accompany the bill, are not with us. I find many of the provisions in the bill unnecessary and to some extent draconian -- and I will speak about those when I come to my amendments. They may be even more so, or less so, if we were to see the regulations and guidelines that are to accompany them. Because we do not have regulations and guidelines before us, we are not able to make a judgement about those provisions.

The bill lacks comprehensive mandatory criteria for assessing whether proposed major events are clearly in the public interest. I will turn to that when dealing with my amendments, which seek to widen the criteria to include the social and environmental impacts of any major sporting event. That is not currently included in the criteria. A consideration of the cost-benefit analysis is not included in the criteria either.

Section 3 talks about advertising and brings in the definition of advertising from the Major Events (Aerial Advertising) Act, which we debated in 2007. The Greens proposed an amendment to that bill, and I will be proposing a similar amendment to this bill because it seeks to repeal that act and incorporate it into the proposed Major Sporting Events Act, if it comes to be.

The definition of advertising has been broadened to include vessels, flags and matter rendered as laser or digital displays. We have concerns about this definition in terms of whether or not it would include aerial displays that are not of a commercial nature and are undertaken by a not-for-profit organisation or a public body.

It is interesting that the definition of 'major sporting event' includes state league football matches held at an event venue. That is a surprising inclusion.

We are looking at major events such as the Commonwealth Games, the world swimming championships, the Australian Formula One Grand Prix and the Australian Motocross Championship, and then all of a sudden we have got state league football matches included with those. It seems the definition of a major sporting event is coming to include things most people would not regard as a major sporting event in any definition.

The definition of 'prohibited item' has caused some concerns, which have been raised by the Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee, particularly with regard to banners. One of my amendments concerns the issue of the prohibition of banners in a major sporting event area. We do not believe this is necessary. In thinking about major sporting events, one of the aspects of the colour and light of a major sporting event is the banners people take along with them, and we see no reason why they should be considered prohibited items.

As I mentioned before, section 9 outlines the three criteria relating to the event that the minister must consider prior to recommending an order: the order must be in the public interest; the event must be a major sporting event; and the proposed event venue must be deemed suitable in several key respects. The rest of the factors outlined in section 9 are optional considerations. They currently do not include a cost-benefit analysis or a social and environmental impact analysis, which I believe are very important. This issue was picked up by the Auditor-General in his May 2007 report entitled State Investment in Major Events. He said that:

Post-event assessments can be upgraded through the use of more comprehensive methodologies and, where practicable, using a triple bottom line approach to embrace the emerging importance of social and environmental impacts in addition to economic impacts.

He states further:

Additional empirical research studies on the impact of major events may be needed to provide MECC with further sources of reliable information to better inform funding decisions.

The approach currently taken by agencies when conducting post-event assessments did not directly address costs and benefits.
He also said:

There is scope for greater transparency in economic assessments, particularly with regard to:

the workings of economic models and the basis for assumptions used the safeguards over the reliability of data collected from surveys of attendees at major events. One of my amendments is also related to that issue.

Having been a supporter of the Save Albert Park group and a protester against the grand prix before I came into this place -- and I am still a protester against it -- I was involved many times in the voluntary counting of attendances. There has been great controversy over attendances at that event. The figures that the Australian Grand Prix Corporation uses are based on its own estimates, which include things such as free tickets given away that have never been taken up, workers at the event and participants in it. There is great controversy and a lack of accuracy regarding attendances at this event. Even with that, we know the attendances are falling.

The Auditor-General recommended that:

In order for government to be more comprehensively apprised of the full range of major event impacts, post-event assessment should be broadened to take, where practicable, a triple-bottom-line approach, embracing not only economic but social and environmental factors.
He recommended that guidelines be developed by the Department of Treasury and Finance to assist in the use of cost-benefit analysis at the pre-event stage and an updating of the pre-event cost-benefit analysis at the post-event stage. He also recommended:

That a reporting template be developed to facilitate the public reporting of key outcomes from major events to increase transparency and accountability for the use of public funds.
There is nothing in this bill that advances any of that, and there is no sign from the government so far that it has taken on board any of those suggestions of the Attorney-General, particularly with regard to the Australian grand prix.

Clause 15 provides that a non-application order may be issued by the executive council on the recommendation of the minister if it is in the public interest and necessary for the effective preparation or management and conduct of an event. It refers to part 5 of the bill, which lists the acts that may be included in non-application orders. The explanatory memorandum states that this was necessary for the Commonwealth Games and the world swimming championships, but it does not mention the Australian Grands Prix Act, which was epitome of excluding non-application orders.

Under this bill the acts that can be the subject of non-application orders include the Planning and Environment Act 1987, the Heritage Act 1995, the Environment Effects Act 1978, the Coastal Management Act 1995, the Crown Land (Reserves) Act 1978, the Land Act 1958 and the Building Act 1993. There is a limitation on powers to make local laws and, in terms of the Health Act 1958 and Local Government Act 1989, with regard to noise and light.

The capacity to suspend those acts separately is bad enough but to be able to suspend perhaps all those acts and local laws in relation to a so-called major sporting event is concerning. That has caused a lot of concern in the community with regard to the Australian grand prix. I would go so far as to say that if a so-called major sporting event to which this bill would apply is proposed at sometime in the future and requires the suspension of all of those acts, we need to be asking questions as to whether it is in the public interest at all to be proceeding with such an event.

I will take some pleasure in reading to the house the words of the Premier when, as Leader of the Opposition, he spoke on the Australian Grands Prix Amendment Bill way back in 1995.

