HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Second Parliament, First Session (52-1)
2011-11-10 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

STATUTES AMENDMENT (PUBLIC ASSEMBLIES AND ADDRESSES) BILL

Second Reading

Second reading.

Ms SANDERSON (Adelaide) (10:54): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I was not aware of how the procedure worked so I actually have a final speech ready here.

The SPEAKER: Only the clerks know, member for Adelaide.

Ms SANDERSON: Yes, that's it. I think most people in this house are aware of the situation that has been going on in Rundle Mall and I just have a few points to bring everyone up to speed. The shop owners, workers and most visitors to the mall, firstly, are not my constituents nor can they vote for me; however, they have been contacting my office and there are great concerns.

I have given a grievance speech on this, and I mentioned many situations, including that of a lady with cancer who was abused in the mall and told that because she looked like a male she would be going to hell. There are many others who have been offended or do not feel safe. Shops are being forced to close early because they do not feel safe due to protesters, and customers are being walked to their cars for their own safety.

I have also had emails in which people say they are avoiding the area where there are large crowds and just walking along Grenfell Street or North Terrace to avoid the ruckus in Rundle Mall. I have had mothers with babies who say that, as soon as you see a large crowd, you avoid the area; whether they are peaceful or not peaceful, you definitely avoid the area. There are also many older people who also claim the same thing—that when there is a large group of protesters, whether or not they are vocal, it is actually quite confronting and they will avoid the area.

However, freedom of speech is one of our greatest rights in this country, and it is a constitutional right, so by no means am I indicating that I think that should be changed in any way. However, I do think that people have the right to shop and not be abused as they are walking past.

The Hon. C.C. Fox: We have the right to shop.

Ms SANDERSON: That's it. We do have the right to shop, and people have the right to trade and run their businesses in Rundle Mall. They pay a lot of money to be there, and they have the right to do so and run legitimate businesses. What we can legislate for, however, is amplification. We can also provide for areas where they can assemble, like the public speaking corners they have in Hyde Park.

I believe there used to be one at the end of Rundle Street and the council is in agreement that this is a good idea; that we should have a public speakers' corner where people are encouraged to express their views and, if they want to use amplification, that they actually apply for a permit. These speakers' corners would not be right in front of a shop—that would be very detrimental to the shop. The preachers are also actually quite in favour of this idea because they do want to be heard and they actually complain about other people trying to be louder than they are, so it just escalates the whole problem.

A by-law was rejected recently in the Supreme Court in The Corporation of the City of Adelaide v Corneloup & Ors. Due to that, we realised that the by-laws really are not as strong as a state law would be and, after having several meetings with the police, they have indicated that policing a by-law is seen as a low priority to them. It is with that in mind that we thought that, whilst the government by-law that is being proposed in the other house is certainly a great idea, and I am very supportive of anything that can help Rundle Mall, I think it does not go far enough.

I think that we need state laws that the police will enforce in order to stop the amplification of the speeches that are going on in Rundle Mall and restore some order back to Rundle Mall. I also think that the use of a by-law instead of a state law will just push the problem out into surrounding suburbs, as we know from newspaper reports that the Corneloups have already been out to Paradise church. They have also indicated to me personally that the Central Market would be the next best place that they would like to go, and what is to stop them going out to the front of the town hall or Rundle Street where the cafes are?

By bringing in a by-law that only covers Rundle Mall, we are really just moving the problem elsewhere, and that is even if you can enforce the by-law. As we know, council workers cannot require names and addresses, which is why the no-smoking ban in Rundle Mall was unsuccessful.

Whilst the by-law might help, the preachers have already got out of 29 out of 30 infringement notices, so they are very savvy, so I think that, knowing that the by-law does not have the right to ask for their name and address, they would not give it. I really think it is short-sighted. It might work for a couple of weeks and it might even get us through the Christmas period but, ultimately, we need a statewide solution that will work for the whole of the state and not just move it into other areas in the city or other council areas. We need a solution that will actually solve the problem.

We have received a letter from Mayor Stephen Yarwood stating his support for this bill, and I would like to read it into Hansard. It is dated 2 November, and it states:

Re: Statutes Amendment (Public Assemblies and Addresses) Bill 2011.

