Worth Richard: Major Events Management Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeWorth Richard: Major Events Management Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 22 August 2007. Volume:641;Page:11384. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Dr RICHARD WORTH (National): It is in Part 2 that the substance of this Committee debate is to be found and as Madam Chairperson herself commented when she started the debate on this part there are five subparts. I just observe that it is a legislative drafting strategy sometimes to seek to constrain Committee debate by including a number of subparts in a particular part. Certainly the issues in this part are discrete issues in themselves and could well have been the subject of separate parts. Why do I say that? Because the subparts are about declarations of major events they are about ambush marketing by association protections they are about ambush marketing by intrusion protections they are about ticket-scalping protections and they are about pitch invasions. They are all discrete topics in themselves and I hope there is an opportunity to contribute separately to at least some of those separate issues.I want to pick up an issue that has been referred to only fleetingly in this ambush-marketing concept which finds its place in Subparts 2 and 3 and to make some short observations in the time available. Two main varieties of ambush marketing are currently recognised in the context of major international events. The first is ambush marketing by association and we have a subpart on that. It involves an advertiser misleading the public into thinking that the ambush marketer is an authorised partner or is somehow associated with the event. Often the association can be quite subtle. The other type of ambush marketing is ambush marketing by intrusion. Mr Locke has made some comment on that. I judge it not to be informed comment but he has commented on it. Ambush marketing by intrusion occurs when an event is used to provide the ambush marketer’s brand with exposure or publicity to which it is not entitled by intruding on the attention of the audience gathered for the event. In such instances there may be no claim of association with the event but it is a commercial reality as Mr Jones has said that sponsors make huge financial commitments and both types of ambush marketing focus on commercial activity that free rides on the publicity surrounding a major event.So what is the consequence? The value of the official sponsorship is undermined and that has an impact on the viability of obtaining sponsorship for events in the future. That is why this argument is so critical and it is why I would very much like the Green Party to understand the importance of this legislation. Ambush marketing can affect the financial viability of major events the building of event brands and goodwill for the future. It can also affect the ability of event organisers to fulfil contractual obligations to sponsors. That is why it is and I explained this in my first call that many major sponsors now insist that there be protection against ambush marketing before they will commit to sponsorship contracts for major events.I say to Mr Locke that there is nothing new in this legislation because legislation containing ambush-marketing protections has been introduced in a large number of overseas jurisdictions—for example in Australia for the 2000 Olympic Games the 2006 Commonwealth Games in Melbourne and the Australian Formula One Grand Prix. Those are Australian examples. Other examples are in the UK for the 2012 London Olympic Games; in China for the 2008 Beijing Olympic Games; in South Africa for the 2010 FIFA World Cup; and in the nine nations of the West Indies for the 2007 Cricket World Cup. I urge Mr Locke to contemplate whether he should consider withdrawing the amendments he apparently seeks to advance at this stage.Finally in this call I would like to say something about ambush marketing by intrusion in the context of what has already been briefly adverted to and it is that in connection with clean zones the Minister for Economic Development may declare tightly geographically limited clean zones consisting of the venue and the area directly approximate to the venue. The clean zones cannot include private land with one exception. In essence the clean zones represent those areas where spectators will be gathered solely for the purpose of attending or gaining access to the major event.I also wish to comment on a provision in the bill that relates to clean transport routes during a defined clean period. The Minister may declare motorways State highways and railway lines within 5 kilometres of a clean zone and the areas directly approximate to be clean transport routes. Quite clearly some submitters to the Commerce Committee wished that this legislation went further. Other submitters wished us to draw back. All of that material was the subject of evidence and evaluation by the Commerce Committee. We have had to strike a balance. We believe that the balance we have struck in respect of clean zones clean transport routes and matters of that nature is a balance that has been appropriately struck in the context of the arguments we heard.