Legislative Council Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3) 51 3 Parliament of South Australia Legislative Council published Bills Right of Assembly Bill RIGHT OF ASSEMBLY BILL Introduction and First Reading Introduction and First Reading The Hon. SANDRA KANCK Legislative Council The Hon. SANDRA KANCK (16:10): Obtained leave and introduced a bill for an act to provide rights in relation to assemblies held for the purposes of genuine advocacy, protest, dissent or industrial action. Read a first time. Second Reading Second Reading The Hon. SANDRA KANCK Legislative Council The Hon. SANDRA KANCK (16:11): I move: That this bill be now read a second time. Again, because parliament was prorogued after we met in the last week of July, this bill needs to be reintroduced. When I say that there is a need, that is because authorities at all levels of government, it seems, have been playing with some of the freedoms and rights that we take for granted. The initial impetus for me to introduce this bill back in July was the teachers' rally that was held on 17 June at which there was a very large attendance—8,000 teachers and some students and family members supporting the teachers turned up. Although they met in the traditional Victoria Square rallying point, they were not allowed to march down King William Street to North Terrace, and that was apparently on the grounds of safety. This led to a merry-go-round of statements, with many of them conflicting, coming from the Department for Transport, Energy and Infrastructure, the office of the Minister for Transport, Adelaide City Council and the police as to who was responsible for that decision. I will not go into great detail about all of the statements and what they said, but anyone who is interested in that history can look at my explanation of 23 July. It is peculiar because, if safety were the issue, since that time Olympians have been able to have a rally along King William Street and apparently there were no public safety issues related to that. Yet, for some reason or other, when those marching were teachers, there were public safety issues. I guess you could say that it does not compute. Numbers attending was another issue that was cited by those who were trying to justify what had happened to the teachers and, among the comments that were made, one was, 'Well, we are not going to give approval for a march down King William Street if it is only one man and his dog.' Again, if numbers are part of the criteria—in other words, the more you have, the more likely you are to get approval—you would have to wonder why the Olympians were able to march along King William Street with the small numbers that were involved in that rally compared to the 8,000 teachers. Again, it is not a really credible argument. Subsequent to all that, Adelaide City Council, to its credit, adopted a motion upholding the right and tradition to use King William Street for protest marches. I stress that this bill will not guarantee that right. It will not stop manipulation in decision-making about the route of marches where there is some political agenda, but it will expose it by requiring a report on the operation of this act by 30 September each year. That report would give details of applications for exemption that were granted and those that were refused, and it would also have to give the grounds for refusal. A copy of the report would have to be laid before both houses of parliament. In addition, the bill confers a general right of assembly which, without a bill of rights in this country or state, is not guaranteed. It also deals with the impact of the Serious and Organised Crime Control Act by stating that attendance at an assembly does not amount to association or communication with another person present at the assembly. So, that allows the annual bikies' toy run to continue. For example, if a group is knocked back by Adelaide City Council, it can apply to the minister to exempt protests from laws under which they could otherwise be prosecuted, such as road traffic and public order offences. If the minister decides not to grant the exemption, they have to set out the grounds on which it is refused, and they have to be published within six days. The bill also provides for the right of appeal to the District Court against a decision by the minister to refuse to grant an application for an exemption. The bill will not stop police from making reasonable judgments about the safety of a particular event. It will not automatically replace the process of applying to council for permission to march, but it gives the right for an applicant to go over the council, if it refuses, and go to the minister. It also ensures that the decision to refuse march permits is explained to the applicant and to the parliament. I repeat what I said when I introduced the bill in July: it would be much tidier and more effective to protect our basic freedoms through a comprehensive charter of rights. That way, measures that might infringe rights would be prevented, rather than be tidied up afterwards in a piecemeal fashion, which is what this bill resorts to. The bill is simple and inexpensive to implement. It affirms that we have a right to assembly and protest and, by ensuring transparency, it prevents some of our rights being denied. Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. I.K. Hunter.