Bills

Public Assemblies (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 30 November 2023.)

The Hon. C. BONAROS (17:04): I rise to speak in support of this bill introduced into this place by the Hon. Rob Simms. Last week on Wednesday evening, I was contacted about the reporting and arrest of two protesters charged with obstructing a public place a few days earlier at a pro-Palestine protest. The two protesters were amongst about 200 protesters who had gathered peacefully for their protest, which we know takes place on a regular occurrence, usually through the mall.

One of them, Ahmed Azhar, was also the SAPOL liaison officer, and the other an organiser. Both voluntarily provided their details to police, as they always do. Mr Azhar was in Rundle Mall. He engaged with police on the day. He introduced himself to the police at the beginning and he did what he needed to do to facilitate a safe protest.

What Mr Azhar and his friend did not expect on that Wednesday evening was a knock on the door by SAPOL. In Mr Azhar's case, when he was arrested by police, reported, he refused to sign the bail conditions which significantly restricted his freedom of movement, and was taken into custody as a result.

He was kept in a cell at Elizabeth Police Station before appearing at court the following morning. He chose to deal with the matter, and had representation to deal with the matter then and there, by entering a guilty plea. The penalty was one imposed by way of time already served, having served 17 hours in custody, for not signing a bail agreement.

I think it is fair to say that, when the events that were laid out before the court were laid out, there were lots of people asking why on earth we were using valuable court time for such a trivial matter. Mr Azhar had not hurt anybody. He did not cause mayhem on our streets. He liaised with police. He tried his best to engage to ensure that police knew what was happening on the day. It is hard, frankly, to see how he and other protesters that day could have engaged in conduct that was subsequently reported as obstructing a public place.

Of course, obstructing a public place are those provisions that were the subject of the protest laws debated in this place when this Labor government chose to take democracy in South Australia I do not know how far back in time. One of the main reasons Mr Azhar refused to sign his bail agreement and was subsequently taken into custody is the conditions that were being proposed in relation to his bail. They can only be described, in my perspective, as an overreach when it comes to bail because those conditions would have prevented him from attending parts of the city he frequents everyday, namely university. They would have prevented him from using public transport, as he does all the time, to get to university, and they would have seriously restricted his movements in the city.

Bail, as I said at the time, serves as a very important tool, and bail conditions are intended to strike a balance between protecting the community and upholding individual liberty. They are not intended, and never have been intended, to be a form of punishment. It is very, very difficult to understand what risk police thought Mr Azhar presented to the South Australian community after having taken part in a peaceful protest. This is a perfect example of why these laws need to be revisited.

The other young Jewish protester who chose to sign the bail conditions will not appear before court until November. That means that until November his movements will be similarly restricted until his matter is finalised. That means he also will not be able to access things like transport to get to and from work each day. His movements in the city will be severely restricted on a daily basis. It means his movements in and around the city will continue to be limited and restricted until his matter is finalised. It also meant that he could not actually attend the press conference that we held on the steps of Parliament House on the day after his arrest because he would have been in breach of bail conditions imposed upon him as a result of attending the protest in question.

How we can think it is okay to treat otherwise law abiding South Australians in this way is lost on me. We are not talking about thugs who are wreaking havoc down Rundle Mall, the individuals we hear about daily who commit terrible crimes down Rundle Mall and should feel the brunt of our law and have bail conditions imposed on them which prevent them from doing the same. As I said, bail is not intended as a punishment, and in this instance there are clear arguments in favour of the overreach by police when it comes to the bail conditions they sought to apply on these individuals in question.

I remind you again, Mr President, that we are talking about two protesters who volunteered their details on behalf of about 200 protesters who were protesting that day. You do not need to support Palestine. I do not care what your position on Palestine is in relation to the point that I am trying to make—I do care about it overall, of course. You do not need to be a supporter of Palestine to recognise that Labor's protest laws have undermined the core principle of democracy in South Australia and for the first time that these laws have been used we have seen just how far they undermine those principles. We have just seen the worst aspects of those laws come to bear.

Heaven forbid we have the sorts of protests in South Australia that we have seen taking place overseas in other places. Heaven forbid we see the sorts of protests taking place in South Australia that we are seeing in Europe over issues such as this. Overwhelmingly, we have had people who have protested safely, who have been respectful, who have not done anything to wreak havoc on our streets or cause commotion or block traffic. But here we are, sitting with our first cases of two people arrested for obstructing a public place in South Australia, namely blocking traffic, and these two people are the same two people who put their hand up to tell police that they were leading the protest in question only to be arrested as a result.

