Less parliamentary oversight
Critics argued that giving the minister power to designate protected events through delegated instruments would reduce parliamentary transparency and scrutiny, without a clear justification for the change.
Major Sporting Events (Indicia and Images) Protection Amendment
Current status
This bill is currently before Parliament.
Policy area
Culture, sport & community
What does this bill do?
Major sporting-event organisers could receive legal protection through minister-made rules.
Why was it introduced?
The government said requiring a new Act of Parliament for every event was too slow and repetitive. It argued that false claims of event sponsorship can weaken private investment and leave governments paying more. Since 2022, the government had provided more than $189 million for major sporting events and supported more than 15 events over four years. It said faster rules would help protect future events while keeping parliamentary review.
Broader context
Since 2014, Australia has used the Major Sporting Events (IndiciaNames, words or symbols linked to an event. and Images) Protection Act to shield protected indiciaNames, words or symbols linked to an event. and images from unauthorised commercial use, including ambush marketingFalsely implying a commercial link to an event.. As each new event required a separate amendment to primary legislation, the approaching 2027 Rugby Union World Cup, Adelaide MotoGP and Brisbane 2032 Olympic and Paralympic Games exposed the need for faster recognition; Hon Anika Wells MP introduced an instruments-based replacement on 25 June 2026, and the House passed it on 1 July.
Key criticism
Michael McCormack (National Party) argued that consultation was limited and that the bill shifted decisions from Parliament to the government. He said event organisers had not requested the change and existing lead times were sufficient. Tom Venning (Liberal Party) said any efficiency came at the cost of transparency because MPs would see decisions only after the rules became law.
Who supported it?
Hon Anika Wells MP introduced this bill. Supportive speeches so far have come from Labor, Nationals.
Introduced in House 25 June 2026
Passed House 01 July 2026
At second reading in Senate 01 July 2026
Not yet law —
Did it become law?
Not yet
Final passage
No final vote yet
The bill has not yet completed passage through Parliament.
Days since introduction
43 days
Updated 07 Aug 2026.
Meaning
What does this bill do?
-
Major sporting-event organisers could receive legal protection through minister-made rules. Parliament would no longer need to amend the Act for each event.
-
Official event bodies and sponsors would have protected names, symbols and images listed in the rules for each event.
-
Businesses could not falsely suggest that they sponsor or are connected with a protected event for commercial gain.
-
News outlets, reviewers and information providers would keep existing exceptions for legitimate use of protected names and images.
-
International sporting events could qualify only when protection fits the Act’s purpose. The protection periodThe time an event’s names and images are protected. could last only as long as reasonably necessary.
-
Parliament could reject the new rules after they are made. This process is called disallowanceParliament’s power to reject a rule..
-
Past event organisers would lose outdated listings because the Act’s two historical schedules would be repealed.
Show source excerpts
-
The rules may prescribe an event as a major sporting event. The Minister must be satisfied of certain matters before rules are made to prescribe an event as a major sporting event under this Part. 14B Major sporting events The rules may prescribe an event as a major sporting event. 14C Requirements before prescribing an event as a major sporting event (1) An event may only be prescribed as a major sporting event under section 14B if the Minister is satisfied that: (a) the event is of international significance or relates to a sporting movement of international significance; and (b) pres
Major Sporting Events (Indicia and Images) Protection Amendment introduced text -
14D Authorising body, event bodies etc. for a major sporting event (1) For each event prescribed as a major sporting event under section 14B, the rules must prescribe the following: (a) the authorising body for the event; (b) the event bodies for the event; (c) the protected indicia for the event; (d) the protection period for the event.
Major Sporting Events (Indicia and Images) Protection Amendment introduced text -
The Major Sporting Events (Indicia and Images) Protection Act 2014 (the Act) aims to prevent unauthorised commercial use i.e. ambush marketing, of protected indicia and images associated with major sporting events. The Bill will amend the Act to provide a modern and flexible framework for protecting major sporting events from ambush marketing by association. The amendments to the Act made by this Bill will establish a rules‑based mechanism to allow future major sporting events to be prescribed by legislative instrument, replacing the need to amend primary legislation for each new event. The
Major Sporting Events (Indicia and Images) Protection Amendment explanatory memorandum -
The framework maintains a balanced approach to the protection of rights. Restrictions will apply only to unauthorised commercial use of protected indicia and images. Existing exemptions will continue to apply, including for the purposes of reporting, criticism, review and the provision of information.
