Summary Offences and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2019
Bill Story
The journey of this bill through Parliament, including debate and recorded votes.
Referred to Legal Affairs and Community Safety Committee
▸1 procedural vote
Vote to grant 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)
Vote on a motion
Procedural motion (likely LNP motion to extend debate or introduce amendments). Defeated 36-48, with the government majority voting against the motion.
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)
▸22 members spoke14 support8 mixed
As Police Minister, moved the second reading, defending peaceful protest as sacrosanct while arguing the bill was necessary to address dangerous protest tactics using lock-on devices.
“Peaceful protest brings about change—change for the better. Peaceful protest is a cornerstone of democracy.”— 2019-10-23View Hansard
Supported the bill but argued it did not go far enough, foreshadowing LNP amendments for stronger penalties including mandatory jail for unlawful assembly offences.
“The LNP supports the right to peaceful protest and freedom of peaceful assembly provided it is lawful. That is why the LNP will be introducing two amendments to the bill.”— 2019-10-23View Hansard
Supported the bill while acknowledging receiving both supportive and critical correspondence from constituents about the legislation.
“A lot of debate has occurred about this legislation and I have received emails and phone calls to my electorate office regarding this piece of legislation.”— 2019-10-23View Hansard
Supported the bill as a step in the right direction but argued the criticism was misdirected as it did not go far enough.
“We support it because any step in the right direction, which this is, ought to be supported. But it does not go far enough.”— 2019-10-23View Hansard
Supported the bill, defending the right to peaceful assembly as a cornerstone of democracy while targeting dangerous protest conduct.
“The right to peaceful assembly is a cornerstone of democracy. This right is enshrined in Queensland law.”— 2019-10-23View Hansard
Supported the bill as a no-brainer but argued it would not be effective enough, supporting LNP amendments for stronger penalties.
“We will support the bill because it is a no-brainer of a bill. Who would not want to protect our police?”— 2019-10-23View Hansard
Supported the bill while emphasising the government would not support potentially dangerous protest activity on roads.
“What this government does not support and will not support is the potentially dangerous activity that is currently happening on our roads.”— 2019-10-23View Hansard
Supported the bill's intent but argued it did not go far enough, supporting the LNP amendments for stronger penalties.
“The LNP will move amendments to this bill. These amendments will ensure the bill successfully cracks down on dangerous protest activity.”— 2019-10-23View Hansard
Commended the bill to the House, arguing dangerous protest activity should be against the law.
“It should be against the law. I commend the bill to the House.”— 2019-10-23View Hansard
Supported the bill while advocating for the LNP amendments to strengthen it.
“The LNP will be supporting this law and all members in this House should.”— 2019-10-23View Hansard
Wholeheartedly supported the new legislation targeting dangerous protest devices.
“I support this new legislation wholeheartedly.”— 2019-10-23View Hansard
Supported the bill, arguing members had a duty to explain why it was necessary while addressing concerns from constituents.
“Those of us who support the bill today have a duty to say not just why they support the bill but also why the bill is necessary.”— 2019-10-23View Hansard
Commended the bill to the House, supporting measures to ensure dangerous devices do not put people at risk of harm.
“Dangerous devices do not put people at risk of harm. I commend the bill to the House.”— 2019-10-23View Hansard
Supported the bill but strongly urged government members to support LNP amendments for tougher penalties, arguing the bill alone would not be sufficient.
“The LNP will not be opposing the bill, but we do have concerns that these amendments in themselves will not go far enough.”— 2019-10-23View Hansard
Commended the bill to the House, supporting measures to protect the community from dangerous protest activity.
“I commend the bill to the House.”— 2019-10-23View Hansard
Supported the intention of the bill and commended it to the House.
“We support the intention of the bill. I commend the bill to the House.”— 2019-10-23View Hansard
Spoke in the debate on the bill in support of measures addressing dangerous protest conduct.
Criticised the Palaszczuk government as weak on crime and argued the bill did not go far enough, while indicating general LNP support.
“The Palaszczuk Labor government is weak on crime.”— 2019-10-23View Hansard
Commended the bill to the House.
“I commend the bill to the House.”— 2019-10-23View Hansard
As Leader of the Opposition, stated the LNP did not oppose the bill but believed it did not go far enough, supporting LNP amendments for tougher penalties.
“The LNP does not oppose the bill put forward by those opposite, but we believe it simply does not go far enough.”— 2019-10-23View Hansard
Supported the bill as Minister for Natural Resources, Mines and Energy.
“I rise in support of the Summary Offences and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2019.”— 2019-10-23View Hansard
Supported the bill and LNP amendments for mandatory jail and bail law changes, arguing the bill alone did not go far enough to address repeat protest offenders.
“I will support these laws. In fact, I will go further. I will support the LNP amendments to ensure the bill addresses a number of other aspects.”— 2019-10-23View Hansard
That the amendment be agreed to
The motion was defeated.
▸Show individual votesHide individual votes
Ayes (38)
Noes (49)
▸2 clause votes (all passed)
Vote on a clause
Party VoteThe 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 VoteThe 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.
That the bill, as amended, be now read a third time
Party VoteThe 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.
Plain English Summary
Overview
This bill creates new criminal offences for protesters who use 'dangerous attachment devices' - specialised equipment like steel tubes, concrete barrels, and tripods designed to make it difficult and dangerous for police to remove them. It was introduced in response to climate, mining, and animal welfare protests that caused significant disruptions, including a $1.3 million delay to coal trains at the Port of Brisbane.
Who it affects
Primarily affects protesters and activists who use locking-on tactics, with penalties of up to 2 years imprisonment. Police gain new search and seizure powers, and transport operators and businesses may see reduced protest disruptions.
Key changes
- Creates offence for using dangerous attachment devices to interfere with transport infrastructure, with maximum penalty of 2 years imprisonment or 50 penalty units
- Creates offence for using these devices to block business access or halt equipment, with maximum penalty of 1 year imprisonment or 20 penalty units
- Allows police to search persons and vehicles without warrant if they suspect a dangerous attachment device is present
- Permits automatic seizure and forfeiture of dangerous attachment devices to the State
- Defines specific device types including 'sleeping dragons', 'dragon's dens', 'monopoles', and 'tripods'