It puzzles me that we even have to be here talking about this issue, let alone using up the valuable time of our courts, which we did last week and we will do again in November, to deal with matters as trivial as this. My suggestion to the government is that we go back and consult with police about the sorts of bail conditions that are being imposed on individuals when it comes to these sorts of charges. This may have been an overreach because it was the first arrests that have taken place under these new laws, but no doubt the precedent has been set and we can expect a further demise of democracy in South Australia and further arrests.

I think it is about time the government had a word to our law enforcement agencies about what bail conditions are meant to do and what purpose they are meant to serve. They are not, as I said, meant to serve as a punishment. They are not there to restrict a person's movements, insofar as they have in these cases, where they are not otherwise warranted. I could go on and on about this, but I think I have made my point.

I do support the very sensible proposals and suggestions that have been made by the Hon. Rob Simms. I think it is extremely important for us, in addition to taking back, probably, some feedback on the way that we go about using our bail provisions when it comes to these sorts of laws. I think it is also a timely reminder that these are not even the worst aspects of this piece of legislation. They do not—and I do not mean this disrespectfully to the mover; I mean this with the utmost respect—deal with the most offensive elements of the protest laws that were rushed through this place in 22 minutes because of a cosy deal between the government and the opposition at the time and which sought only to undermine democracy in this state.

These laws have to be revisited. We have to ensure that we are not criminalising otherwise law-abiding people participating in protests and exercising their freedom of speech and their freedom of movement—something we once took for granted in this state.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Deputy Premier, Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Public Sector, Special Minister of State) (17:16): I rise on behalf of the government to indicate that we will not be supporting this bill. The Public Assemblies Act 1972, a Don Dunstan-era piece of legislation, provides a longstanding framework to facilitate peaceful and orderly protests and gatherings in public settings. That piece of legislation regime already includes provisions which provide for a person to not incur civil or criminal liability when acting in accordance with approved proposals for public assemblies. It is the government's view that the act has operated well, stood the test of time and, at this stage, does not need further amendment.

I will be interested, though, and the government will be very interested, to see if the Hon. Frank Pangallo chooses to make a contribution on this particular piece of legislation. Given the Hon. Frank Pangallo spoke for five hours and 21 minutes when we canvassed issues in relation to this sort of legislation, one would have thought the Hon. Frank Pangallo might have something, if not a lot, to say on this bill.

The government did not agree with the comments the Hon. Frank Pangallo made when we last visited this bill. He said things like 'history demonstrates you can never suppress the voice and the will of the people'. It will be interesting to see the Hon. Frank Pangallo's voice and will on behalf of the people. The Hon. Frank Pangallo, the last time this was up, said that he did not think the Liberal Party properly understood the bill. It will be interesting to see, when the Hon. Frank Pangallo gets up and speaks on this, if his position holds or if his internal moral compass might have changed a little bit in recent times. It will be very interesting to see if the self-declared watchdog has turned into a lapdog, or if the cat has got the tongue of the watchdog.

The government's position has been clear. The government's position has not changed. It will be interesting to see if that is case for everyone in this chamber.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS (17:18): I rise, reasonably briefly, to support this bill. I opposed the government's draconian, rammed-through-the-parliament crackdown on public assembly when they pushed it through this parliament, and I continue to oppose it and will take every opportunity to support moves to wind it back. I note that this is timely because, just last week, two members of a peaceful protest—the type of protest that in fact happens on most Fridays, starting in Rundle Mall and proceeding to Pulteney Street—were some days later raided by SAPOL officers, detained and presented with really strict bail conditions.

The Hon. Connie Bonaros has outlined exactly what happened in those cases, in terms of one of those people accepting the bail conditions and continuing, into November at the very least, to be very much restrained in their ability to participate in their work life, in their social life and certainly in their political life. They were not even able to attend a press conference to talk about the restrictions on their civil liberties because of those bail conditions. Another person who refused to comply with those bail conditions then spent 17 hours detained over the course of that weekend and now does not, once they finally have been able to access the courts, have those same conditions restricting their freedom of movement.

All of this is about sending a chilling message to restrict freedom of speech—freedom for people to protest, to proclaim what their views are, in public places. That is, in fact, what this very council, this very parliament, our very democratic institution, is based on. It is something that in this parliament we should be defending and welcoming, where it is done peacefully, not allowing our police force to arbitrarily pick two members of that protest off days later and detain them in the way that has now happened in this state.