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 welcomed 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 this situation are most welcome.

We see advantages in both the model by-law and in 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 issue 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.

So we do have the backing of Adelaide City Council and the support of the Rundle Mall Management Authority, and we are more than happy, if there are any flaws found or seen in the state legislation, to amend the bill because we want this to go through and we want peace restored in Rundle Mall and not merely have the problem shifted to other areas.

This bill passed the upper house last night, with the support of many of the Independents. It is upsetting that the Labor government did not support it. However, they have indicated that possibly, with some amendments, they would support it. I look forward to discussing further with government what the issues are and how we can solve them.

Basically, we have a by-law that will help Rundle Mall that will be going through the upper house today, I believe, that I am supportive of; and in a bipartisan way I would like the support of the government as well for our state legislation. It works against the amplification and makes it illegal to use amplification, but it is actually up to the police officers to ask you to stop using the amplification if it is causing a disturbance. It can be removed, and there is a penalty to have your amplification device given back.

The Public Assemblies Act also allows for speakers corners, so there is a carrot and stick approach where, if you use the designated areas and apply to use your amplification, you also have police protection if someone else comes in and disrupts your protest or rally.

Another point to make is that I have met with the administrator of the Facebook group Stop Rundle Mall Hate Speech, which has 5,000 members or friends, or whatever they are determined as in Facebook, and I asked: 'Why did this all start? What was the beginning of it?' It started at what was actually a peaceful rally. I believe it was a same-sex marriage ceremony in Victoria Square where families were present. The preachers took it upon themselves to interrupt that rally with their posters and very loud amplification. Then they had another peaceful march in front of Parliament House which was again interrupted by the preachers.

At the moment it could be seen as payback that that same group is now interrupting the preachers in the mall, and perhaps it is. However, if you think about it, the by-law would not protect the whole reason that this started because they were interrupted in Victoria Square and interrupted in front of Parliament House during a march. So, the by-law will not help them at all.

They are concerned that, with Feast opening this Saturday night (again, another peaceful march), it could be interrupted; and because the tempers are getting quite heated in Rundle Mall it could actually become violent. I do strongly believe that state legislation is the only way to solve this issue. I have spoken with the preachers and with the 'Love, not hate!' group and with the 'stop Rundle Mall hate speech' group, and they are all in support of our bill which removes amplification but which also gives speakers' corners. It not only takes away the difficulties but also it gives an incentive to do the right thing in the right area and have it monitored by the police.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Fisher.

The Hon. R.B. SUCH (Fisher) (11:05): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. R.B. SUCH: I know that spruiker from way back.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Fisher, you have the call.

Mrs Redmond interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition, the member for Fisher has the call.

The Hon. R.B. SUCH: This measure may not be in its ideal form but I think that it is a step towards achieving some sensible outcome. As we know, in Rundle Mall there are spruikers who are presumably registered and approved by council. Frank is one who does work for Harris Scarfe and others. I cannot tell you what the specials are this week, but I might find out later.

There is already amplification equipment used by registered people in the mall. There are also people who hand out religious material. Frank—another Frank, a different Frank—sits outside Woolworths in Army gear and hands out copies of the Good News Bible. I do not have a problem with that. He does not harass anyone, he does not intimidate anyone.

What we are talking about here is a group which, for some reason I am not quite sure of, has decided to take a fairly aggressive attitude; and we know that, by its very nature, evangelism is going to have a bit of oomph in it. I grew up in a fundamentalist church, so I have been subjected to plenty of hellfire speeches, and so on, but I do not think that Rundle Mall is a place where people should be intimidated and harassed by anyone irrespective of whether it is through religious motivation or whatever it is.

This measure might do something to help the situation. I do not think that the speakers' corner is the answer because, by their very nature, these people are trying to convert or warn the masses, not an individual person who might go down to the Botanic Gardens. I do not think that a speakers' corner is the answer. What you need is a sensible arrangement where people need permission to use amplification equipment appropriately, and, if they do not abide by the rules, then that equipment should not be allowed to be used.

I think that this is a step in the right direction. It is a pity that it has had to be done in haste because, sometimes, when you do things in haste like that you do not get it quite right. However, I think that the intention is good.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Croydon, do you wish to speak on this matter?

