STATUTES AMENDMENT (PUBLIC ASSEMBLIES AND ADDRESSES) BILL

Second Reading

Debate resumed.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN (Stuart) (11:27): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: At least you got the gender right.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: It is hard to get out of the habit of saying 'Madam', but I am sure I will. I stand here to support the member for Adelaide in this very good work that she is doing on this issue, and I would like to highlight what a big job it is to be the member for Adelaide when, in one sense, you are representing all of your 22,000 or 23,000 constituents—the people who live and vote in your electorate, as we all do—while simultaneously doing the best you can to represent the City of Adelaide, which belongs to all South Australians. That is a very difficult job, and I think she does it exceptionally well.

This is another one of those issues where the member is trying to support both groups of people: the people she represents and also all other South Australians. I can tell you that when the good people of Stuart regularly come down to do their shopping, their trading, visiting friends and relatives, commuting, whatever it might happen to be, and they go to Rundle Mall or even other parts of Adelaide they do not want to be harassed by these idiots who are getting up there with their microphones, loudspeakers and, in my opinion, verbally and physically abusing people—because there is a physical side to this.

When you create congestion and you make it very difficult for people—and I do not think that this is a sexist thing to say—particularly for women trying to work their way through a very difficult, semi-aggressive crowd, I think that is dreadfully unfair. I do not believe that any South Australians, whether they live in the City of Adelaide, the seat of Stuart or anywhere else, need to face that sort of thing. I am a very strong advocate of free speech, as I am sure is every other person who works in this place. But let me tell you, free speech does not include, in my opinion, the right to profanity, and it does not include the right to harass people as they pass by.

I do not really care whether people are doing what in my opinion are very positive things, like calling for extra resources for country hospitals or small schools, or perhaps vigorously barracking for the mighty BMW Lions football and netball teams, but if they are doing what in my opinion is irresponsible, which is trying to ram particular views about religion or sexual preference or ancient ethnic divisions down people throat's, to me that is irresponsible. Talking about those issues is their right, and I will support that wholeheartedly, but when it comes to the stage of actually doing it in an abusive fashion that makes life very difficult for people, I do not support that style of free speech. I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.