RUNDLE MALL

Adjourned debate on motion of Hon S.G. Wade:

That by-law No. 6 of the Corporation of the City of Adelaide concerning Rundle Mall, made on 10 February 2011 and laid on the table of this council on 22 February 2011, be disallowed.

(Continued from 22 June 2011.)

The Hon. M. PARNELL (12:50): This is a motion of disallowance of by-law No. 6 of the Corporation of the City of Adelaide concerning Rundle Mall. It is fair to say, I think, that this particular by-law has quite reasonably attracted a great deal of attention and debate in the community because it goes to something that is fairly fundamental in our society and that is the right to free speech, but it also goes to another fundamental right that we have and that is the right to not be unreasonably harassed especially when you are in a public space.

The question before us is: how do we balance those two rights and has the City of Adelaide got it right in its by-law? The Greens do not believe that the council has got it right and we will be supporting the motion of disallowance but, in doing so, we do not want to give anyone the impression that some of the behaviour of street preachers in Rundle Mall and in other places in the city is appropriate.

We have seen some of these people behaving in a very aggressive way in disrupting other lawful protest by other groups in the community. I do not believe that these people deserve any special favours but, having said that, the right of people to express their views in our society is a very important right. One of the difficulties that the Greens have with these particular by-laws is the fact that they are selective and that they do identify certain forms of communication as requiring special treatment.

It is always a judgement call as to what types of spruiking people find offensive. Some people, for example, might be happy to hear someone exhorting them through a megaphone how to live a better life and what is required of them to achieve a higher spiritual state. Some people might find that very reasonable. Other people might find the exhortation to buy shoes or shirts or suits or whatever through a megaphone in Rundle Mall offensive, so there really is a judgement call that is made there.

On balance, when the Greens have weighed up these different competing human rights—the right to free speech and the right not to be harassed—our invitation to the City of Adelaide is to go back to the drawing board and rewrite these rules so that they actually do a more thorough job of balancing those competing interests and, in particular, we would urge them to rewrite these rules in a way that does not particularly identify certain forms of communication, because I am sure many members here have attended Rundle Mall and other public places with rallies exhorting people to take a position on a certain topical issue, and we want to make sure that we treat all forms of behaviour equally.

Having said that, I appreciate that it would be possible for the council to simply come back with the same regulations and for the government to regazette them. I hope they do not do that and I would also like to put on the record the Greens' acknowledgement that it has been a difficult task for the City of Adelaide to try to balance these competing interests. As I have said, I am not convinced they have got it right just yet but we urge them to come back with something else.

The Hon. K.L. VINCENT (12:54): I wish to briefly explain why I will not be supporting the Hon. Mr Wade's disallowance motion today. While I certainly understand and share some of his concerns and also appreciate the time he has taken to discuss them with me, I am afraid that I can still see the merit of enacting these regulations. My decision on this matter has been helped by discussions I have had with representatives from the council which have clarified some of my concerns.

My major concern with this by-law is one that I of course share with the Hon. Mr Wade. Clause 3.1 makes it an offence to annoy, offend or interfere whilst in Rundle Mall or its vicinity. The Hon. Mr Wade has pointed out that this is a highly subjective clause and its enactment might lead to all kinds of behaviour being punished simply because one member of the public finds it annoying, and the Hon. Mr Parnell has pointed out some examples.

I entirely agree with the Hon. Mr Wade's point on this. Luckily, so does the Adelaide City Council and it has agreed to remove this clause from the by-law. I have received an assurance in writing from the council that this will happen and to my knowledge the Legislative Council has also received a similar assurance.

The Hon. Mr Wade is also concerned, I believe, that section 2.19 of this by-law is discriminatory. The Hon. Mr Wade says that the singling out of religious preachers in this section impacts upon freedom of religion. I have to admit that I can certainly understand and respect his point, to some extent.

When I spoke to the council representatives about this concern they assured me that the by-law would not be used to stop all people from expressing an opinion on religion. It would only be used to prevent people who were preaching in an aggressive and/or derogatory manner such that they were upsetting businesses or consumers in the mall precinct.

I am a little suspicious of this intention to apply a law unevenly and was not particularly reassured by this explanation. However, the council has already told me that it was its intention, once this by-law passed, to set up designated preaching areas in the Rundle Mall vicinity, which would allow anyone of any religious belief to preach whenever and however they liked. There is also written confirmation of this intention included in the aforementioned letter from the council.

This is, I believe, a good solution. It is my personal view that everybody has the right to believe what they want to believe, as long as they do not manifest their beliefs in any manner which encroaches on the happiness, freedom or safety of others. People also have the right to enjoy our mall and to go about their daily business without being badgered or burdened by others' beliefs.

Certainly, if you walk down the Rundle Mall at the moment it is not uncommon to be accosted by someone who is keen to call you a sinner, or much worse, and malign you for not having the same beliefs as them. Of course, the person doing the name calling in this situation is entitled to their beliefs, but everyone is entitled not to be harassed or abused when they have just popped out to the mall on a wintry morning to buy a new pair of woolly socks.

If the preachers were given a defined space in which to do their preaching then they would have the chance to express themselves, and others would have the chance to listen to the preacher if they should wish to do so, or alternatively just go about their business without echoes of eternal damnation floating above their heads. This is, I think, the least that we can hope for, and anyone who wanted to engage in a good strong religious debate would know where to go.

On the condition that these designated preaching areas are set up and that clause 3.1 is deleted, I am happy for this by-law to be enacted. I will not be supporting this disallowance. However, it is important to point out that I have, just this afternoon, been given an assurance from the Hon. Mr Wade that the council is intending to re-word the by-law once enacted. I look forward to seeing what changes are made and how we can make this important by-law workable without encroaching on the civil liberties of this great state.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. I.K. Hunter.

[Sitting suspended from 13:00 to 14:18]