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: I do.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: If you wish me to recognise you, I would suggest that you remove the display.

Mr GARDNER: Point of order.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

Mr GARDNER: I have a point of order on another matter. It is enough for us to put up with the inanities of the member for Croydon, but for the minister to take photos inside the chamber is directly against a number of the Speaker's rulings. The member for Mawson and the member for Newland have been taking photos, and I would ask you to deal with that.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: People who live in glass houses, member for Morialta, should not throw stones. I still recall when you used your phone to take a picture in this place, too. I remember seeing that.

Mr GARDNER: I seek leave to make a personal explanation.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: A personal explanation?

Mr GARDNER: At the time—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, there is no personal explanation. You have moved a point of order. The member for Croydon has removed his display. He can speak if he wishes to speak in the proper way, and the minister will behave himself in future.

Mr GARDNER: I seek your ruling on the point of order and then I will make a personal explanation if I may.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The point of order, I have upheld in terms of—

Mr GARDNER: My point of order was to do with the taking of photographs.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: And I just mentioned to the minister that he is not to do that.

Mr GARDNER: Okay, then I seek leave to make a personal explanation.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: You can do it at the end of this debate.

Mr GARDNER: I will.

Mr PENGILLY: Point of order, sir, before you go on. Will you instruct the minister to delete the photograph from his camera before he leaves the chamber, as he was standing in the middle of the chamber which is entirely unparliamentary? The Speaker admonishes photographers who take photos of members not standing on their feet from the gallery, so I believe you have a responsibility to remove the photo.

The Hon. R.B. SUCH: Point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hold on. We have one point of order. There is no point of order there. Your point of order?

The Hon. R.B. SUCH: I don't believe the ruling regarding photography applies to members. As you know, we have a double standard in here.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. R.B. SUCH: No, we do.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I hear it every day.

The Hon. R.B. SUCH: We have privilege here, the people in the gallery do not, and we can take photos. I would like someone to show me a standing order that says it is prohibited for members.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I will ask the Speaker to make a ruling on that. Member for Croydon.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON (Croydon) (11:12): Alas, the government cannot support the bill. The Minister for State/Local Government Relations in another place has introduced a bill to the parliament that addresses the same issue that the member for Adelaide attempts to address through her private member's bill debated today. The bill in another place seeks to amend the Local Government Act 1999 to remove the current restriction in the act that prevents the council from adopting a model by-law until the time for disallowance has passed. This will allow the adoption of a model by-law at any time after it is published in the Gazette.

As the house would be aware, the model by-law, known as the Local Government (Model By-Law) Proclamation 2011, was published in the South Australian Government Gazette on 13 October 2011. This by-law was introduced in an effort to replace the disallowed by-law No. 6 in a shorter time frame than was available to the Adelaide City Council under the 1999 Local Government Act.

The model by-law was developed at the request of the council after its inability to control activities of groups within the Mall owing to the disallowance motion passed by the Legislative Council in September of this year. Well, who passed that disallowance motion? Yes, it was the parliamentary Liberal Party walking on both sides of the street. In the other place, they passed a disallowance motion, so the evangelism and the preaching and the conflict could continue in Rundle Mall because apparently that was a violation of free speech, but they took the equal and opposite position down here in the House of Assembly through the member for Adelaide. But look—

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Members on my left.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: As the former member for Unley the Hon. Mark Brindal once interjected from that side of the chamber—

An honourable member: Mark Brindal of blessed memory.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: Yes, Mark Brindal of blessed memory—he interjected one day: 'It is the prerogative of Her Majesty's Opposition to have two bob each way.' The Liberal Party is doing that on this issue. Indeed, I was pleased to be the moderator of a Probus free speech forum at a hotel in North Adelaide recently.

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Members on my left will have an opportunity to speak if they wish to on this matter.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: Amanda Vanstone was there as a panellist and a very fine panellist she was. The member for Adelaide was sitting there in the front row and her contribution was to get up and complain about the preachers and say, 'Look, these preachers, they're terrible. They tell passers-by that they're going to die one day.' Amanda Vanstone replied, 'Look, love, just walk on by,' and I thought it was very good advice from Amanda Vanstone to the member for Adelaide. That is what Amanda Vanstone had to say.

