The Summary Offences (Obstruction of Public Places) Amendment Bill 2023 was introduced to the Lower House last Thursday and passed soon after with Labor and Liberal support, in the wake of a traffic-stopping Extinction Rebellion protest against an oil and gas industry conference at the Convention Centre.

Besides increasing the maximum fine 66 times, the legislation introduces a three month jail term, makes defendants potentially liable for emergency services costs responding to the obstruction, and broadens the offence’s scope to include indirect obstruction of a public place.

The legislation prompting concerns from groups including SA Unions about the right to protest and the Greens now plan amendments based on Human Rights Law Centre advice to try to lessen the “impact of this draconian law” now heading for Upper House approval.

The centre’s senior lawyer David Mejia-Canales advised the bill makes the offence of obstructing a public place easier to establish and could capture other conduct including “a person sleeping rough on a pavement, someone handing out flyers in a street” or young people striking for climate change where a person “may not fully understand that they are blocking public space”.

The South Australian Council of Social Services urged the Legislative Council to “stop this ill-considered attack on civil liberties, community rights and, ultimately our democracy, from passing into law”.

Amnesty is holding a Protect the Right to Protest in SA rally, joining forces with Adelaide Uni Students for Climate Justice, National Union of Students Education Department and Uni Students for Climate Justice.

In a statement announcing the rally, one group said: “Premier Malinauskas has backed the bill saying that disruptive protest actions interrupts business unnecessarily but we see the defence of our planet against climate destruction as an urgent necessity.”

Malinauskas said on radio on Thursday morning that the bill would be introduced to parliament that day, following the abseiling protest on Monday and later protest actions including throwing paint at oil and gas giant Santos’s Adelaide headquarters.

Australian Lawyers for Human Rights president Kerry Weste said the rushed legislation had “a chilling effect on people’s freedom to engage in protest action”.

“ALHR urges members of the Legislative Council to oppose the Bill and ensure its human rights impacts are properly inquired into, including through public consultation,” Weste said.

“This Bill and the way in which it is being rushed with so little scrutiny, lays bare the dire need for a South Australian Human Rights Act. The people of this state deserve to have their rights to peaceful assembly and freedom of expression protected in law.”

“This Bill has the potential to impact a wide range of protest activity: students, healthcare workers, First Nations people and their allies, environmental campaigners, disabled campaigners or any South Australian resident who directly or indirectly obstructs a public place in order to campaign for their rights face a life-changing prison sentence and crippling fines. This is neither necessary nor proportionate.”

With the bill expected to be debated in the Upper House soon, SA Best MLC Frank Pangallo said he will vote “‘no, unless I am convinced it will not impede basic human rights and a right to express freedom”.

Pangallo said the “rushed populist legislation” also worried SA Best MLC Connie Bonaros, Greens and other cross benchers and “should worry every civil libertarian”.

Santos did not respond to questions about whether it supported the bill, but a spokeswoman pointed InDaily to Santos managing director Kevin Gallagher’s speech at the oil and gas conference, in which he said: “South Australia is a great friend to our industry and none more so than (Mines and Energy) Minister Tom Koutsantonis.”

“It’s not very often that our political leaders are willing to speak up for the importance of our trade, investment and people-to-people relationships with other liberal democracies,” Gallagher said in the speech.

“It’s also not very often in our industry that we are so warmly welcomed and appreciated for the contribution we make to Australia’s world-class living standards and for the leading role we play in the energy transition to net zero.”

Santos is South Australia’s largest company based on market capitalisation in InDaily’s yearly ranking in its South Australian Business Index and one of the nation’s largest carbon emitters.

Gallagher said Santos recognises the world wants a faster energy transition and has formed Santos Energy Solutions as a stand-alone business including building a Moomba carbon capture and storage project.

“As you walked into this conference over the last few days, you will have been lectured about the millions of lives that oil and gas is said to be at risk due to climate change. But no thought is given to the human cost of a world without oil and gas,” he said.

Questions to the Premier were answered by a government spokesperson who said the bill that was passed by the House of Assembly with unanimous support will now be debated by the Legislative Council and “the government will consider all feedback on the legislation”.

“The amendment does not seek to criminalise protest, nor does it create any new offence. It seeks to modernise an existing offence for obstructing a public place, and update the penalty options available to the courts,” the spokesman said.

“To be clear, nothing in the bill inhibits the ability for Extinction Rebellion to protest, or even block off a street for a lawful protest. Under the Public Assemblies Act 1972, protest organisers can apply for approvals to protest, which are routinely granted. Participants who act in accordance with the conditions of an approved protest are protected by law from any civil or criminal liability.”

In terms of changed wording under the bill, the spokesperson said ‘wilfully’ is a now outdated term to describe the mental element of an offence, and is no longer used in modern legislative drafting.

Replacing this word with reckless, relates to “recklessness is where there is a foreseeable risk, and it is unjustifiable to take that risk”.

“The police exercise a sole discretion to make arrests for summary offences. Ultimately, it is for a court to determine if an offence has been committed, and to determine the appropriate penalty,” he said.