Major Sporting Events (Indicia and Images) Protection Amendment Bill 2026; Second Reading

Smith supported the bill, stating it modernised the 2014 Act to create a flexible, rules-based framework for future events. Smith argued that the legislation protected sponsors from ambush marketing and reduced the need for repeated legislative amendments. Smith highlighted the cultural and economic benefits of major sporting events, such as the 2032 Olympics and the 2027 Rugby World Cup, and emphasised the importance of protecting intellectual property to ensure commercial viability.

McCormack supported the bill, acknowledging the importance of protecting logos and images from illegal knock-offs and misuse. While noting concerns about reduced transparency and the shift of power to the executive, he stated that the Nationals would not block the bill. McCormack emphasised the need for common sense in legislation and highlighted the benefits of hosting events in regional areas, such as rowing at Rockhampton during the 2032 Games.

Clutterham supported the bill, arguing it replaced the schedule-based model with a more timely recognition process for major events. Clutterham explained that the amendments introduced criteria to ensure protections were applied only to events of international significance. Clutterham highlighted the importance of protecting sponsor revenue to prevent ambush marketing and maintain the integrity of corporate partnerships. Clutterham also discussed the broader value of sport for community health and the need to support umpires and grassroots participation.

Venning opposed the bill, arguing that efficiency alone did not justify transferring legislative authority from parliament to the executive. Venning stated that the government had not demonstrated a compelling need for the change, given that major events are announced years in advance and can be legislated through primary legislation. Venning criticised the government's sports funding record, citing uncertainty for athletes and a lack of transparency in the Major Sporting Events Legacy Framework. Venning warned that delegated legislation reduced parliamentary scrutiny and accountability.

Georganas supported the bill, stating it modernised the Act to ensure it remained fit for purpose in a changing environment. Georganas argued that the legislation provided certainty for event owners, investors, and sponsors by protecting their intellectual property rights and preventing ambush marketing. Georganas highlighted the economic benefits of major sporting events, such as tourism and job creation, and emphasised the importance of protecting consumers from misleading conduct and scams.

Price opposed the bill, arguing that it shifted power from parliament to the executive without sufficient justification. Price stated that the existing legislative process had successfully protected previous major sporting events and that there was no urgency to change it. Price criticised the government's track record on sports funding, noting uncertainty for athletes and cuts to grassroots programs. Price emphasised that the bill reduced transparency and concentrated power in the minister's office.