The model by-law does not contain any of the words that were held to be invalid by the Full Court. It does, however, give a council the ability to regulate the use of amplification generally, the use of equipment such as platforms or stages—unfortunately, I was unable to erect one of those here today—and, importantly, prohibit the interference or disruption of any other person's permitted use of a pedestrian mall, such as Rundle Mall.

The amendments proposed in the minister's bill will enable the Adelaide City Council to have in place a by-law to manage the activities in Rundle Mall in the lead-up to the busy Christmas period.

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Norwood, you are not even in your place, so do not interject.

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: Pergo-la and pergola.

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: Indeed, all of that.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Can the member for Croydon continue with his speech or has he finished?

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: The amendment also provides that, in the event that the model by-law is disallowed, the model by-law adopted by the council will be of no effect on and after the date of disallowance. The member for Adelaide's bill has taken a different approach by making significant amendments to the Summary Offences Act 1953 and the Public Assemblies Act 1972. As I understand it, the Public Assemblies Act 1972 currently allows for an 'advance notification' system when a group wishes to assemble or rally.

The general idea is that the public can demonstrate and assemble, unless the authorities object to the particular notification, at which point the court decides the merit of the application. We on the Labor side think that is a good system. The Public Assemblies Act 1972 arose out of the September moratorium demonstration of 1970 and looks to enshrine the rights of protesters. I will explain the moratorium movement to the member for Adelaide afterwards.

The member for Adelaide's amendments to the Public Assemblies Act seem to set aside restricted areas for protected assemblies, for example, providing for designated speakers' corners. The government believes that the member for Adelaide's amendment runs against the spirit of this legislation, a spirit which the Hon. Stephen Wade supported in another place.

The government believes that the member for Adelaide's amendments would be highly likely to be subject to constitutional challenge in the courts. The amendments proposed in the minister's bill provide a solution to the immediate problem and will enable the Adelaide City Council to adopt and implement the model by-law before Christmas this year.

I welcome the input of all interested parties to develop the best solution possible. However, this bill has a much broader application and greater consequences than the amendment proposed to the 1999 Local Government Act by the government.

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Croydon has the floor. If anybody else interrupts—the member for Croydon.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: It is disappointing that the member for Adelaide—

The Hon. C.C. Fox interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Minister!

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: It is disappointing that the member for Adelaide has brought her proposed bill to a vote so quickly. This is complicated legislation that could have wide-ranging consequences across the entire state. I would encourage the opposition to consult widely with interested parties, such as South Australia Police, the Law Society, the South Australian Council for Civil Liberties and the Adelaide City Council, if it intends to reintroduce the bill at a later date.

Although the government is not able to support the bill at the present time, I am advised that the honourable minister is prepared to work collaboratively with members to look at the longer-term options and potential benefits of a different approach to this issue.

Mr GARDNER (Morialta) (11:19): I am pleased to hear the member for Croydon indicate that the government is interested in working collaboratively, because with about 10 minutes left before the end of private members' bills today, and a number of other people with contributions to make, I suspect we may not get to a vote today. I do urge the government, in working collaboratively, to look at the extensive range of consultation that the member for Adelaide and the Hon. Stephen Wade in another place have already undertaken. In fact, I was looking at some of the Legislative Council Hansard earlier, and the range of people of different views who are supporting this bill already suggests the range of people with different view in the community who support this bill.

The member for Adelaide, in putting this bill forward, has managed to get the preachers on side, she has managed to get the Love Not Hate group on side, she has managed to get the Adelaide City Council on side, she has managed to get Family First on side, and she has the Liberal Party's support—I think she has done a tremendous job of consultation. She has the Hon. Ann Bressington on side, and the Hon. Kelly Vincent was supportive of this. The Greens have suggested a minor amendment, and they are supporting it in-principle, and I look forward to the Labor Party—the last group of 26 people in this state coming on board—to support the member for Adelaide's bill.