I have not seen a statement from the government expressing concern with the policing of these new laws. Where is that, I ask the Malinauskas government and the Attorney-General? Where is that statement of concern that arbitrarily two people from that peaceful protest were days later picked out by the police in what will send a chilling message not just to South Australians who perhaps support Palestine but to any South Australian who wishes to take to the street.

Reclaim the Night is coming up on 31 October; it is always the last Friday of October, right around the world. What is to say police will not later on decide that some of those women demanding a safe, respectful community where they are free, whether it is day or night, to be in public or to be in their homes—what is to say that many of those women might not think twice about attending that Reclaim the Night rally just in case, should they be a marshal and the police have their details, they then get that knock on the door and they then spend an inordinate amount of time detained or are subject to strict bail conditions that stop them attending their place of work, that stop them studying, that stop them from being able to care properly for their children and go to a certain location, that stop them from using public transport?

If you are looking at a police regime that has used the current laws, which this government and the opposition willingly created and rammed through this place, if you see an incident like that used against two people, what is to say it will not be used against 20 people, against 200 people, against people simply peacefully protesting in this state? That is the very thing that this democratic institution relies on, the very thing we celebrate with the Muriel Matters grille in centre hall. The suffragists and Muriel Matters in particular had obstructed the democratic process by locking onto that grille.

We celebrate these things. We celebrate the diversity of opinions. We celebrate the right of people to peacefully protest. But in the state of South Australia in the last week we have detained two people quite arbitrarily who did nothing other than peacefully protest in a way that for week after week for the last two years they have done and in a way that dozens of other people at that protest did not get detained for. Where is the logic in that? Where is the protection of democracy in that? Where is the Malinauskas government in calling out that behaviour and saying, 'That is not an acceptable application of these laws'?

I am glad the Attorney-General spoke in this debate. I am sure he did so to have a go and a crack at the Hon. Frank Pangallo, but it is refreshing to see a government minister coming to talk in a portfolio area in private members' business for a change. You, of course, are protected by parliamentary privilege in speaking in this place. You, of course, are protected by your position, but a person going out on the steps of Parliament House to a press conference to talk about the fact that they are subject to strict bail conditions that stop them from attending anything on the steps of Parliament House, or attending their place of work, or being able to go about their daily business, they are not that privileged and they deserve our protections as well.

That is why I had hoped that in this debate you would acknowledge that this is not how you wanted these laws to work. Certainly, they seem to be working in exactly the way that the opposition and the government intended them to do, and that is to send a chilling message to any South Australian not to raise their voice, not to be out on the streets and not to make a fuss. Should you fall foul of the police mood that day you might just end up detained or on bail conditions and having to wait for the courts to fix this parliament's mistakes. That is not good enough; it is simply not good enough.

With that, I hope this is not the last time we see this debate, and I hope eventually the opposition and the government will understand that they overreached that day—and it was a day; it literally was a day that we saw it pass through the parliament—it went too far and it has sent a signal to the police that they can go too far when it comes to our democratic institutions.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD (17:25): I rise on behalf of the opposition to indicate that we—I think it will come as no surprise—will not be supporting this bill.

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: Yes, I am sure they are shocked, sir. This bill is not without merit. We had a very close look at it because it goes to some of the fundamental principles that we enjoy in our society. I can assure members and those watching on and reading Hansard that this is something we have taken very seriously and considered very closely.

The bill seeks to introduce a positive obligation for the state to facilitate assemblies. It provides, for the avoidance of doubt, that organisers of an approved assembly do not incur any civil or criminal liability, even if other persons participating in the assembly fail to act in conformity with the approved proposal—so it would rule that out. Further, it shortens the notice period of an assembly from four days prior to the proposed assembly to 48 hours, with the time for objections reduced from two days to just 24 hours.

These measures would ensure that it is easier for citizens and groups to organise what might be considered spontaneous protests or protests with limited notice, especially in response to what might be considered urgent events. All of these things I think have some level of merit, and the opposition's view was that they are noteworthy and worthy of consideration.

However, the reality is that they could also create potential problems or operational challenges in particular for the police. They could create issues for councils in terms of managing safety, managing traffic and logistical issues because of the reduction in time available for the notice to be given and, therefore, they may actually increase the frequency of short notice events such as this—I might call them pop-up or short notice type demonstrations—and police and councils would therefore need to adapt procedures to comply with the facilitation duty and shorter timelines required under this bill.

