APEC Meeting (Police Powers) Bill 2007
Industrial and Other Legislation Amendment (APEC Public Holiday) Bill 2007

APEC MEETING (POLICE POWERS) BILL 2007

The Hon. TONY KELLY (Minister for Lands, Minister for Rural Affairs, Minister for Regional Development, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [5.15 p.m.]: I move:
That these bills be now read a second time.

I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.
I am pleased to introduce the APEC Meeting (Police Powers) Bill 2007 and the Industrial and Other Legislation Amendment (APEC Public Holiday) Bill 2007. The APEC Meeting (Police Powers) Bill provides a range of powers to assist police in securing the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation Group [APEC] while the Industrial and Other Legislation Amendment (APEC Public Holiday) Bill supports the public holiday which has been declared for the first metropolitan region on 7 September. APEC will be the largest and most significant international meeting in Australia.
We need to ensure that the New South Wales police have the necessary powers to keep the event and Sydneysiders safe. The APEC group 2007 comprises a series of meetings culminating in the APEC Leaders Week to be held in Sydney between 2 and 9 September. The planned events will involve the heads of government of 21 member economies and are likely to be attended by up to 5,000 officials and 1,500 international media. APEC venues will include Darling Harbour, Cockle Bay, Farm Cove, the Sydney Opera House and Government House. The NSW Police Force and the Commonwealth have carefully considered the security threat to APEC.
On the basis of this assessment, about 3,500 security personnel will be posted in Sydney at this time, including members of the NSW Police Force, the Australian Federal Police, the Australian Defence Force, interstate police and New Zealand police. Such a security force will help to minimise the risk of an act of terrorism directed against APEC leaders. Based on the experience of other APEC meetings overseas and other similar events in Australia, the NSW Police Force has also identified the threat of large organised and sustained violent protests during Leaders Week. I am not talking here about citizens expressing strongly held views by protesting peacefully in public places. We all have the right to do that. However, it is not acceptable when violence is used.
We have all seen footage of extremely violent and organised protestors who engage in planned attacks on police, destroy property and terrify the public. We need to ensure that our police have sufficient powers to prevent or to stop such violence. At the same time we need to ensure that any such powers do not prevent the legitimate exercise of our civil rights. And we need to remember that APEC is occurring in downtown Sydney, where many people live and work. While clearly a meeting the scale of APEC will be disruptive to residents and other users of the central business district [CBD] we must try to ensure that any security operations create the minimum possible inconvenience to law-abiding residents.
The Government believes that the police powers bill strikes the right balance between police powers, the lawful right to protect and the needs of residents and workers in the central business district. If the APEC Meeting (Police Powers) Bill 2007 is enacted, the Government will roll out a communications plan. This will inform affected people of the impact of the proposed powers. This will involve liaison with residents and businesses. In summary, the bill creates extraordinary policing powers around the duration of the APEC period?namely, 30 August to 12 September 2007. APEC itself is from 2 September to 9 September. However, it is desirable that the powers be available to permit physical security measures such as the putting up and dismantling of barricades to be taken over this slightly longer period on either side of the meetings.
The legislation will be administered by the Attorney General, and there are a number of safeguards in place to ensure that police use these extraordinary powers responsibly. These safeguards include, first, that the bill will apply only to this APEC meeting and will then terminate automatically. Secondly, the powers will apply only within designated and limited areas, essentially in the northern central business district. Every effort has been made to keep the areas as small as possible. To ensure that people are in no doubt as to where the powers will apply, the bill contains a map and a description indicating the main security area. Any variations to this area that must be made to ensure the safe running of APEC will be notified to the public. Thirdly, police will receive specialist training on the use of the powers over coming months. Finally, a review of the powers will be conducted jointly by the Attorney General and the Minister for Police.
I will now outline in more detail the provisions of the APEC Meeting (Police Powers) Bill 2007. The bill creates various special police powers and two categories of security zones in which they apply. These are described in part 2 of the bill. "Declared areas" essentially serve as an outer perimeter. They therefore cover more than those places that are actually to be used for APEC meetings. Persons will generally be free to enter these areas subject to security screening when required. The bill describes the declared areas as they currently stand, and an indicative map is attached to the bill. Clause 6 of the bill requires that any alterations or extensions to the declared areas must be approved by the Minister on the basis that the change will substantially assist in promoting the security of APEC or preventing or controlling public disorder.
