The Ambulance Employees Association (SA), which ran a sustained media campaign during the state election backing Labor’s focus on health, said this morning it would be attending Tuesday’s Festival Plaza rally behind Parliament House.

“The proposed laws by State Parliament are far too broad and could see peaceful protests that obstruct public places criminalised,” the union tweeted today.

“A workers right to protest must be protected.”

On Friday, unionists, civil society groups and SA Greens and SA-Best MPs rallied on parliament steps against the Bill which will increase the penalty for obstructing a public place from $750 to $50,000 or three-months jail.

Left-faction Labor MLC Irene Pnevmatikos also attended the protest, her office confirmed today. ­­­

She told InDaily: “I wanted to get some idea of what the concerns were by those that were protesting and to hear the speakers in terms of their concerns.

“It’s best to be there, rather than rely on second and third hearsay of what went on.

“I think what the protest does show is that there is a lot of concern and perhaps misunderstanding in the community, and I think it’s important that it be properly considered.”

Pnevmatikos and the rest of the Upper House will this week vote on the Summary Offences (Obstruction of Public Places) Amendment Bill 2023, which was introduced to the Lower House on Thursday, May 18 and passed within half an hour with Labor and Liberal support.

The proposed crackdown came amid a traffic-stopping Extinction Rebellion protest against an oil and gas industry conference at the Convention Centre.

Protestors on the steps of parliament house on Friday. Photo: Thomas Kelsall/InDaily

Besides increasing the maximum fine 66 times, the legislation will make defendants potentially liable for emergency services costs responding to a public obstruction, and broaden the offence’s scope to include indirect obstruction of a public place.

The broadening of the offence’s scope has prompted concerns from legal groups, including Amnesty International, that the legislation could be used to target homeless people.

The Bill as currently drafted would also change the wording of the current laws from “wilfully” obstructing a public place to “intentionally or recklessly”.

SA Unions, the United Workers Union, Australian Services Union and Australian Education Union attended Friday night’s rally, before marching down King William St and Rundle Mall.

In an opinion piece for InDaily today, SA Unions secretary Dale Beasley called for the “odious” legislation to be deferred.

He described the Bill as a “mess of overreach and unconsidered consequences” and accused the Labor Party of betraying a “rich history” of labour movement protests in South Australia dating back to the 1800s.

“With their anti-protest laws, the SA Labor government have put themselves at odds with their proud history of protest and demonstration,” he wrote.

“Since coming to office, they have prided themselves on being a government which listens. Are they going to listen now?”

Premier Peter Malinauskas indicated the government would not be backing away from the legislation but remains open to amendments.

He told reporters that describing the Bill as an anti-protest law “completely misrepresents what’s occurring here”.

“We made pretty clear from the outset our intention with the Summary Offences Act change was to put a moment of pause in the mind of those people who would seek to deliberately obstruct South Australians from being able to get along with their lives,” he said today.

“That was about increasing the penalties.

“If there are any sensible amendments that doesn’t impinge that objective being achieved, then we’ll consider them on their merits.”

Police at the rear of Friday’s protest march as it moved down Rundle Mall. Photo: Thomas Kelsall/InDaily

With the support of the Liberals, Labor comfortably has the numbers to pass the Bill in the Upper House despite opposition from the Greens and SA-Best.

The other crossbencher in the Upper House, One Nation MLC Sarah Game, received a briefing about the legislation on Friday.

She told InDaily she also now has concerns about the wording of the Bill.

“We want proper time for discussion; rushing into hasty decisions may have unintended consequences,” Game said.  

“In particular we are very cautious about the massive leap in fines and jail term.

“We support the concerns of the Law Society that have been raised to us, including the broad and vague language.

“We support thoughtful deliberation to ensure a fair and effective bill.”

The Law Society of South Australia wrote to MPs on Friday with a list of questions it believes the state government and Opposition should answer before voting on the legislation.

The legal peak body argued that MPs supporting the Bill “have not adequately explained the urgency, rationale or operation of the law”.

“The public should never have to rely solely on Government assurances that a law is in the public’s best interests. The proof should be in the law itself,” the society said.

“Once a law has been written into our Statute books, any undesirable consequences may not be able to be unwound, which is why it is critical that any proposed legislation be rigorously examined before being passed into law.

“This is especially the case where proposed laws may affect our basic rights, and make profound changes to an existing regime.”

Among the questions asked by the Law Society are whether all members of parliament had a chance to see the Bill before it was introduced and how the government settled on $50,000 or three months jail as the maximum sentence.

It is also asking why the public was not consulted on the legislation.

Malinauskas today defended the government’s approach to the Bill.

“The government has a responsibility to ensure that South Australians are able to go about their daily lives, get to work on time, not have their small businesses spray painted, emergency services workers being able to do their jobs, but at the same time preserve the ability – that really important ability – for people to be able to protest and demonstrate,” he said.

“We’ve got that here in South Australia, we’ve got a proud tradition of it, I myself have participated in many of those protests.

“But there’s peaceful protest and then there’s deliberately obstructing people from being able to get on with their lives.

“That’s where there are laws to ensure that doesn’t occur, the penalty regime hasn’t been updated for a long time, and that’s what this Bill seeks to do.”