SUMMARY OFFENCES (USE OF PUBLIC ADDRESS SYSTEMS) AMENDMENT BILL

Introduction and First Reading

The Hon. S.G. WADE (16:11): Obtained leave and introduced a bill for an act to amend the Summary Offences Act 1953. Read a first time.

Second Reading

The Hon. S.G. WADE (16:11): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

This bill, the Summary Offences (Use of Public Address Systems) Amendment Bill 2012, would be familiar to most members of the council. In fact, it is almost identical to the Summary Offences Act amendments contained within the Statutes Amendments (Public Assemblies and Addresses) Bill 2011 passed by this council last year. However, this bill differs from its predecessor in one respect. The bill removes the amendments to the Public Assemblies Act contemplated by the previous bill so that those matters can be considered separately.

I would stress that we have not stepped back from our view that those public assembly amendments are well founded and necessary, but given the government's reluctance about those specific provisions, we have introduced a bill which only contains provisions which have only been the subject of general agreement. This should allow the bill to be dealt with expeditiously. Members have all cast considered votes on this legislation previously. Indeed, during debate at that time, the Minister for State/Local Government Relations (Hon. Russell Wortley) said:

I have given an undertaking to the Hon. Mr Wade that I will work with him for the longer term to look at providing appropriate legislation if need be to fix up the problem in Rundle Mall if this does not work.

That was said on 9 November 2011. The commitment to develop further legislation was reiterated on 10 November 2011.

As anticipated, since the model by-law regulation was passed by this parliament and the by-laws implemented by the council, disturbances have continued between rival protest and preacher groups in Rundle Mall and elsewhere. We have heard media reports of street preachers going to the Feast Festival, the Pride March, Victor Harbor over the new year, being on trains, and plans for preachers to engage at Holdfast Shores. There have been previous reports of amplified preaching outside Paradise Church. All these events demonstrate the need for further reform that comprehensively addresses community concerns.

I would remind honourable members in this context that the council by-law that we put in place only deals with pedestrian malls, and the Adelaide City Council is the only council that I am aware of that has actually adopted that model by-law. The provisions in this bill are not simply to manage problems raised by recent events. The street preachers may be the focus of conflict and controversy today but it could just as easily be that another group is a focus of concern tomorrow. This bill is about managing the right to free speech in a respectful way that respects the rights of citizens to non-interference.

I would stress that the provisions in this bill are complementary to the current Adelaide city by-laws governing amplification use. They are necessary because the by-laws hailed as the silver bullet by the government are limited to pedestrian malls and limited to those council districts which have adopted the model by-law. As I said, Adelaide is the only council I am aware of that has done so at this point. The provisions in this bill are not intended to replace the by-law power but, instead, to provide a means for similar problems to be managed across the state in a complementary way with any by-laws that may exist in that particular district.

At present, the powers of the police to enforce respectful free speech are limited, and this bill gives police a clearer power and a clearer authority to control the misuse of amplification. The bill would empower police to direct a person not to use a public address system in a prescribed area where relevant authorisation had not been granted. It would give police the power to confiscate a public address system if a person fails to comply with such a direction. The public address system would be returnable to the person on the payment of a prescribed fee. 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 a police officer.

The bill would empower police to charge a person with an offence under the act if they breached a direction issued to that person, unless the person has a relevant authorisation. 'Relevant authorisation' is defined in the bill as an authorisation by the 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 others.

In mid-January, the honourable minister (Hon. Russell Wortley), the member for Adelaide (Rachel Sanderson) and I met with the police commissioner to discuss the management of Rundle Mall and public assemblies more generally. In relation to the proposal to change the Summary Offences Act to give the police amplification control powers, the police commissioner was generally supportive of those reforms. I would like to take the opportunity to thank the minister for his participation in that meeting and his support in addressing the issue and for making himself available to meet with the commissioner.

The minister has previously committed to a bipartisan approach, and we hope this spirit of collaboration will continue. I would also like to acknowledge the advocacy of my colleague in the House of Assembly, the member for Adelaide, Rachel Sanderson. She has been an active representative of her constituency and relentlessly pursued solutions to this problem for Rundle Mall traders and other users and residents of the CBD. I commend the bill to the council.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. J.M. Gazzola.