Nick McKim (Tasmania, Australian Greens) | Hansard source

That was your advice. I think your advisers will now give you the advice, Minister, that you're wrong. I just want to be clear here. Firstly, this is about incitement to trespass. It's not about theft or damage or anything else; it's about incitement to trespass. I want you to explain quite clearly how it could be that, as you quite humorously put it, Pikachu is safe. It's not the Pokemon creatures I'm asking about; they're not real. It's a video game. It's augmented reality; it's not actually real. It's actually the people who are playing the game who are real, and, in the context of this legislation, it is actually the creators of the game who may incite trespass by placing one of the not-real Pokemon characters on private property such as a farm or a forestry operation. I want to be clear. In the past the creators of this game have done things like place these not-real Pokemon characters in Hells Angels headquarters. Children have actually chased these not-real characters into Hells Angels headquarters. There was a case in New Zealand where that happened. So these not-real characters that are in video games are placed at times on private property; I think we can all agree on that. I want you to explain very clearly why the creator of an augmented reality game like Pokemon GO which places a character on a farm—I'll just use a farm as an example, but there are a range of other things that could be captured—is not inciting a trespass.