He said:

The bill and its principal legislation contain draconian measures that take away people's rights. If as a member of Parliament you were not concerned about people's rights, why would you bother? After all, Parliament makes laws that affect people's rights.
He said further:

The residents of Albert Park have no automatic right to just compensation. If someone puts a freeway outside the Premier's house and takes away his front yard, his urban amenity and his general quality of life, he has the right to appeal and seek just compensation. But if you live down in Albert Park, that right has been taken away.
He also stated:

Some terrible things have happened to people at Albert Park. People have been arrested for being in a public park. People have had hundreds of thousands of dollars taken off the value of their properties because of the damage caused by compaction of the soil. People have not had the right to protect their interests. This Parliament is fundamentally about protecting people's rights.
I agree with what Mr Brumby had to say, but I am perplexed as to why he would be putting forward a bill that not only does what he was railing against in terms of the Australian Grand Prix (Amendment) Bill in 1995 but has even more draconian and wider exclusions of the public in terms of the application of acts.

The Premier talked about the right to appeal and seek just compensation being removed from people.

This bill provides for orders that prevent claims for compensable damages arising from acts or omissions done in good faith in relation to the management of a sporting event or the administration of this act or its regulations, excepting where claims for compensation relate to personal or bodily injury or death. Unless someone is bodily injured or killed, they have no grounds for compensation against any damage or hurt caused to them by a future unnamed and unknown major sporting event. If you look at the explanatory memorandum, there is nothing in it to defend this position. There is no rationale except to say 'It is necessary', which is no more than an assertion.

With regard to the exclusion of acts in part 5, which I was talking about, I would make the comment that that could be offset by the guidelines which are foreshadowed in section 25; however, no guidelines have been presented with this bill. Therefore, without them I cannot agree to the application of part 5.

The bill says that non-application orders and no-compensation orders may be disallowed by either house of Parliament, but given the experience of disallowance motions so far in the Parliament, that is of cold comfort to the community. In my experience in this Parliament no disallowance motions have been successful so far. To rely on that when people's rights are being taken away in terms of acts of Parliament and in terms of people's rights to just compensation when they have incurred an injury or damage, I think is cold comfort, especially when it is played up in the explanatory memorandum and, to some extent, by the second-reading speech that this bill will assist in that regard.

I am not sure what the necessity of this bill is, because we really have not had that many occasions to pass acts about major events. I would suggest that if events are that major, we can deal with them individually. There have really only been four occasions in 15 years -- that is, for the grand prix, the Commonwealth Games and the world swimming championships and with the recent Melbourne Cricket Ground Act -- where specific acts have been passed.

I would like to mention other parts of the bill; part 4 is about crowd management. I am not opposed to measures to ensure that when a major sporting event is held, there is reasonable crowd management; however, clause 185 creates a specific offence for hindering an authorised officer in their duty, which carries a quite hefty penalty of $6800, whereas the other penalties in the bill seem to be much less than that. During the committee stage I will be querying why that is.

I mentioned that the Greens will be moving an amendment concerning aerial advertising, which is covered by part 8 of the bill. Part 10 of the bill establishes a regime for the appointment and identification of authorised officers.

The bill would empower the Secretary of the Department of Planning and Community Development to create authorised officers from both the Sporting Events Ticketing (Fair Access) Act, the Major Events (Crowd Management) Act and the Major Events (Aerial Advertising) Act, which contain similar provisions.

The criteria for suitability to be appointed are broad, including both business and individual licence-holders under the Private Security Act or persons who otherwise have appropriate skills and experience or members of classes appropriate to be appointed. The only mandatory requirements of appointment are that it is in writing and specifies the terms of conditions of appointment.

Optional requirements may include specifying a particular event, the functions, duties or powers or any other conditions and a requirement to undertake specialist training.

The secretary may delegate the power to appoint authorised officers from persons employed under part 3 of the Public Administration Act -- that is, department heads, administrative office heads and statutory office-holders. More significantly it also provides for delegation to bodies corporate that are set for a public purpose -- for example, the Australian Grand Prix Corporation.

We have had a few bills before Parliament that feature the appointment of authorised officers. The number of authorised officers is ballooning in Victoria, and we need to keep an eye on this issue. Through this bill those persons will principally or even exclusively be owners, managers or agents of various private security businesses or event management firms, and perhaps incorporated sporting bodies who hold the rights for certain events.

As far as I can work out -- and perhaps a government speaker can address my concern -- the only private firms or corporations directly employing authorised officers in Victoria that we can identify are Connex and Yarra Trams.

At this stage in the debate I indicate that I have some amendments and ask that they be circulated.

Greens amendments circulated by Ms PENNICUIK (Southern Metropolitan) pursuant to standing orders.

Ms PENNICUIK -- As Mr Dalla-Riva has pointed out, there are 195 amendments, but the vast majority of them are for the purposes of renumbering and making consequential amendments. I will give a brief outline of the amendments.

The amendments to clause 3 are to exempt not-for-profit organisations from aerial advertising restrictions and to remove flags and banners as prohibited items. The amendments to clause 8 add a requirement to have accurate mechanisms for ascertaining attendances at sporting events. The amendments to clause 9 broaden the criteria the minister must take into account to include social and economic impact and a cost-benefit analysis, as recommended by the Auditor-General. The amendments to clauses 11 and 12 mirror the proposed amendment to clause 9 by applying that amendment to clauses 11 and 12. Subsequent amendments omit clauses 15 and 16, which take away rights to compensation.

The amendment to clause 84 provides that authorised officers should warn or attempt to warn a person that their behaviour is disruptive and may result in their being directed to leave. This results from the Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee raising the issue of a possible infringement of people's rights if they are not warned and if they do not know their behaviour might be regarded as disruptive and might result in their being directed to leave.

Finally there are amendments to omit clauses 92 to 100 -- part 5 of the bill -- which list the six acts and local laws that can be suspended by this bill. I look forward to the committee stage.