STATUTES AMENDMENT (PUBLIC ASSEMBLIES AND ADDRESSES) BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading (resumed on motion).

The Hon. S.G. WADE (19:52): I rise to conclude the second reading debate on the Statutes Amendment (Public Assemblies and Addresses) Bill 2011. I thank all honourable members who contributed to the debate and I would like to briefly respond to some of the issues raised by them.

I am certainly keen to look at the issue that the Hon. Gerry Kandelaars raised in terms of his perception that my bill displaces and undermines the spirit of the Public Assemblies Act 1972. The impression I got from the Hon. Gerry Kandelaars and also from some of the comments from government representatives in the last couple of days is that there seems to be a perception that my bill would take the place of protected assemblies under the current legislation. That is certainly not my reading of it and it is certainly not the instruction I gave to parliamentary counsel. I checked it over the dinner break and it is certainly not my reading of the operation of the bill.

My understanding is that the Speakers' Corner proposals would supplement the general provisions with both the Speakers' Corner and the general provisions being given an additional protection from being obstructed and disrupted. I am certainly keen to hear from any government representatives if the bill does not achieve what it is intended to achieve. It is certainly not to displace the historical role of the Public Assemblies Act but, rather, to enhance it.

I certainly welcome the member's comment on behalf of the minister, that the minister is 'prepared to work collaboratively with members to look at the longer term option'. I would like to thank the Hon. Kelly Vincent for her contribution and her affirmation that she treasures both freedom of speech and diversity. Of course, Rundle Mall is one of our most diverse and throbbing cultural hubs. I totally agree with her point that freedom of speech is a right, but it does not extend to the right of amplified public harassment. I think both the government and the opposition are progressing on the assumption that the right to political communication is not a right to use tools such as amplification without restraint.

I thank the Hon. Mark Parnell for his contribution. He indicated he would not support the bill, but he said that he sees the need for a legislative regime. I think in that regard the Hon. Mark Parnell is standing with all the non-government members in saying that there needs to be statute law as part of the solution. At this stage, the government is only talking about a council by-law response. The local government amendment, which the honourable the minister is tabling this evening and which has been foreshadowed and distributed to members today, is a Local Government Act amendment but is to facilitate a council by-law.

The Hon. Mark Parnell raised a point that the Hon. Dennis Hood also picked up on which is the wide geographic scope of section 55. This was a challenging element of drafting the bill. I think the Hon. Mark Parnell understands the way it works. It is not that these provisions could be used anywhere in the state but that anywhere in the state could be prescribed by regulation. I know the Hon. Mark Parnell's response to the fact that this council can disallow a regulation of a prescribed area if it was unreasonable. It is something that we stand ready to do but you do not want to rely on the Legislative Council picking these things up.

The Hon. M. Parnell: It's too late once you've had your machine confiscated.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: It's too late. Yes, that's true. So, I take the honourable member's point. Certainly following consultation with the honourable member, I was playing with all sorts of amendments such as whether it would not apply if you were using a public address system to address a group that was voluntarily gathering for the purpose of receiving the public address. The dilemma with that is what happens if you bring a rent-a-crowd? You bring along your six members so that you can broadcast beyond.

I indicate to the honourable member that, like him, I see the risks—and I should say the Hon. Dennis Hood had a similar concern. The prescribed area could be used if a government was so inclined and, of course, we would hope that the government would not be so inclined to inhibit free speech. It could be used aggressively and that is something on which I would be very keen to work with any honourable members who might have suggestions on how to improve it.

The Hon. Dennis Hood spoke eloquently as a man of Christian conviction at his discomfort of the witness of the street preachers and his personal commitment to freedom of speech. As I said, he shared the Hon. Mark Parnell's concerns about specific areas and we need to address that.

