The Major Sporting Events (Indicia and Images) Protection Amendment Bill 2026 seeks to modernise the framework for protecting the commercial rights of major sporting events in Australia. Currently, the Major Sporting Events (Indicia and Images) Protection Act 2014 requires a new Bill to be passed by Parliament every time a major event is held to add it to a Schedule. This Bill replaces that "Schedule-based model" with an "instruments-based approach."
From the explanatory memo:
The amendments made by this Bill introduce an instruments-based approach, replacing the existing Schedule-based model to reduce the need for repeated primary legislation amendments and allow more timely recognition of events. This enables major sporting events and associated matters to be prescribed... by legislative instrument, whilst maintaining the key elements of the legislative framework in the Act.
To ensure the power is not used excessively, the Bill introduces specific criteria. The Minister must be satisfied that the event is of "international significance" and that the protection period is "only as long as necessary for the purposes of the event." The primary goal is to prevent "ambush marketing"—unauthorised commercial use of event-related images and words—thereby protecting the investments of official sponsors and reducing the reliance of such events on public funding [Explanatory Memo page 5].
The primary argument for this Bill is one of administrative efficiency and regulatory flexibility. The current requirement to pass primary legislation for every single major sporting event is an inefficient use of parliamentary time. By moving to a rules-based approach, the government can respond more quickly to the needs of event organisers while still maintaining oversight, as these rules remain "subject to Parliamentary scrutiny under the Legislation Act 2003" [Explanatory Memo page 3].
Furthermore, this Bill supports the economic viability of hosting world-class events like the Brisbane 2032 Olympics. By providing a robust and timely mechanism to prevent ambush marketing, the government ensures that official sponsors receive the value they pay for. This, in turn, "supports the financial viability of major sporting events and reduces reliance on public funding" [Judgment].[1] A more flexible framework allows for event-specific adjustments that primary legislation cannot easily accommodate, ensuring that protections are "targeted and proportionate" [Explanatory Memo page 2].
This is particularly relevant for the upcoming Brisbane 2032 Olympic and Paralympic Games, which require long-term certainty for sponsorship contracts.
The "Against" case rests on the principle that significant restrictions on public behavior—specifically the restriction of commercial expression and the use of language—should be debated as primary legislation rather than delegated to a Minister. While the Bill includes criteria for "international significance," the shift to an instruments-based approach reduces the opportunity for public and parliamentary debate on whether a specific event truly warrants such heavy-handed commercial protections [Judgment].
Additionally, the Bill engages and potentially limits the "right to freedom of expression" by restricting the "unauthorised commercial use of protected indicia and images" [Explanatory Memo page 5]. While the Act contains existing safeguards for news reporting and criticism, the expansion of the Minister's power to define what constitutes "protected indicia" via rules creates a risk of over-reach. Any framework that allows the executive to bypass the full legislative process to create new commercial monopolies over words and images should be viewed with caution, as it prioritises the interests of corporate sponsors over the broader principle of free commercial communication [Judgment].
2026-06-25
House of Representatives
Before Senate
Unspecified
Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications, Sport and the Arts
Media / Advertising, Democratic Institutions, Competition Policy