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

Continued the debate

Roberts argued that the bill reduced red tape by replacing the need for primary legislation to designate events with a simpler legislative instrument system. Roberts stated that One Nation supported the measure because protecting the financial interests of major event organisers was necessary to ensure venues were built and taxpayer funding was justified. Roberts clarified that the act prevented ambush marketing but did not restrict legitimate advertising by businesses sourcing feeds from rights holders. Roberts declared that his party would withhold protection for any event that allowed biological males to compete as women, arguing that such practices harmed female competitors and tarnished sporting integrity.

Government response

Green explained that the bill modernised the framework by allowing the minister to prescribe events via legislative instruments, subject to parliamentary scrutiny under the Legislation Act 2003. Green noted that statutory requirements ensured protections were only applied to events of international significance and for periods reasonably necessary. Green emphasised that the bill maintained a balanced approach by exempting legitimate activities like reporting and commentary from unauthorised commercial use restrictions. Green tabled an addendum to the explanatory memorandum addressing questions from the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills and highlighted the bill's importance for the Brisbane 2032 Olympic and Paralympic Games.