Of course, the simple solution to the issue of geographic breadth would be to say, 'Let's just limit it to pedestrian malls,' which is what the government has done with its model by-law, but the problem with that is displacement. The street preachers have already indicated that they are interested in other parts of the city. I know that there have been preachers (not necessarily associated with Street Church Inc.) who have used the corner of Hindley Street and King William Street. The whole of Rundle Street, of course, is not part of a pedestrian mall so it would be vulnerable to displacement. I think we need to be very careful in any measure that we do not just keep moving people on.

The Hon. Ann Bressington addressed that issue directly, and I appreciate her comments in that regard. It is all well and good to fix a leak here but, if you cause another problem further down the pipe network, that is not a solution. I thank her for her contribution and indication of support.

In moving on to general remarks, there is no doubt that this council is united. Government MPs and opposition MPs and Independent MLCs are all committed to trying to bring the conflict in Rundle Mall to an end in a way which respects freedom of speech and protects the mall as a key family and retail precinct. The dispute, such as it is, is about the best way to achieve that. As I have indicated, the opposition will be supporting the government's bill in relation to the Local Government Act, and we will address that issue more directly tomorrow when we discuss it.

Having said that, we believe that the by-law which will be facilitated through that bill is worthwhile but not sufficient. The by-law by itself can only be part of the solution. As we know from council by-laws, they are toothless without police support. This bill gives the police the power to control amplifiers and confiscate them if necessary. I remind the council that the Adelaide City Council has had amplification control by-laws for years. In fact, the by-law that was in place for the seven months of the year since February had similar if not identical words to that in the government's by-law, yet that was the very period when the escalation occurred. So this cannot be a silver bullet because, if it was a silver bullet now it would have been a silver bullet then.

The Hon. Ann Bressington highlighted the issue of enforcement. The issue of council officers and powers for enforcement has come up repeatedly this year. Members will recall, in relation to smoking and littering—certainly the Legislative Review Committee has considered it in the context of adults in playgrounds—the opposition has concerns that the by-law cannot be enforced by council officers alone and that they will need the support of police.

We have already addressed the issue of displacement, so I will not dwell on that. We believe that the by-law is useful but is not sufficient: the by-law needs the bill; the bill complements the by-law. That is also the view of the Adelaide City Council. I have a letter from the Lord Mayor, which I will read in full so it can be heard in context. It is a letter addressed to me and says:

Thank you for taking the corporation's issues into account in redrafting your bill. Any assistance that can be given to Adelaide City Council by the state government, the opposition and SAPOL is welcome to abate the situation in Rundle Mall. We still support a bipartisan approach to resolving this issue and see that any and all efforts to address the situation are most welcome.

We see advantages in both the model by-law and your bill. In particular, the by-law provisions enable the corporation's authorised officers to take action, albeit limited, to satisfy the current perception by stakeholders that the corporation is taking no positive action. Your bill, on the other hand, has the benefit of enabling the police to take action to remove equipment, particularly public address systems.

It is important that we continue to work together to resolve this situation to the satisfaction of our stakeholders as the positive reputation of Rundle Mall as a premier shopping precinct in Adelaide is being detrimentally affected. I look forward to support from all parties to resolve this issue with a satisfactory outcome for all stakeholders.

Yours sincerely,

Stephen Yarwood, Lord Mayor.

Indeed, tonight and tomorrow this council is working cooperatively to improve the situation.

As a number of members have revealed, I am quite honest about the fact that this bill may not be perfect, but it is a good bill and a good base. We are happy to talk to any stakeholder on how the bill can be developed, and we certainly look forward to taking up the minister's offer made this morning to engage the opposition and other members constructively to develop the solutions going forward. After all, we share a common goal, even if we differ on the texture of the response.

It is important, as the minister indicated earlier, that something is in place by Christmas, so we look forward to seeing the discussion tomorrow. It is important to be mindful of the impact of these measures going forward, and we believe that working now on future responses that can be implemented as needed is the best way to have those measures ready as and when they are needed. I thank all members for their contributions and for their indication of support and look forward to the further progress of the bill.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

Bill taken through committee without amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. S.G. WADE (20:05): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.