We anticipate that one of the results of that is that it would create additional pressure. There may be additional administrative burdens in terms of coordinating public safety and the like, and that is a not insignificant issue that I think also deserves very significant consideration and thorough scrutiny.

The other aspect that we considered in coming to our position on this, which I think is very significant, is that this bill passed this parliament only very recently—in fact, it was May 2023, I think I am right in saying that—with bipartisan support, both the government and the opposition supporting the legislation. It was in response to a series of events but one particular event that really stood out and I remember it quite well. It was a protest by the Extinction Rebellion group which caused significant traffic chaos on North Terrace. That really was perhaps the key impetus—not the entire impetus but one of the key impetuses for this bill.

At that time I think there was a public outcry. I think quite rightly there was a public outcry at that sort of method, if you like, or approach to protests and, as a result of that, the parliament decided to act and act swiftly, and the opposition was in full support of the government's position on that day.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: That is true, but it was a government bill.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: Correct, all that is true. I am talking about the bill that actually went through. The actions of this group, as members would recall, caused significant disruption and therefore the parliament acted. Yes, as the Hon. Ms Bonaros rightly points out, the opposition was quick off the mark, but what eventually passed was of course not of our own doing, although we were happy to support it, to be clear.

To be fundamentally clear as well, the opposition absolutely supports the right of peaceful protests, but it believes it should always be balanced with the responsibility for peaceful protest and the importance of protesting peacefully and with minimal disruption to the community as a whole. For that reason the opposition will be voting with the government and opposing this legislation.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (17:30): I thank honourable members for their contribution. I am disappointed to hear that the government and the opposition have not reflected over the last two years and recognised the error of their ways. This was an opportunity to try to make amends and put things right. Members may recall that I moved to repeal these laws not long after they were first put in place, with a private member's bill that was once again opposed by Labor and the Liberals. This bill does not junk the laws entirely. That is what I would like to do, but I recognised there was not support for that in this chamber.

This bill introduces a positive obligation to protect assemblies. It is a provision that already exists in a number of other jurisdictions—places like Finland and New Zealand—and it is also consistent with the United Nations declaration and 10 principles for the proper management of assemblies. The other thing that my private member's bill would do, under clause 4, is reduce the timeframe for giving notice of assembly from four days to 48 hours, because four days is really quite unrealistic, particularly when one considers the nature of protest and the kind of issues that people may want to raise.

The other issue the bill deals with, which was raised by a number of organisations in response to the Labor Party's original bill, was this issue of who precisely is responsible around a protest if it gets out of control, so there are some provisions in the bill that deal with that. The Hon. Connie Bonaros and the Hon. Tammy Franks have reflected on the circumstances that unfolded last week with respect to the pro-Palestinian protesters. That really demonstrated for me the importance of bringing this bill to a vote at this time. We saw these protesters being charged with obstructing the public space and facing really quite draconian bail conditions that placed huge restrictions on their civil liberties. This really underscores, as other members have observed, the dangerous and chilling effect that these anti-protest laws can have in our state.

This is not surprising to the Greens, not surprising to me. I am sure it is not surprising to the Hon. Connie Bonaros or the Hon. Tammy Franks. All of us raised these concerns back when the Labor Party, aided and abetted by the Liberals, sought to rush these draconian laws through this parliament in less than 24 hours. That was an appalling state of affairs. In fact, the bill passed the lower house so quickly that one would not even have been able to have completed a load of washing. What a sad indictment that is on democracy in our state.

These anti-protest laws stink. They are an outrage and they are an attack on our fundamental human rights here in this state. What this bill is seeking to do is to at least insert some protections around the right to protest in South Australia.

I am very disappointed that once again the two major parties are going to vote together. Like steel and a magnet, they come together on these issues when it comes to restricting the civil and political rights of South Australians. I think many people in our community will be angry and outraged at the decision that the Labor and Liberal parties are taking today.

It is a reminder of why we need such a strong presence in the upper house of crossbench members to hold the Labor and Liberal parties to account and to ensure that they do not exceed their authority in the future. I indicate to members that I will be bringing this bill to a vote so that the position of all members is put on the public record and all members of this place will be required to justify their position to their constituents.

The council divided on the second reading:

Ayes 4

Noes 13

Majority 9

AYES

NOES

Second reading thus negatived.