"Restricted areas" are much smaller and will be inside the larger declared areas. Typically, restricted areas will be established at places such as actual APEC venues or accommodation used by delegates. Security restrictions at restricted areas will be much higher than in the declared areas. Additional powers will be available to police and there will not be an assumption that any person has a right to enter the restricted areas. Pursuant to clause 7 the location of restricted areas will be determined by the Commissioner of Police. He will need to be satisfied that the proposed zone is directly related to APEC events or administration and that the applicable powers are necessary to promote the security of APEC facilities and/or participants. Restricted areas will not include private residential premises.
The following specific powers will be available in both declared areas and restricted areas. Under clause 10 police will have an express power to erect barricades and fencing and to establish checkpoints to assist in controlling entry to the area. Pursuant to clause 11 police may stop and search vehicles that are seeking to enter, or that are already inside, the area. Pursuant to clause 12 a similar power is created to search persons, which may include a search of any articles in that person's possession and the possible removal of coats or jackets, shoes and hats. A person can be searched in this way upon seeking to enter the area or if they are present in the area.
Under clause 13 certain items will be prohibited, and police will have the power to confiscate these items upon detection unless the person has a lawful excuse for possessing them. Prohibited items are listed in clause 3. They are: spray paint, in order to minimise the risk of large-scale defacing of property; chains, handcuffs and lock-on devices because in the past protesters have chained themselves to immovable objects that can obstruct roads and if police have to cut the person free to remove them there is a chance that the person may be injured, which we wish to avoid; poles longer than one metre because long poles have been used as clubs in the past and poles longer than an arm's length can be used to fend off police who may seek to make an arrest; marbles or ball bearings that can be thrown under the hooves of police horses with the intention of unseating and injuring the rider; smoke devices and flares that can be used to frighten horses or otherwise hinder security forces; flammable or noxious liquids; laser pointers that can be used to blind police or police horses; and jamming devices that can be used to disrupt police communications.
I wish to make it clear that such items will be confiscated only when the person seeking to enter the declared area or restricted area, or who possesses them in such an area, has no special justification for possessing them. Clause 37 defines "special justification". Special justification includes having an object for the purposes of employment or trade. For instance, a shop owner who has spray paint for sale will not be affected by the seizure provisions, nor will an office worker who needs a laser pointer for their employment. These search powers will assist police in removing dangerous items from the possession of persons intending to use them in violent protest. As long as a person agrees to surrender the item they will be allowed to pass. As I said before, the general rule is that, subject to submitting to a search if required and surrendering any prohibited items held without a special justification, persons will be able to enter declared areas.
There is one exception to this. Part 5 of the bill creates a power for police to exclude certain individuals from the declared areas on the basis that they pose a serious threat to the safety of persons or property within the area as identified by the NSW Police Force. These persons will be identified by police on the basis of intelligence information. I would not expect that police will take lightly the decision to categorise people in this way. This exclusion power also applies to the higher-security restricted areas. Under clause 14 police will have the power to give reasonable directions to persons for the purpose of substantially assisting in the reduction of risks to the security of APEC, its participants and the public. Police will have the power to take action to reduce the risk of large-scale public disorder connected with APEC, with persons disobeying a reasonable direction able to be removed from the declared area.
Pursuant to clauses 15 to 18 police will have the power to establish motorcade and clearway routes and to clear or remove vehicles, people or other things blocking these routes—which is similar to the powers already provided for in the World Youth Day Act 2006. Under clause 31 any person who commits an offence of assault police, malicious damage, or throw missile at police within a declared or restricted area will attract a presumption against bail. While the presumption does not normally apply for these offences, it will apply only for APEC such that the maximum time that a person would be in custody would be 14 days. The purpose of this special restriction on bail is to ensure that people who commit offences such as throwing missiles at police during APEC are not arrested, charged and released on bail simply to return to the APEC zone to repeat their violent actions.