Minister's second reading speech -
(1) An event may only be prescribed as a major sporting event under section 14B if the Minister is satisfied that: (a) the event is of international significance or relates to a sporting movement of international significance; and (b) prescribing the event is consistent with the objects of this Act. 14D Authorising body, event bodies etc. for a major sporting event (1) For each event prescribed as a major sporting event under section 14B, the rules must prescribe the following: (a) the authorising body for the event; (b) the event bodies for the event; (c) the protected indicia for the
Major Sporting Events (Indicia and Images) Protection Amendment introduced text -
Importantly, appropriate safeguards will remain in place. Rules made under the act will be legislative instruments subject to parliamentary scrutiny, including disallowance, and the declaration of major sporting events will be guided by clear statutory criteria set out in the act.
Minister's second reading speech -
23 Schedules 1 and 2 Repeal the Schedules.
Major Sporting Events (Indicia and Images) Protection Amendment introduced text
Context
Broader context for this bill
Since 2014, Australia has used the Major Sporting Events (IndiciaNames, words or symbols linked to an event. and Images) Protection Act to shield protected indiciaNames, words or symbols linked to an event. and images from unauthorised commercial use, including ambush marketingFalsely implying a commercial link to an event.. As each new event required a separate amendment to primary legislation, the approaching 2027 Rugby Union World Cup, Adelaide MotoGP and Brisbane 2032 Olympic and Paralympic Games exposed the need for faster recognition; Hon Anika Wells MP introduced an instruments-based replacement on 25 June 2026, and the House passed it on 1 July.
- 2014
The 2014 Act established protection against ambush marketingFalsely implying a commercial link to an event.
The Act created protections for indiciaNames, words or symbols linked to an event. and images associated with major sporting events against unauthorised commercial use.
Major Sporting Events (Indicia and Images) Protection Amendment explanatory memorandum ↗ - 25 June 2026
Hon Anika Wells MP introduced the amendment bill
The bill began its parliamentary passage by proposing to replace event-by-event amendments with a more flexible instruments-based system.
Hansard ↗ - 30 June 2026
Upcoming 2027 and 2032 events highlighted the timing problem
Parliamentary debate identified the 2027 Rugby Union World Cup, Adelaide MotoGP and Brisbane 2032 Olympic and Paralympic Games as events needing timely protection for commercial partners.
Hansard ↗ - 01 July 2026
House passes the bill
Third reading completed the bill's passage through the House before its consideration in the Senate.
Parliamentary timeline ↗
Legislative route
How did it move through Parliament?
House Senate
Introduced 25 June 2026
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
Introduced and read a first time
Second reading opened 25 June 2026
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second reading, opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
Second reading moved
Second reading debate 30 June 2026
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Sent to Federation Chamber for debate 30 June 2026
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Referred to Federation Chamber
Federation Chamber debate 30 June 2026
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Second reading debate
House second reading agreed 30 June 2026
The chamber agreed to the bill at second reading, meaning it accepted the bill in principle and allowed it to continue.
Second reading agreed to
Returned from Federation Chamber 01 July 2026
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Reported from Federation Chamber
House third reading agreed 01 July 2026
The chamber agreed to the bill at third reading, which completed passage through that chamber.
Third reading agreed to
Introduced 01 July 2026
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
Introduced and read a first time
Second reading opened 01 July 2026
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second reading, opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
Second reading moved
Scrutiny of Bills review 01 July 2026
Considered by scrutiny committee (01/07/2026): Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills; Scrutiny Digest 8 of 2026
Scrutiny Digest 8 of 2026
APH bill page notesKey criticism
The main case against this bill
Michael McCormack (National Party) argued that consultation was limited and that the bill shifted decisions from Parliament to the government. He said event organisers had not requested the change and existing lead times were sufficient. Tom Venning (Liberal Party) said any efficiency came at the cost of transparency because MPs would see decisions only after the rules became law.
