STATUTES AMENDMENT (PUBLIC ASSEMBLIES AND ADDRESSES) BILL

Introduction and First Reading

Ms SANDERSON (Adelaide) (10:34): Obtained leave and introduced a bill for an act to amend the Public Assemblies Act 1972 and the Summary Offences Act 1953. Read a first time.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order, member for Croydon!

Second Reading

Ms SANDERSON (Adelaide) (10:34): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

By way of introduction, I would like to read to the house a letter that was sent from the Rundle Mall Management Authority to the Chairman of the Rundle Mall Management Authority.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: Have you talked to the upper house Liberals about this?

Ms SANDERSON: It states:

Dear Theo

As discussed I am writing to draw your attention to recent disturbances on Rundle Mall which I fear have now escalated beyond the Authority's control and resulted in damage to both property and persons. In particular, I draw your attention to the 'Street Preachers' from an organisation called 'Street Church' who have made a habit of visiting Rundle Mall.

As at the time of writing this letter, these Street Preachers have been frequenting Rundle Mall for approximately 2.5 years whereby they typically position themselves within close proximity to the Mall's Balls or the entrance to the Myer Centre.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: It's the only interesting thing that happens in Rundle Mall!

Ms SANDERSON: I was first made aware of the street preachers—

Mr PENGILLY: Point of order, ma'am.

The SPEAKER: Order!

Mr PENGILLY: I'm having great difficulty hearing the member for Adelaide over the inane interruptions from the member for Croydon.

The SPEAKER: Yes. The member for Croydon will behave himself or he'll leave the chamber.

An honourable member: It's nice to see he's awake.

Ms SANDERSON: Thank you.

Mr Pengilly interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! Member for Finniss, you have had your say. Order!

Ms SANDERSON: Thank you, Madam Speaker. The member for Croydon interrupts nearly every speech I have ever made in this house so I would seek your protection, thank you. The letter continues:

I was first made aware of the Street Preachers by David West in early 2009 when I held the role of Board Member with the recently formed Rundle Mall Management Authority. At that time I was unaware of the massive disruption that the Street Preachers were causing and have continued to cause. Having stood down as a [Rundle Mall Management Authority] Board member in late 2009 to take on the role as Rundle Mall General Manager, I very soon became aware of the collateral damage that the Street Preachers cause on a regular basis.

The Rundle Mall Office receives complaints from retail traders and members of the general public on a weekly basis regarding the volume and antagonistic and offensive nature of the Street Preachers' content and actions. On Friday evenings, I personally receive regular telephone calls from retailers sharing their grave concerns that the volume and antagonistic nature of the Street Preachers' verbal content is driving customers out of their stores, upsetting their employees and generally bringing about a sense of unease within the precinct.

This sense of unease is further exacerbated by the fact that the Street Preachers—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: Jesus was like that in the temple!

The SPEAKER: Order, member for Croydon!

Ms SANDERSON: —are constantly filming and recording each other, the general public, and on some occasions the interiors of other retail stores.

As an example, on Friday 12 August 2011, I received six phone calls from irate retailers that evening alone. When the Street Preachers returned to Rundle Mall the following day, I received further complaints. The Rundle Mall Security team also receive an equal or greater number of complaints on a weekly basis. The persistent inaction of the Authorities to remove the Street Preachers has now also attracted additional fringe groups to voice their message on Rundle Mall.

As a consequence, we regularly see several special interest groups on any given Friday evening on their soapbox along with placards, megaphones and pamphlets. These most deliberate actions and guerrilla tactics employed by the Street Preachers in particular are damaging the economic performance of retail businesses within the precinct. With monthly rentals approximately $20,000 for an average size store [per month], the presence and actions of the Street Preachers are effectively destroying the sales performance of those stores that are forced to endure the excessive volumes, provocative nature, taunts and the sense of overall public unease generated by the Street Preachers. Customers are being turned off Rundle Mall and are choosing other retail locations that are deemed safer and more amenable for families.

With tempers now reaching boiling point, the retailers have had to endure this situation for far too long and I have every confidence in stating that it is only a matter of time before an act of public violence is committed. In fact, it has been brought to my attention that a member of the general public was pushed into a Rundle Mall shop window on Friday 12 August 2011 and a Myer Centre Security Officer was pushed down an escalator in recent weeks. Although both of these incidents were not directly performed by the Street Preachers, they were performed by other fringe groups who are also frequenting Rundle Mall.

With members of SAPOL, Adelaide City Council and Rundle Mall Security all in attendance at various times on any given Friday evening, an inadvertent message is being sent out that we are collectively endorsing the antisocial activities of the Street Preachers when the opposite outcome is of course desired.

In my own opinion, the guerrilla tactics employed by the Street Preachers are not to be underestimated and they are intelligent individuals who are being well advised. With retail stores being forced on occasion to close their doors early, retail employees being sent home early due to lack of trade and retail trade being compromised, there is growing frustration regarding a seeming inability to address this issue.

With retail employees visibly distressed by recent events, emotions are now running high and we look to the authorities for a solution. On behalf of those Rundle Mall retailers, landlords and employees that have come to endure the negative outcomes generated by the street preachers for far too long, I trust that a solution is found so that the street preachers are prohibited from returning to Rundle Mall under any circumstances whatsoever.

Yours sincerely, Martin Haese, Rundle Mall General Manager.

Rundle Mall is visited by around 23 million people each year, and 85 per cent of tourists who visit our city visit Rundle Mall, so it is extremely important that we work on this issue. The Hon. Stephen Wade and I have been working on this issue for many months. We have had several meetings with police, we have had meetings with the Adelaide City Council, Rundle Mall Management Authority, we have met personally with the street preachers, and I have even been to the street protests.