To facilitate the hearing of bail matters during APEC the bill also provides for the use of an audiovisual link so that bail hearings can be heard over this link rather than face to face, which will reduce the logistical burden if significant numbers of persons are arrested during APEC. Police animals will be able to be used on Sydney Opera House or Darling Harbour foreshore premises under clause 33 of the bill to assist in the maintenance of law and order. The liability of the NSW Police Force in respect of actions in nuisance and negligence will be limited under clause 35, in the same way as is already provided for in the World Youth Day Act 2006. Pursuant to part 6, officers from other Australian jurisdictions and also New Zealand police will be able to be recognised as New South Wales police officers. This will ensure the sufficiency of police numbers. In addition to the above powers, which apply to both declared areas and restricted areas, special offences are created and police will have additional powers in respect of restricted areas only.
Pursuant to clause 19, it will be an offence during APEC for anyone to enter a restricted area without special justification, the maximum penalty being six months imprisonment. And if the person does this while in possession of a "prohibited item" the maximum penalty will be two years imprisonment. Under clause 21 police will have a power of entry into any premises within a restricted area, except private residential premises, to ensure the security of conference and accommodation venues. Persons entering a restricted area will be required to provide evidence of identification under clause 22 to ensure that only those persons who have a need to enter the area gain access. As I said before, this bill creates extraordinary policing powers that will be available temporarily during the APEC period. While they represent a departure from normal policing powers, they are considered necessary for a variety of reasons, not least of which is the security of APEC participants and the maintenance of law and order in Sydney during September.
Finally, the bill makes a number of amendments to other Acts. The bill makes caltrops prohibited weapons under the Weapons Prohibition Act. Caltrops are spiked balls that can be used to injure humans and animals, such as police horses, and damage vehicles. The bill also extends the sunset clause of the covert search warrants regime under the Terrorism (Police Powers) Act 2002. The regime will be retained for a further 12 months, until 13 September 2008, so that the Ombudsman's review of the scheme can be fully considered.
I now turn to the second bill, which is being introduced cognately to support APEC, the Industrial and Other Legislation Amendment (APEC Public Holiday) Bill 2007. Based upon advice from security officials, the New South Wales Government accepts that keeping the Sydney metropolitan area open for workers will be too burdensome. A public holiday on 7 September will allow for the smoother running of the event. Public holidays were declared in Santiago, Chile, in 2004 and in Shanghai, China, in 2001, when these two cities hosted APEC summits.
To avoid undue speculation regarding arrangements during the summit period the Minister for Industrial Relations announced on 28 February that a one-off public holiday would be declared for the Sydney metropolitan area for Friday 7 September. The statutory vehicle for the appointment of an additional public holiday is the Banks and Bank Holidays Act 1912, which is within the administration of the Minister for Industrial Relations.
Section 19 (3) empowers the Minister to make an order appointing a day or part thereof as a public holiday or half-holiday in any local government area, part of a local government area or other part of New South Wales. On 28 February the Minister made an order under section 19 (3) of the Banks and Bank Holidays Act appointing 7 September as a regional public holiday for the metropolitan area and local government areas of Ashfield, Auburn, Bankstown, Baulkham Hills, Blacktown, Botany Bay, Burwood, Camden, Campbelltown, Canada Bay, Canterbury, City of Sydney, Fairfield, Holroyd, Hornsby, Hunters Hill, Hurstville, Kogarah, Ku-ring-gai, Lane Cove, Leichhardt, Liverpool, Manly, Marrickville, Mosman, North Sydney, Parramatta, Penrith, Pittwater, Randwick, Rockdale, Ryde, Strathfield, Sutherland, Warringah, Waverley, Willoughby and Woollahra. These are referred to as the designated holiday areas.
Section 19 (7) of the Banks and Bank Holidays Act merely stipulates that such an appointed holiday requires the closure of banks. It is left to the holiday clauses of industrial instruments to specify the days on which people are entitled to be absent from work or to payment of penalty rates in lieu of a paid holiday. It is through this mechanism that public holidays under the Banks and Bank Holidays Act are recognised and entitlements enforced under the New South Wales industrial system. Generally, major New South Wales private sector awards only sanction worker absences for holidays proclaimed or gazetted for or throughout the State.
For the most part awards do not recognise localised holidays, and employee absences on those days are often permitted by local custom. Many public sector industrial instruments make provision for regional public holidays; however, entitlements vary markedly. The Government is concerned that confining the declared APEC holiday to the designated holiday areas may not attract the usual public holiday entitlements without explicit action by the Government. That is the principal rationale for this bill.
