You may have seen that, despite strong opposition from human rights groups, new laws around protesting in South Australia recently passed through parliament. So how did we get here exactly?
Where did this all come from?
From Monday 15 - Thursday 18 May the Australian Petroleum Production and Exploration Association (APPEA) – part of the oil and gas industry – held its annual conference at the Adelaide Convention Centre.
During the conference, Chief Executive for Woodside and Chair of APPEA Ms O’Neill said it was an opportunity to ‘outline the going role of gas in the energy transition,’ and South Australian Energy Minister Hon Tom Koutsantonis MP told the attendees from the industry the State Government ‘are here to help’.
Protests occurred during the first two days of the conference, and on Wednesday CBD traffic was disrupted by a protester abseiling from the Morphett Street bridge on North Terrace. On Thursday more protest actions occurred including protesters throwing paint on the Santos building in the city. The abseiling protester and four involved in paint-throwing were arrested and charged with various offences including property damage.
What was the response?
On Thursday (18 May) morning Opposition Leader Havid Speirs MP told a talk back radio show that fines for protesters should be increased and jail time should be considered.
Premier Hon Peter Malinauskas MP said in a radio interview that morning the Government would consider increasing penalties for protesters. A few hours later, he introduced a Bill without notice and sought for the Summary Offences (Obstruction of Public Places) Amendment Bill 2023 to be passed without delay.
The Bill changed offence wording of section 58 in the Summary Offence Act 1953 from ‘wilfully obstructs’ to ‘intentionally or recklessly obstructs the free passage of a public place,’ whether directly or indirectly and increased the maximum penalty from a $750 fine to a $50,000 fine or a three-month jail term.
It passed the first, second and third reading stages in the lower house within 22 minutes of being introduced with support from the Opposition.
What did other people say?
Human rights, social and legal organisations as well as academics and unions have opposed the changes and how quickly they were developed and passed. The Human Rights Law Centre have said the changes in the Bill will ultimately undermine the ability of everyone in South Australia to exercise their right to peacefully protest,’ you can find their explainer on the changes here. Other organisations expressing concern for the lack of consideration and consultation, the intended and unintended consequences of significantly broadening the offence as well as the increase of penalty, included Amnesty International Australia, SA Bar Association, SA Unions, Human Rights Watch, the Law Society of South Australia, Rights Resource Network of SA, and many unions.
On Friday (26 May) while more than 500 people gathered to protest the changes and lack of consultation, Attorney-General Hon Kyam Maher MLC told radio listeners that the Government aren’t looking to change who the legislation applies to, just to update the penalties. More than 80 organisations signed an open letter featured in the Advertiser urging the State Government to withdraw the Bill and protect the right to freedom of assembly including the Australian Democracy Network, The Australia Institute and Amnesty International Australia. Over the following weekend, Labor Members including the Premier denied the changes would impact rights to freedom of assembly.
What about in the Legislative Council?
On Tuesday (30 May) morning hundreds gathered in the city to demand Government withdraw the Bill. Australian Lawyers for Human Rights, Rights Resource Network SA, SA Unions and others published a double-page feature in the Advertiser urging Parliament to withdraw the legislation and ask citizens to join the protest for human rights.
That afternoon the Legislative Council, or the upper house, began debating and the crossbench attempted to make amendments including having the changes reviewed by a committee, removing the word ‘indirectly’ from the offence, requiring the Attorney-General to review the changes after 12 months, having the SA Voice to Parliament review the proposed changes and reducing the maximum penalty from $50,000 to $5,000 – these suggested changes were all rejected.
The crossbench of the upper house attempted a ‘filibuster’ – a political tactic of prolonging debate on legislation to delay or prevent voting – and after a 14-hour overnight session where Greens MLC Rob Simms and SA-Best MLC Frank Pangallo MLC and Connie Bonaros MLC spoke for hours, the Bill passed at 6:15 AM Wednesday (31 May) morning with one small change made by a crossbench amendment to remove ‘reckless’ to read ‘intentionally obstructs the free passage of a public place,’ whether directly or indirectly.
What now?
YACSA, alongside many human rights, social, and legal sector organisations as well as unions, is concerned about the lack of consultation the now passed Bill received and the speed at which it moved through Parliament. We are also worried about the unintended consequences of broadening the offence that may impact young people who are often discriminated against.
The Human Rights Law Centre said it is likely the new law will be taken to the High Court. That challenge would relate to how the new law impacts implied freedom of political communication rights in the constitution.