This is an important issue because what is going on in Rundle Mall is to the detriment, I think, of not only the ambience of Rundle Mall and the trade of the Rundle Mall traders, but it is actually a blight on society, and it does no credit to those undertaking it. The member for Adelaide and the Hon. Stephen Wade's bill that we are debating at this point will make some important adjustments to lower the volume (both literally and figuratively) of the arguments that are going on in Rundle Mall. As the Hon. Dennis Hood has said elsewhere:

I think their methods are very questionable, to say the least. I think all of us have concerns. I have not seen, but I am hearing of incidents of direct insults being made at people walking past. How that falls under the banner of Christianity, frankly, I just do not understand. That sort of behaviour, I think, is regrettable, to say the least.

We have heard from the member for Adelaide of the number of her constituents and other interested parties who have contacted her; we have a very clearly established problem. This is one that was brought home very clearly to me several weeks ago, because my sister-in-law happens to be—while not a member of the SDA—she is in fact working in retail in Rundle Mall, and works on Friday nights and Saturday mornings, and is regularly harassed by this group.

Now, it is of great concern to us, because when she is walking alone through Rundle Mall at night, I do not think that she should do so fearing that she will be coming under the personal insults and denigrations of people standing next to and over her with loudspeakers, for goodness' sake. I wish they would just desist from this sort of behaviour altogether, but we can in fact reduce the tenor of the problem by removing their amplification. If they are not able to undertake their activities with amplification without a permit, I think this will contribute greatly.

The preachers, I would note, I heard on radio yesterday also coming out in support of this proposition, because from their point of view they feel that if those protesting against them do not have amplification, then they will not need it themselves in the first place; frankly, it is sensible.

The government has come forward with the idea that the by-law can sort out everything. There are two issues with this—and I note that the opposition will be supporting the government in its endeavours to get this done, but the by-law itself has been shown that it cannot support everything, because council officers do not have the right to seek names and addresses from those whom they might apprehend.

They have no ability to enforce the by-law as fully as the police could if the police were enforcing it, but the police will not be going around making their primary cause of business the enforcement of council by-laws. So, clearly, the police need to be given their own power, which this bill will do.

The Adelaide City Council, in supporting it, have said that they need both; they want both. I saw them on the television last night calling for both to be supported. The member for Adelaide read out the letter from the Lord Mayor, the Honourable Stephen Yarwood, reinforcing the same point.

The opposition has moved through the Legislative Council and got the Legislative Council's support in a timely fashion. Having heard horror stories of what happens in the Legislative Council, I am very pleased to see them acting so expeditiously. Time is a factor. I hope that when we come back in two weeks' time for the last private members business of the session, we can deal with this, perhaps with amendments from the government if they feel the opportunity is there. If they feel that this is genuinely something that they think needs to be fixed, they will bring amendments and, if they say that amendments can fix it, we will work collaboratively with them, and the member for Adelaide will work collaboratively with them.

With the Christmas session coming up, those Rundle Mall traders deserve some opportunity to make their living. The people working in Rundle Mall deserve the opportunity to make their living without fear of harassment and without fear of getting caught up in the crossfire between the two very vocal groups who are behaving in the way they are at the moment. The thousands upon thousands, upon tens of thousands of citizens of our state who want to go to Rundle Mall and do their shopping for Christmas, for goodness sake, should be able to do so, free from any fear that they are going to get caught up in what could become quite an ugly melee.

Of course, the beneficiaries of failure to act on this will not be the preachers, and they will not be the people who are arguing against the preachers. The beneficiaries will be other tourism destinations who will reap the benefit of return trade from people who will not want to come to Adelaide in the future having had bad experiences in Rundle Mall. The traders in non Rundle Mall shops may well do quite well out of it because I am certain that, if this is not resolved, then people will not be going back for a second visit to the mall at Christmas shopping time, and that is going to put a lot of livelihoods at risk—livelihoods that are clearly of concern to many people in this chamber.

I support the member for Adelaide. I think she has done a great job in consultation. I think the government, with its new edict of debate and then decide, would do well to look at the member for Adelaide's example, where she has gone out to all sorts of people and managed to get two very diametrically opposed sides of a debate to come together and support the bill: it is an extraordinary achievement. I commend her for her work, and I commend the bill to the house.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT