Summary Offences and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2019
Plain English Summary
Overview
This bill creates new criminal offences for using 'dangerous attachment devices' during protests — specialised equipment like steel tubes, concrete-filled drums, and tripods designed to make it difficult and dangerous for police to remove protesters. It was introduced after a series of climate, mining, and animal welfare protests caused significant disruptions across Queensland, including a $1.3 million cost when a protester delayed coal trains at the Port of Brisbane for 14 hours. The bill passed with amendment.
Who it affects
Primarily affects protesters and activists who use locking-on tactics, with penalties of up to 2 years imprisonment. Police gain new warrantless search and seizure powers. Transport operators, businesses, and the general public may see reduced disruptions from these protest tactics.
Key changes
- New offence for using a dangerous attachment device to interfere with transport infrastructure, carrying a maximum penalty of 2 years imprisonment or 50 penalty units
- New offence for using these devices to block business access or halt equipment operations, carrying a maximum penalty of 1 year imprisonment or 20 penalty units
- Police can search persons and vehicles without a warrant if they suspect a dangerous attachment device is present
- Police can seize and immediately forfeit dangerous attachment devices to the State without waiting for court proceedings
- Defines specific banned device types including 'sleeping dragons', 'dragon's dens', monopoles, and tripods, while excluding everyday items like glue, rope, and bike locks on their own
Bill Story
The journey of this bill through Parliament, including debate and recorded votes.
▸Committee19 Sept 2019View Hansard
Referred to Legal Affairs and Community Safety Committee
The Legal Affairs and Community Safety Committee examined the bill under a truncated timeframe after the government brought the reporting date forward from 4 November to 21 October 2019, citing ongoing protest activity. The committee received over 200 submissions, the vast majority opposing the bill, and held a public hearing on 11 October 2019. Despite substantial concerns raised about the bill's impact on the right to peaceful assembly and the adequacy of existing laws, the committee recommended the bill be passed. Deputy Chair James Lister MP filed a Statement of Reservation expressing concern that the bill's scope was too narrow and would have limited impact on protest activity.
Key findings (5)
- The majority of the 212 submissions opposed the bill, with key concerns being that it unduly restricted the right to peaceful assembly and gave police excessive search and seizure powers
- Multiple stakeholders, including the Queensland Law Society, Human Rights Law Centre, and Caxton Legal Centre, questioned whether existing laws were already sufficient to address the stated safety concerns
- The Queensland Human Rights Commissioner noted that the truncated committee process did not allow for careful analysis of whether the proposed restrictions on human rights were demonstrably justified
- The committee identified potential fundamental legislative principle issues regarding undue restriction of ordinary activities, proportionality of penalties, and the conferral of warrantless search powers on police
- Industry stakeholders such as Aurizon and the Queensland Resources Council supported the bill but suggested the definitions of dangerous attachment devices were too prescriptive and the penalties too minor
Recommendations (1)
- The committee recommends the Summary Offences and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2019 be passed.
Committee report tabled
▸Second Reading23 Oct 2019View Hansard
Vote on a motion
Procedural vote on an LNP motion during the second reading debate. The motion was defeated 36-48 with the government majority voting against.
The motion was rejected.
A formal vote on whether to accept a proposal — this could be the bill itself, an amendment, or another motion.
▸Show individual votesHide individual votes
Ayes (36)
Noes (48)
▸42 members spoke21 support1 oppose20 mixed
As Premier, defended the bill as a proportionate response targeting only dangerous attachment devices used in protests, while maintaining the right to peaceful protest.
“These new laws strike the appropriate balance between the rights of our citizens to peacefully protest and have a voice, and the rights of our emergency services personnel and members of the general community to be safe.”— 2019-10-24View Hansard
As Minister for Police, moved the second reading and commended the bill. Emphasised the bill upholds the right to peaceful protest while targeting dangerous attachment devices that risk injury or death to protesters, emergency services workers and the public.
“There is nothing in this bill that will prevent any person from taking part in a lawful peaceful protest. I cannot be any clearer when I state that this bill does not prohibit a lawful protest.”— 2019-10-23View Hansard
Supported the bill but argued it has weak points that set it up to fail, endorsing the LNP's amendments for tougher penalties including mandatory jail for repeat offenders and changes to bail laws.
“The LNP supports people's right to protest, but not at the expense of other people's safety and other people's right to go about their business.”— 2019-10-24View Hansard
Supported the bill's intent but argued it was riddled with flaws and too narrow in scope to catch protesters using glue, chains or other tactics. Foreshadowed LNP amendments for mandatory jail for repeat offenders and tougher bail laws.
“The LNP is of the view that the bill is very limited and will only capture a small percentage of these unlawful protesters.”— 2019-10-23View Hansard
Supported the bill as a proportionate measure to protect emergency services workers from dangerous attachment devices, while defending the right to protest and distinguishing the bill from the Bjelke-Petersen era restrictions.
“This bill is not about limiting the fundamental right to protest but about stopping those who engage in these forms of activities.”— 2019-10-24View Hansard
Supported the bill, noting community concerns from both sides. Emphasised the health and safety of emergency services workers is paramount and described the dangerous nature of the attachment devices from committee evidence.
“These laws do not make it illegal to conduct lawful protests. There is a mechanism for lawful protests already enshrined in our law and these laws do not alter that right.”— 2019-10-23View Hansard
Called the bill an impotent response that only deals with one tactic used by protesters and does nothing to address recidivist offenders, organisers, or bail conditions. Supported the LNP amendments for mandatory jail and tougher bail laws.
“This bill is an impotent response to an issue that threatens public safety and public order.”— 2019-10-24View Hansard
Supported the bill as a step in the right direction but criticised it as a 'wet lettuce' that would not capture many protest tactics. Supported LNP amendments for mandatory jail time for repeat offenders.
“This bill smacks of something that the government has introduced to have a bet both ways: on the one hand, they want the headlines to say they are doing something about these protesters; on the other hand, the bill is full of holes.”— 2019-10-23View Hansard
Strongly supported the bill as finding the sensible middle ground, warning that the LNP's amendments go too far and would restrict the right to protest. Rejected comparisons to the Bjelke-Petersen era.
“It is not in our DNA; it is in the DNA of those opposite.”— 2019-10-24View Hansard
As a former police officer with 20 years' service, supported the bill. Drew on her experience in crowd management roles and emphasised that the right to peaceful assembly is not absolute and that the devices pose genuine risk to police officers required to remove them.
“I do not believe these laws will prevent the operation of the Peaceful Assembly Act.”— 2019-10-23View Hansard
Supported the bill but argued it is limited in scope and called on the government to support the LNP's amendments for mandatory jail and tougher bail laws to address recidivist extremist protesters.
“The legislation before the House today as introduced by the Palaszczuk Labor government is limited in scope, particularly with respect to some of the actions we have seen in and around Brisbane's central business district.”— 2019-10-24View Hansard
Accused the government of misrepresenting the impact of the bill. Argued it would not stop protesters gluing themselves to roads or hanging from bridges and supported LNP amendments for real consequences for repeat offenders.
“When this prospective law was announced by the Premier, it was one of the great misrepresentations that this government have done—and they have done many.”— 2019-10-23View Hansard
Supported the bill as fair legislation targeting dangerous attachment devices, while cautioning that the government must be careful not to go too far and remove the democratic right to protest.
“I think this is good legislation. It is about protection—protection of our workforce, our police, our fireys, our public servants, the general public and even the protesters themselves.”— 2019-10-24View Hansard
Supported the bill's safety measures to protect protesters, emergency services and civilians. Commended the new offences under the Summary Offences Act and amendments to the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act.
“I commend the government for implementing the safety measures within this bill to protect not only the protesters but also our emergency services and nearby civilians.”— 2019-10-23View Hansard
Supported the bill as protecting the safety of first responders and protesters while having no effect on the right to peaceful protest.
“Only one thing will change: dangerous devices now will be targeted by these new laws with the aim of preventing potentially dangerous and harmful situations.”— 2019-10-24View Hansard
As a former police officer, supported the bill's objectives but argued it did not go far enough. Called for mandatory jail for repeat offenders and tougher bail laws through LNP amendments.
“Despite this support, the limitations of this bill still need to be addressed, and that is exactly what the LNP amendments will do.”— 2019-10-23View Hansard
Supported the bill but argued it does not go far enough, supporting the LNP amendments for mandatory jail sentences and reversal of bail presumption, and criticising the lack of deterrent for repeat offenders.
“People in my community say that these protesters are making a mockery of the courts, of the law and of the justice system in Queensland because they know they can and will get away with it time and again.”— 2019-10-24View Hansard
Supported the bill as being first and foremost about safety, noting the dangerous nature of attachment devices and the risk to emergency services workers removing them.
“Protests are a cornerstone of our free democracy, but when people turn violent and use dangerous tactics or attachment devices, like we have witnessed in Queensland recently, it should be against the law.”— 2019-10-23View Hansard
Supported the bill but argued the laws are limited and do not go far enough, calling Extinction Rebellion anarchists and supporting the LNP's amendments for mandatory jail and tougher bail laws.
“Despite the rhetoric, these laws are not a strong response; they are limited and they do not go far enough.”— 2019-10-24View Hansard
Supported the bill but argued it was too narrow and limited to achieve what Queenslanders want. Strongly backed LNP amendments for mandatory jail for multiple breaches and tougher bail laws.
“This bill is so limited and so narrow that it will not achieve what the vast majority of Queenslanders want it to achieve.”— 2019-10-23View Hansard
Supported the LNP amendments and argued the government's bill does not go far enough to protect the community, expressing concern about dangerous attachment devices used on railway lines in his electorate.
“The government's bill does not go anywhere near far enough down the path of protecting people and listening to community concerns.”— 2019-10-24View Hansard
Supported the bill wholeheartedly, noting it addresses disruptions to the coal and agricultural industries in his electorate. Acknowledged the bill closes gaps by defining dangerous attachment devices and increasing police powers.
“I support this new legislation wholeheartedly.”— 2019-10-23View Hansard
As Minister for Police, replied to the debate defending the bill's targeted approach to dangerous attachment devices and criticising the LNP's amendments as extraordinary in their reach, potentially catching lawful protesters.
“This bill is about protecting emergency services personnel, members of the community and the protesters themselves from the risk of injury or death.”— 2019-10-24View Hansard
Supported the bill while acknowledging concerns from unions and community members. Argued the laws are narrowly crafted to address dangerous attachment devices and do not affect the right to peaceful protest.
“These laws are very narrowly crafted and specific. They have two aspects. Firstly, it would be an offence to use four types of dangerous devices. Secondly, the police will have the power to search and seize those devices to prevent their use.”— 2019-10-23View Hansard
Supported the right to peaceful assembly but argued the bill was a first step that would not stop undue disruption. Strongly supported the shadow minister's amendments to properly balance competing rights and freedoms.
“Labor's bill is a first step, but it will not put a stop to the undue disruption and it will not bring balance to these competing interests.”— 2019-10-23View Hansard
Supported the bill as aimed at dangerous attachment devices that pose risks to protesters and first responders. Emphasised Labor's support for peaceful, lawful and respectful protest.
“This bill is aimed only at dangerous attachment devices that pose a danger to protesters and first responders.”— 2019-10-23View Hansard
Supported the bill but expressed concerns it would not go far enough to deter hardened protesters. Gave an example of a protest incident in his electorate where protesters locked onto train lines near Jondaryan.
“The LNP will not be opposing the bill, but we do have concerns that these amendments in themselves will not be enough to deter hardened protesters.”— 2019-10-23View Hansard
Supported the bill, reflecting on his own protest experience as a student against Joh's anti-protest laws. Emphasised the dangers of the devices and the risks to train drivers and emergency services.
“Perhaps the best device protesters can use—going back to the good old days—is their voice.”— 2019-10-23View Hansard
Supported the bill's intent as a fitter boilermaker who understood the dangers of cutting people out of devices. Cautioned about protecting the right to protest for future causes including farmers' rights, but did not oppose the bill.
“If we are asking someone to cut into something when we have no idea what is inside it... It is detrimental not only to the person attached to the device but also to the person asked to cut the device off.”— 2019-10-23View Hansard
Supported the bill from a regional perspective, emphasising the impact of protest activity on coal industry workers in her community. Noted that peaceful protest is supported but dangerous devices endangering workers is unacceptable.
“People in my community deserve to be able to go to work without their lives being put in danger by the action of protesters who do not think about the safety of others.”— 2019-10-23View Hansard
Criticised the government's policy inaction and argued the bill was too little, too late. Supported the LNP amendments for stronger penalties and urged the government to take more serious action.
“This law will not work. It is too little and it is too late. The protesters will get around this law.”— 2019-10-23View Hansard
As a former Queensland Ambulance Service officer with 28 years' experience, supported the bill for protecting emergency services workers. Highlighted concerns about ambulance delays when protests block roads.
“One of the things I am concerned about during these protests is when an ambulance receives a call for service for a heart attack, a stroke, a person having a seizure or when a child is struck by a car and there are potential delays getting to those jobs.”— 2019-10-23View Hansard
As Leader of the Opposition, did not oppose the bill but argued it did not go far enough. Called for support of LNP amendments delivering mandatory jail time for repeat offenders and stricter bail laws.
“The laws put forward by those opposite simply are not sufficient to crack down on protesters who seek to disrupt the lives of Queenslanders.”— 2019-10-23View Hansard
As Minister for Natural Resources, Mines and Energy, supported the bill emphasising the safety risks of protesters attaching themselves to mining infrastructure including conveyor belts and rail lines carrying 25,000 volts of electricity.
“Adding a dangerous attachment device into this mix is an absolute recipe for disaster.”— 2019-10-23View Hansard
Supported the bill but argued it was overly specific and would have minimal effect. Questioned whether the offence should be in the Criminal Code rather than the Summary Offences Act. Supported LNP amendments for mandatory jail and tougher bail.
“If the government were serious about stopping these life-endangering acts, this offence would be in the Criminal Code.”— 2019-10-23View Hansard
Sole member to oppose the bill. Argued it was anti-democratic, based on lies, and a disproportionate encroachment on the right to peaceful assembly. Cited the Human Rights Commissioner's view that existing laws were sufficient and criticised the rushed committee process.
“There is absolutely no evidence of protesters designing or constructing devices with an intention to harm anyone—themselves, first responders or the general public.”— 2019-10-23View Hansard
Strongly supported the bill, rejecting comparisons to the Joh era. Emphasised the importance of protecting workers and noted the devices contain steel and glass that make removal dangerous.
“This important piece of legislation is about ensuring the safety and wellbeing of all Queenslanders.”— 2019-10-23View Hansard
Supported the bill as a start but argued it fell well short of what was required. Criticised the bill for not addressing protesters who sit on railway lines without devices or those who invade farms and mine sites. Supported LNP amendments for mandatory jail and tougher bail.
“Although I will not be opposing this bill, it must be said that this is yet another 'thought bubble' from this government.”— 2019-10-23View Hansard
Supported the bill as going some way to addressing the issue but argued it did not go far enough. Characterised unlawful protest activity as bullying and deprivation of liberty, and questioned whether maximum penalties would ever be imposed.
“The bill before the House goes some way towards dealing with the fringes on this issue and will be generally supported by the LNP, but once again this government does not go far enough.”— 2019-10-23View Hansard
Supported the bill, acknowledging the right to peaceful assembly but arguing that any risk to public safety should not be part of protests. Noted that the QLD Law Society and front liners support the proposed offence provisions.
“Anyone who does so should understand and accept the consequences of their actions.”— 2019-10-23View Hansard
Did not oppose the bill but was disappointed at how the government overplayed its impact. Argued it would not address vegan activist farm invasions or other protest tactics beyond lock-on devices. Supported LNP amendments.
“The LNP does not oppose the bill but holds concerns about the limited application and ability to crack down on extremist protesters such as Extinction Rebellion.”— 2019-10-23View Hansard
Supported the bill but argued it did not go far enough. Referenced vegan activist invasions of farms in his electorate and supported LNP amendments for mandatory jail and tougher bail laws.
“This bill does not go far enough. I support the amendments that seek to introduce mandatory jail and change bail laws to reverse the presumption in favour of bail for offenders charged with unlawful assembly who commit and recommit those offences.”— 2019-10-23View Hansard
▸In Detail24 Oct 2019View Hansard
Insert new section 808B requiring the Police Commissioner to prepare an annual report on the use of search, seizure and forfeiture powers relating to dangerous attachment devices, to be tabled in the Legislative Assembly within 14 sitting days.
Insert new unlawful assembly offence applying where three or more persons are present for a common purpose and one or more obstructs transport infrastructure, causes traffic congestion, or interferes with public places. Includes mandatory seven-day imprisonment for subsequent offences.
Amend clause 11 to clarify that things such as glue, bike locks, padlocks, ropes and chains are not attachment devices unless they are a component of a dangerous attachment device, and to refine the definition of dangerous substance or thing to apply only while a person is being extricated from a device.
Insert mandatory minimum seven-day imprisonment for any person convicted of a subsequent offence of using a dangerous attachment device under section 14C.
That the amendment be agreed to
Vote on LNP amendment to impose a mandatory minimum seven-day imprisonment for repeat offenders convicted of using a dangerous attachment device. The amendment was defeated with ALP, Greens and KAP voting against.
The motion was defeated.
▸Show individual votesHide individual votes
Ayes (38)
Noes (49)
▸2 clause votes (all passed)
Vote on a clause
Party VoteVote to retain clause 11 as amended by the government's amendments clarifying the definitions of attachment devices and dangerous substances, after the LNP's mandatory sentencing amendment was defeated.
The clause was kept in the bill.
A vote on whether a specific clause should remain in the bill as written.
What is a party vote?
This was a party vote. Each party's Whip declared how their members voted without a physical count, so individual votes were not recorded. Party votes are used when all members of a party are expected to vote the same way.
That clauses 2 to 6, as read, stand part of the bill
Party VoteVote on whether to retain clauses 2 to 6, which included new police search and seizure powers for dangerous attachment devices. The Greens opposed these clauses on the basis that existing search powers were sufficient.
The motion passed.
What is a party vote?
This was a party vote. Each party's Whip declared how their members voted without a physical count, so individual votes were not recorded. Party votes are used when all members of a party are expected to vote the same way.
▸1 procedural vote
Vote to grant leave
LNP sought leave to move an amendment outside the long title of the bill, proposing a new unlawful assembly offence with mandatory jail for repeat offenders. ALP and Greens voted against granting leave.
Permission was refused.
A vote on whether to grant permission — for example, to introduce an amendment or vary normal procedure.
▸Show individual votesHide individual votes
Ayes (39)
Noes (48)
Opposed the bill's expansion of police search powers and argued existing laws were already sufficient. Also opposed the LNP amendments as an even more egregious overreach, criticising Labor for providing political cover for the LNP's hardline position.
“I am genuinely shocked that this is the sort of thing that a Labor government wants to bring in.”— 2019-10-24View Hansard
Supported the bill but moved multiple LNP amendments for mandatory seven-day jail terms for repeat offenders and a new unlawful assembly offence, arguing the bill lacked teeth to deter recidivist protesters.
“It is now time for the government to stand up for what it said it would do.”— 2019-10-24View Hansard
▸Third Reading24 Oct 2019View Hansard
That the bill, as amended, be now read a third time
Party VoteFinal passage vote on the Summary Offences and Other Legislation Amendment Bill, as amended by the government's three amendments regarding annual reporting on search powers and clarified definitions.
The motion passed.
What is a party vote?
This was a party vote. Each party's Whip declared how their members voted without a physical count, so individual votes were not recorded. Party votes are used when all members of a party are expected to vote the same way.