McCormack said the Coalition was unlikely to block the bill, while Venning said it supported protecting event names and images. The government said Parliament could still reject rules and that clear limits would guide the minister.
Further sources
Votes
Recorded votes
No recorded votes have been found yet for this bill.
Parliamentary debate
Who spoke, and what they said
Start here — lead voices
Sponsor speech Supports
Anika Wells
Anika Wells supports the bill because it would make protections for major sporting events more flexible and timely while retaining parliamentary scrutiny and exemptions for reporting and criticism.
Read in Hansard ↗ Lead opposing voice Opposes
Angie Bell
Angie Bell opposes the bill because it would reduce parliamentary transparency and give the minister more power without a clear justification, even though the coalition supports protecting sporting event indiciaNames, words or symbols linked to an event. and images.
Read in Hansard ↗ Lead supporting voice Supports
Michael McCormack
Michael McCormack says the coalition will support the bill because it will make it easier to protect logos and trademarks for major sporting events, although he criticises the lack of consultation and the shift of power from Parliament to the executive.
Read in Hansard ↗ Lead voice Supports
Jess Walsh
Jess Walsh supports the bill, saying it creates a flexible and efficient framework to protect major sporting events and their commercial partners while retaining parliamentary scrutiny and exemptions for reporting and criticism.
Read in Hansard ↗All speeches by bloc
Labor
5 speakers · 5 support
Labor
5 speakers · 5 support
-
Jess Walsh ★ Jess Walsh supports the bill, saying it creates a flexible and efficient framework to protect major sporting events and their commercial partners while retaining parliamentary scrutiny and exemptions for reporting and criticism.
“This Bill will improve responsiveness to an evolving major event calendar, reduce the need for repeated legislative amendments, and ensure protections can be implemented in a timely and proportionate manner.”
Read the full speech in Hansard ↗ -
Steve Georganas Steve Georganas supports the bill, saying it creates a flexible framework for major sporting events while protecting sponsors, consumers and the integrity of event-related commerce.
“Trust from the sponsors and investors for their contributions will be protected with this bill, as will trust from everyday Australians that, when they attend, participate in or support these events, they'll be treated fairly and protected from misleading and deceptive conduct. That is exactly what this legislation delivers.”
Read the full speech in Hansard ↗ -
Claire Clutterham Claire Clutterham supports the bill, saying it modernises protections for major sporting events, prevents ambush marketingFalsely implying a commercial link to an event. and removes the need for repeated legislation.
“The amendments made by this bill will see the existing schedule based model replaced, thus removing the need for repeated primary legislation amendments every time there is a major sporting event and allowing for the more timely recognition of those events. This means that major sporting events and associated matters can be prescribed and then repealed when the event is over by a legislative instrument.”
Read the full speech in Hansard ↗ -
Anika Wells ★ Anika Wells supports the bill because it would make protections for major sporting events more flexible and timely while retaining parliamentary scrutiny and exemptions for reporting and criticism.
“This bill will improve responsiveness to an evolving major event calendar, reduce the need for repeated legislative amendments and ensure protections can be implemented in a timely and proportionate manner.”
Read the full speech in Hansard ↗ -
Matt Smith Matt Smith supports the bill, saying it modernises protections for major sporting events, safeguards sponsors, and gives organisers certainty without repeated legislative changes.
“I rise to support the Major Sporting Events (Indicia and Images) Protection Amendment Bill 2026. We'll do the legislative stuff first. This bill modernises the Major Sporting Events (Indicia and Images) Protection Act 2014 to ensure it remains fit for purpose. It introduces a flexible, rule based framework to support future events, reduces the need for repeated legislative amendments and supports Australia's commitments to major international sporting events. It enables protections for the Rugby Union World Cup in 2027 and the Brisbane 2032 Olympic Games; protects sponsors and commercial partners from ambush marketing; and maintains appropriate safeguards, including clear statutory criteria for ministerial declarations, parliamentary oversight and exemptions for legitimate use. It's protecting IP.”
Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
Coalition
4 speakers · 1 support · 3 oppose
Coalition
4 speakers · 1 support · 3 oppose
-
Angie Bell ★ Angie Bell opposes the bill because it would reduce parliamentary transparency and give the minister more power without a clear justification, even though the coalition supports protecting sporting event indiciaNames, words or symbols linked to an event. and images.
“Back to the bill in front of us, this is a bill that changes a process, to give more power to a minister—the same minister who had to pay back the debt—and a bill that nobody has asked for. The government has not justified the need for a change in process. The coalition indeed supports the protection of indicia and images for major sporting events. This bill aims to change the legislative process by which an international event is recognised to receive these protections. The government has not made a clear case as to why the parliament should lose transparency and concentrate powers into the executive and into the minister of the day. I note that the scrutiny of bills committee will convene tomorrow to consider this bill, and I look forward to their assessment of it.”
Read the full speech in Hansard ↗ -
Tom Venning Tom Venning opposes the bill's transfer of authority to the minister, arguing that parliamentary oversight and transparency should not be reduced for administrative convenience, even though he supports protecting major sporting events and their merchandise.
“Every major sporting event we successfully host and protect inspires another generation to believe that they too could one day represent Australia. As we look towards the Brisbane 2032 Olympic Games and Paralympic Games, we should absolutely continue to protect the integrity of these events. But in doing so we should also continue protecting the role of this very parliament. Administrative convenience should never become an excuse for reducing parliamentary oversight. Transparency remains one of the cornerstones of good government. For those reasons, while supporting the ongoing protections of major sporting events and protecting major sporting event merchandise, the coalition remains concerned that this bill unnecessarily transfers authority away from the parliament without sufficient justification.”
Read the full speech in Hansard ↗ -
Michael McCormack ★ Michael McCormack says the coalition will support the bill because it will make it easier to protect logos and trademarks for major sporting events, although he criticises the lack of consultation and the shift of power from Parliament to the executive.
“There is sufficient lead time for a major sporting event of international significance—that is, world cups and the like, major test matches et cetera—to be recognised and protected under the current legislation. Whilst I get that there are long lead times for international sporting events a la the 2032 Brisbane Olympics and Paralympics and while I realise also that stakeholders are not calling for this change, the government has seen fit and the government feels the need that this is important and that it needs to happen now, and, indeed, I don't believe that the coalition will be standing in the way to seeing a blocking of this particular bill.”
Read the full speech in Hansard ↗ -
Melissa Price Melissa Price supports protecting major sporting event branding but opposes the bill's move to delegated instruments, arguing that the government has not justified reducing parliamentary transparency and concentrating power in the executive.
“Instead of backing grassroots sport, Labor is more interested in protecting their bottom line and creating more uncertainty for the organisations delivering these programs. The coalition supports the protection of indicia and images for major sporting events. The government has not made a clear case as to why the parliament should lose transparency and concentrate powers into the executive and the minister of the day. I note that the scrutiny of bills committee will convene tomorrow to consider this bill, and I will be monitoring the progress with interest.”
Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
Record
Full record
- Status
- Before Senate -- Collected from the APH bill page.
- Originating house
- House of Representatives
- 25 June 2026
House · Introduced and read a first time
Introduced
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
- 25 June 2026
House · Second reading moved
Second reading opened
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second reading, opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
- 30 June 2026
House · Second reading debate
Second reading debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
- 30 June 2026
House · Referred to Federation Chamber
Referred to Federation Chamber
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
- 30 June 2026
House · Second reading debate
Second reading debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
- 30 June 2026
House · Second reading agreed to
Second reading agreed
The chamber agreed to the bill at second reading, meaning it accepted the bill in principle and allowed it to continue.
- 01 July 2026
House · Reported from Federation Chamber
Reported from Federation Chamber
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
- 01 July 2026
House · Third reading agreed to
Third reading agreed
The chamber agreed to the bill at third reading, which completed passage through that chamber.
- 01 July 2026
Senate · Introduced and read a first time
Introduced
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
- 01 July 2026
Senate · Second reading moved
Second reading opened
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second reading, opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills
Scrutiny Digest 8 of 2026
Considered by scrutiny committee (1 July 2026): Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills; Scrutiny Digest 8 of 2026
APH bill page notes