Senator PATTERSON (5:07 PM) —I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard .

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows—

The objective of this bill is to enhance the protection available to the Sydney Organising Committee for the Olympic Games and the Sydney Paralympic Organising Committee (the organising Committees) against imported goods that seek to ambush their marketing activities. The bill will also enhance the protection available to owners of registered trade marks against imported goods that bear infringing trade marks.

In 1996 the Parliament enacted legislation, the Sydney 2000 Games (Indicia and Images) Protection Act 1996, to protect the Sydney 2000 Olympic and Paralympic Games (the Games) against ambush marketing. Ambush marketing is the unauthorised association of businesses with the marketing of an event, such as the Sydney Olympics, without paying for the marketing rights.

The Olympic and Paralympic Games next year are events of great national significance. These events provide unique opportunities to demonstrate to the world this country's skills, talents, environment and achievements. One of the critical factors in making the Games an outstanding success is the ability of the organising Committees to raise the funds necessary to host the Games. It is a massive task. It is also very expensive.

The cost of staging the Games is estimated to be over $2 billion. The costs are being shared between the organising Committees, the Government of New South Wales and, to a minor extent, the Commonwealth Government. In its 1998 Annual Report, the Sydney Organising Committee for the Olympic Games estimated that it needs to raise in the vicinity of $800 million from official sponsor ships and licensing fees to meet its budget for the Games.

The ability of the organising Committees to attract sponsors depends to a large extent on the exclusivity of the licensed indicia and images. If the Parliament had not enacted the Sydney 2000 Games Act to protect the organising Committees against ambush marketing, the official sponsorship revenue for the Games may have been at risk. The Sydney 2000 Games Act vests the rights in the indicia and images specified in the act with the organising Committees. The act enables the organising Committees to use and to license others to use the indicia and images identified in the act for commercial purposes.

To constitute use for commercial purposes, Games indicia or images must generally be used in a manner that falsely suggests a person is a sponsor (or supporter) of the Games. The Sydney 2000 Games Act, however, does not place an absolute fetter on the use of protected Games indicia and images. For example, the act does not effect the community's fundamental right to freedom of expression. This is particularly the case in relation to words that have passed into common usage. It must therefore be emphasised that restrictions on the use of Games indicia and images apply only to unlicensed commercial use of the protected indicia and images.

The Sydney 2000 Games Act provides various remedies to the organising Committees and licensed users to enforce their rights in relation to Games indicia and images. Thus, where an unlicensed user uses Games indicia or images in contravention of the act, an organising Committee (or a relevant licensed user) may bring an action against the unlicensed user. The remedies available include injunctions, damages and corrective advertising. I have been informed that, to date, the organising Committees have not yet needed to take any action to enforce their rights under the Sydney 2000 Games Act through the Courts.

The Sydney 2000 Games Act also includes appropriate Customs measures to limit the possibility of the importation of goods that seek to ambush the Games marketing. These border interception provisions enable the Australian Customs Service to seize imported goods that seek to ambush the Games marketing. Once goods have been seized, Customs is required to advise the relevant organising Committee or licensed user and the designated owner of the goods of the seizure. The organising Committee or licensed user has then 10 days following seizure of the goods to commence infringement proceedings. If proceedings are not commenced within that time, the goods are returned to the owner. However, the designated owner of the goods may forfeit the goods to the Commonwealth at any time before proceedings commence.

Customs has seized a significant number of consignments under the border interception provisions of the Sydney 2000 Games Act and it is likely to encounter an increasing number of these consignments during the lead-up to the Games. In many cases, after Customs has seized goods, the designated owner of the seized goods has forfeited the goods to the Commonwealth thus eliminating, quickly and cheaply, potential threats to the organising Committees' revenue. In the majority of the other cases, the designated owner of the goods has complied with the organising Committees written demands.

It is these border interception provisions in the Sydney 2000 Games Act that this bill is intended to modify. The amendment proposed by this bill to the Sydney 2000 Games Act addresses a discrepancy between the seizure powers of Customs and its obligation to notify the designated owner of the seized goods under the border interception provisions of that act. The seizure power of the Sydney 2000 Games Act is in broad terms; it applies to all infringing goods. However, as I have mentioned, Customs is also obliged to notify the designated owner that the goods have been seized.

Presently, the Sydney 2000 Games Act defines the designated owner as the person identified as the owner of the goods on the `entry' made in relation to the goods under section 68 of the Customs Act 1901. However, section 68 of that act excludes several types of goods from the general requirement to be entered. For example, goods consigned by post worth less than $1000 or goods worth less than $250 consigned by other means do not have to be entered. Therefore, goods that are not entered do not have a designated owner. As a result, Customs cannot seize goods that are not entered because there is no designated owner to notify. As considerable numbers of such consignments can occur, this discrepancy undermines the intent of the border interception provisions of the Sydney 2000 Games Act.

The amendments proposed by this bill will improve the effectiveness of the Sydney 2000 Games Act by enabling Customs to seize all goods that seek to ambush the Games marketing, whether or not the goods require entry under the Customs Act.

As the border interception provisions of the Sydney 2000 Games Act were largely based on the border interception provisions of the Trade Marks Act 1995, both acts share a common definition of designated owner. Therefore, this bill proposes also to make a similar amendment to the Trade Marks Act.

The amendments made by this bill are not intended to apply to all goods imported into Australia and especially not to goods imported for personal use. As I mentioned previously, goods will only infringe the Sydney 2000 Games Act if the goods are used for commercial purposes and that term has a particular meaning under that act. Similarly, goods will only infringe a registered trade mark if the goods bear the trade mark, or are used in connection with the trade mark, in the course of trade.

I commend this bill to the Senate.

Ordered that further consideration of the second reading of this bill be adjourned till the first day of sitting in the summer sittings 1999, in accordance with standing order 111.