The Industrial and Other Legislation Amendment (APEC Public Holiday) Bill will deem 7 September as a paid public holiday under State industrial instruments for those employees who would otherwise be required to work on that day in the designated holiday areas. This will ensure that the public holiday entitlements set out in State awards and enterprise agreements will be available to workers who are employed under those instruments in the regions covered by the declaration. I take this opportunity to clarify that the public holiday takes effect in relation to businesses, schools, workplaces and other services within the designated holiday areas. It does not operate on the basis of a person's place of residence. If you live outside the designated holiday area but work inside it your workplace will be subject to the public holiday. And if you are employed under a State industrial instrument you will either get a paid day off or get penalty rates if you are required to work on that day. But if your workplace is outside the designated holiday area your workplace will not be subject to the public holiday; your workplace will still open and you will still be required to work, even if you live inside the designated holiday area.
A minor consequential amendment is proposed to the Long Service Leave Act 1955 to ensure that the APEC public holiday is treated in the same way as other public holidays falling within an employee's period of long service leave. This will ensure that where an employee in the designated holiday areas is on long service leave during the time of the APEC summit, that employee's period of leave will be extended by one day. Constitutional limitations preclude the amendments to State industrial instruments from applying to those employees who are subject to Federal industrial instruments.
For those workers who are engaged under Federal instruments, the entitlement to the APEC public holiday will be governed exclusively by the Commonwealth Workplace Relations Act. That Act creates a wide range of different types of industrial instruments, including awards and different kinds of workplace agreements, and there may be some uncertainty as to whether workers under these instruments will get public holiday entitlements on the APEC holiday. For employees who were previously on State awards but whose awards were converted on 27 March into so-called National Agreements Preserving State Awards [NAPSAs], it seems clear that their entitlement will be subject to the same concerns as for workers still on State awards.
While the bill I now introduce will protect the latter group of employees, it cannot protect the entitlements of those who have been forced into the Federal system. It will require legislative or executive intervention at the Federal level to ensure uniform entitlement to the APEC public holiday under those instruments. The Premier will write to the Prime Minister to invite him to consider similar legislative action if required at the Federal level to ensure that workers in New South Wales who work under the WorkChoices legislation are not disadvantaged as compared with their colleagues under the State system. I stress that the declaration of a public holiday does not amount to a requirement that businesses or other services actually close on the designated day.
Therefore, the appointment of a regional public holiday and the enactment of special State legislation granting a holiday entitlement under State industrial instruments may not be sufficient to reduce crowd levels in the Sydney central business district during the APEC summit. While security planning is still underway, this bill also contains provisions that will enable the Minister for Industrial Relations to declare the closure of general shops in the central business district, should this be required to assist in achieving the optimum level of security. The proposed amendments will have the immediate effect of deeming the APEC day to be a closed holiday for all general shops in the designated holiday areas under the Shops and Industries Act.
However, in line with the framework of the Shops and Industries Act, and in keeping with usual practice well understood by those in the retail industry, the Minister for Industrial Relations will be issuing orders under section 85 (2) of the Act to suspend that effect. Those orders will be published as closely as possible to the time of the commencement of this bill. In other words, despite the bill providing that APEC day will be a closed holiday under section 85 (1) of the Act, orders will be published under section 85 (2) of the Act to ensure that general shops can indeed trade on that day. If developments in the security area later demand it, the Government will be able to vary or revoke those orders to suit those requirements.
It is to be noted that the Shops and Industries Act deals only with what are termed "general shops" and the hours and days on which they may trade. It does not regulate the opening hours of small shops or "scheduled" shops: these include the local corner shop, newsagents, chemists, video shops and the like. But it is the larger shops, such as the department stores, that attract the crowds and raise potential security issues. It is my understanding that the present position is that shop closures in the central business district will not be necessary. However, it must be appreciated by everyone that security is a fluid thing, and the Government cannot ignore genuine concerns about such issues that might arise in the future. If the security settings change, and shop closures are required, this bill means that the Minister for Industrial Relations will be in a position to take action to assist in ensuring that those security outcomes are achieved.
The final aspect of the bill acknowledges that there are a number of other legislative and statutory instruments which may be affected by the declaration of the APEC public holiday on 7 September. These are not laws about industrial relations or shop closures but a range of statutes in various portfolio areas that use the term "public holiday", "business day" or "working day". For example, there are many statutes that require things to be done or actions to be taken within a prescribed number of "business days". "Business day" is usually defined to mean "any day which is not a Saturday, Sunday or public holiday".