While individual protesters possibly believe that their actions may be entirely justified, there are consequences for every action and some of those consequences have been shared with me as their local member. They include a lady with cancer, who had lost her hair, who was told she was going to die because she looked like a boy and 'God doesn't like trannies.' She no longer wants to leave her house.

There are many other people who have been offended, who do not feel safe and who have shops that have to close early because they do not feel safe due to the protesters. Customers have had to be walked to their cars for their own safety. People are avoiding the mall due to the loud noise and large crowds. Even a vendor of The Big Issue emailed me to say that he normally sells 15 magazines on a Friday night in his usual location but, when the preachers are near his usual area he only sells one or two.

Many retailers who are suffering because of our current economic climate have lamented that protesters and preachers are having such an effect on their business that they are questioning whether they can continue. The outcomes of this current unmanaged situation are detrimental to many. The bill will allow for firm boundaries between the protestors as to what they can and cannot do. They will not be able to use amplification without consent. They will be given a special designated area and if they choose to use it they will be afforded special protection, again, incurring any civil or criminal liability.

The Liberal plan includes three points. I recognise that legislation alone will not address and remedy the situation. The three points include: mediation, enhanced law and coordinated enforcement. Mediation: the state government should support mediation between the traders, protesters, Adelaide City Council and the Rundle Mall Management Authority. Enhanced law: the Adelaide City Council has been unable to control the situation for two years. Council by-laws are not enough. There is no point in having a law if it is unenforceable. Council staff have no further powers if a person refuses to give their name and address. This was stated on the radio by mayor Stephen Yarwood as a reason why the smoking ban in Rundle Mall was unenforceable.

Police see policing by-laws as a low priority and the responsibility of council, so we need a coordinated enforcement. By strengthening both state laws that are enforced by police, along with a model by-law introduced by the Hon. Russell Wortley, we can work together. To highlight the need for police engagement to enhance police powers to respond to the misuse of amplification and provide for an incentive for orderly conduct, this bill proposes amendments to two acts.

First, the Summary Offences Act: the bill will provide police with the power to control the use of public address systems in a prescribed area in four ways. First, it would empower to direct a person not to use a public address system in a prescribed area where relevant authorisation has not been granted; secondly, it would give police the power to confiscate the public address system if the person fails to comply with a direction; the public address system would be returnable to the person on payment of a prescribed fee; thirdly, it would empower police to request the name and address of a person to whom a direction is issued and it would be an offence to refuse to provide those details to the police officer; and, fourthly, it would empower police to charge a person with an offence under the act if they breach a direction issued to that person unless a person has a relevant authorisation.

Relevant authorisation is defined in the bill as a landowner or occupier, the Commissioner of Police or the local government authority in that area. Authorisation would only be required by one of the relevant authorities to avoid an effective veto by one party over the other.

The offence is not device specific. It is also designed so that it relates to use, not to the sound level. One of the problems with enforcement of excessive noise in the context of motor vehicles is that it requires not only being able to identify the person as they are driving by, but also to get some reading of the noise level. This is not sound level related but purpose related.

The act of using a device as a public address system in a prescribed area without the relevant authorisation satisfies the threshold required for police action. However, it is not a prerequisite for police action, it is not a mandate for police action. We would expect the police to work with council officers to identify when a public address system was being used in an aggressive or invasive way.

Secondly, the bill proposes changes to the Public Assemblies Act in two ways. Firstly, it provides for a speaker's corner. Under the bill, the government can prescribe areas within the councils that can be gazetted within which a gathering secures the civil and criminal protection available under the Public Assemblies Act and that gatherings can do so without prior notice. That is particularly important because, under the Corneloup decision, councils will no longer be able to require people involved in political and governmental communication to seek a permit.

The second aspect of the deal in relation to public assemblies is to establish a new offence of disrupting or obstructing an assembly under the Public Assemblies Act. The provisions do not apply to those who disrupt an assembly with lawful excuse or police officers or other authorised persons carrying out their official duties.

This particular offence is reflective of the distress caused to people who were involved in two marches earlier this year. I understand both were promoting marriage equality. South Australian citizens were exercising their freedom of speech to support marriage equality and were extremely upset at not only the disruption, which I understand was undertaken by the street preachers, but certainly by a group of people espousing so-called Christian values. I think that contributed significantly to the counter protests that are now being experienced in Rundle Mall.

A model by-law was gazetted last Thursday that at the earliest can take effect in February 2012. A change in state laws as proposed could come into effect in a matter of weeks. We are approaching the most critical time in retail coming into the Christmas period. I implore the government to act in a bipartisan way for the good of Rundle Mall retailers, the workers, the shoppers, students, tourists, and all those who enjoy Rundle Mall. Please pass these laws as they are or amended so that we can end this terrible situation in Rundle Mall.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: I would like to speak on the proposition.

The SPEAKER: I think you need to adjourn it at the moment.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: That is conventional, ma'am, but I think the rules, the standing orders, actually allow me to speak.

The SPEAKER: No. My advice from the clerk is that, no, it needs to be adjourned under standing orders.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: Which standing order would that be?

The SPEAKER: Standing order 238 says that, after the first reading, the bill is published. The second reading may be moved at once or made an order of the day for a later time or a future day. When the second reading of the bill is moved immediately after its first reading, the debate on the bill is at once adjourned until a future day.

Debate adjourned on motion of Mrs Geraghty.