Mr GREG WARREN (Campbelltown) (12:57): It is with reservation that I contribute to debate on the Summary Offences and Other Legislation Amendment (Public Assemblies) Bill 2025, because I feel that now is a time for calm, and I believe the bill is a potential mechanism for further aggravation and division. It is not consistent with the good society and community that we enjoy in New South Wales, and neither are the actions taken by some individuals. By and large, most people will exercise their democratic right to express their views in a constructive and safe manner. I give credit to those people, but I will not support something that is not bringing people together.
The Government opposes the bill. I note that most of the amendments in the bill were previously moved by the Opposition as amendments to the Terrorism and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025, and those amendments were voted down by Parliament. The Opposition's bill seeks to amend the Summary Offences Act 1988 to give police and courts a mandatory laundry list of factors they would have to consider when making decisions about applications under the process prescribed by part 4 of the Act. It introduces a user-pays process for repeat public assemblies and amends the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002, which I will refer to as LEPRA, to prohibit the wearing of face coverings and to give police powers to move people on or detain them if they breach that prohibition, with noncompliance being an offence. It also seeks to amend a now repealed provision relating to move on directions.
New section 27A in schedule 1 would introduce a list of mandatory factors that police and courts must consider when making decisions about the authorisation of a public assembly under the Summary Offences Act. The Summary Offences Act does not contain a list of mandatory factors that must be taken into account when considering a form 1 application because it is not necessary. The benefit of the current legislative scheme is that it gives police and courts broad discretion to take into account all relevant considerations and disregard irrelevant considerations. This means police and the court can consider the unique circumstances of each application. Requiring a minimum list of factors to be taken into account may result in a lengthier and more burdensome process for organisers, police and the agency. The Opposition's drafting prescribes every enumerated factor as relevant, meaning that every single one has to be considered in every single case.
There is a risk that information relevant to all of the considerations will not be able to be provided to police by organisers, and the Opposition's proposal may then have the opposite effect of discouraging organisers from notifying police of their intent to hold a public assembly, which deprives police of the opportunity to work with organisers to ensure the assembly is safe and minimises disruption to the community. Ultimately, the proposed change would negatively impact community safety. Police may also have to allocate more resources to respond to assemblies which have not been notified and organised through the statutory process to maintain public order and safety. In such circumstances, there will be a risk of increased disruption for the community.
New section 27B in schedule 1 would introduce a user-pays process for policing costs for repeat public assemblies into the Summary Offences Act. The user-pays proposal raises a similar concern to the proposal relating to a mandatory list of considerations in that a user-pays model could push protest organisers away from cooperating with police. This would make it harder for police to plan and manage public assemblies, which would do nothing to enhance community safety. It could actually diminish public safety. The user-pays proposal also carries constitutional risk as it could be seen to impermissibly burden the implied freedom of political communication. As the Government has previously said, no other jurisdiction that we are aware of has this kind of user-pays system, and we strongly suspect that is because of the risks I have outlined.
New section 87ZD in schedule 2 seeks to amend LEPRA to prohibit persons who are participating in a public assembly from wearing a face covering. This amendment is unnecessary. The New South Wales Government's Terrorism and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2025, which was passed by Parliament in December last year, inserted section 19A (1) (c) into LEPRA to provide police with the power to require that a person remove a face covering if the person is participating in a protest, demonstration, procession or assembly and the police officer reasonably suspects the person may have, or is likely to, commit an offence. Failure to remove a face covering when required under section 19A (1) (c) without special justification is an offence under section 19B of LEPRA, which has a maximum penalty of 50 penalty units. That is $5,500, 12 months imprisonment or both—a proportionate and reasonable measure.
In contrast, the Opposition's proposal is disproportionate and unworkable. There is no link to suspicion of criminal behaviour in its ban. There are no thresholds of safeguards in relation to invasive powers, such as removing a person or detaining a person. It is not clear why such powers should be available in all circumstances involving face coverings. The Opposition's model makes no distinction, for example, in relation to people who wear masks for legitimate medical reasons. The lack of proportionality in the Opposition's approach carries significant legal risk of improperly burdening the implied freedom of political communication, therefore rendering the provision invalid. The Government's approach, which is already enshrined in law, is a targeted and focused response that strikes the right balance between our important rights of speech and expression with the need to protect the community and prevent criminal activity.
Regarding move on directions, item 2 in schedule 2 is no longer valid. The provision it seeks to amend was repealed by the New South Wales Government's Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Amendment (Places of Worship) Act 2025, which addressed the Supreme Court decision of Lees v State of New South Wales. However, the Opposition's proposal would not have addressed that decision as it would not have operated to confine the actual power to give a move on direction. A police officer would still have been authorised to give a direction to any person participating in a protest occurring in or near a place of worship where protesters are affecting persons from accessing or leaving the place of worship, regardless of whom that conduct is directed towards. This is inconsistent with the Supreme Court's decision in Lees v State of New South Wales.
I conclude as I began: Now is a time for calm. We, as the Parliament of New South Wales, must demonstrate the leadership and direction that brings people together and does not divide them. As the member for Sydney said, Monday's protest was in his electorate; most protests take place within the City of Sydney. I acknowledge the numerous lawful, safe protests by people exercising their democratic interests over the past years and decades. People have protested for reasons that include better pay or opposing tyranny in other countries. Let us not cloud the difference between valid, safe protests about legitimate issues and providing a platform for people to spread division and hate in our community. That is the nature of the leadership the Parliament must show. That is the culture we must reinstall into the streets of our great city in this great State.