The bill inserts into the Banks and Bank Holidays Act a regulation-making power that the Minister for Industrial Relations will be able to exercise to make regulations that clarify whether the use of such terminology in a particular piece of legislation should be taken to include the APEC public holiday or not. The Minister for Industrial Relations would only make such regulations on advice from the Minister who is responsible for the relevant statute. The Minister for Industrial Relations will be writing to his ministerial colleagues to inform them of this power and to invite them to consider whether any relevant regulations need to be made. This power will also be able to be exercised in retrospect should it later become apparent that there was confusion or uncertainty in a particular area about how the APEC holiday should be treated. I commend these bills to the House.
The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER (Leader of the Opposition) [5.15 p.m.]: I speak on the APEC Meeting (Police Powers) Bill and the Industrial and Other Legislation Amendment (APEC Public Holiday) Bill. The culmination of APEC Australia 2007, running from January to September, will be the APEC economic leaders meeting in Sydney from 8 to 9 September. The meeting will be attended by 21 world leaders, more than 40 Ministers, 400 international business leaders, and more than 6,000 delegates and support personnel, with 1,000 media representatives. This legislation puts in place a number of measures and powers to provide security for both the attendees of the Economic Leaders Meeting and the community of New South Wales. The Premier has stated that the New South Wales Government has been forced to put in place security measures that would "guarantee the safety of visitors and citizens of Sydney". This House and this Parliament must determine whether these bills deliver an appropriate framework of security.
The APEC Meeting (Police Powers) Bill will confer special powers for police providing security for any of the meetings of the APEC group of economies in Sydney; allow first bail appearances to be made by audiovisual link if the bail proceedings relate to an offence alleged to have been committed in metropolitan Sydney from 20 August until 28 September; amend the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act to require the Commissioner of Police to report to the Attorney General and the Minister for Police, and subsequently require the Attorney General and the Minister for Police to report to Parliament on the operation of the Act; amend the Terrorism Legislation Amendment (Warrants) Act to postpone the repeal of part 6B (Terrorism) of the Crimes Act to 13 September 2008; and amend the Weapons Prohibition Act to include in the list of prohibited weapons certain items, such as caltrops, that are capable of puncturing the feet, paws or hooves of animals as they pass over them.
The powers being given to police under this bill are substantial and wide-ranging. They span a two-week period—from 30 August until 12 September 2007—to cover the APEC meetings in Sydney and the days before and after. The geographical area referred to in the bill is metropolitan Sydney—defined as the local government areas bounded by Pittwater, Hornsby, Baulkham Hills, Blacktown, Penrith, Camden, Campbelltown and Sutherland shire. While the core declared areas for APEC security are Darling Harbour, Millers Point, The Rocks and the central city area, the bill also provides for additional parts of Sydney to be gazetted as declared areas if in the opinion of the Commissioner of Police and the Minister for Police they are needed.
As I have indicated, police will be given substantial and wide-ranging powers. They will be able to establish checkpoints, cordons and roadblocks, and stop and search vehicles or vessels seeking to enter or that are already in an APEC security area. Police will be able to require a person, if requested, to submit to a search before and after entering an APEC security area. Importantly, they will be able to seize prohibited items including spray paint cans, chains, handcuffs, poles of more than a metre in length, marbles and other round objects, smoke devices, flares, flammable or noxious liquids, laser pointers, and communication jammers. These are all items that can be used as weapons against police, other members of the public, police horses and dogs, as well as buildings, cars and infrastructure. Quite rightly, police will be able to give reasonable directions to the public and to close, where directed by the police commissioner, roads and order the removal of vehicles or objects.

Police will be able to search any premises, other than private homes, in a restricted area without a warrant and request identification and have proof produced, if requested, from anyone seeking to enter a restricted area. Police will also be able to remove any person within the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation security area for failing to identify themselves, or if they have in their possession or control prohibited items, or if they do not have special justification for being in the area. One of the controversial provisions is a presumption against bail for any offence alleged to have been committed in an APEC security area that involves the assault of a police officer, or malicious damage to property, or throwing a missile as a police officer. It is argued that there is little point in police arresting someone for such an offence only to have the person subsequently bailed, return to the area and commit another offence before the police officer has had a chance to finish the paperwork.
I note that some sections of the community have expressed concerns about stop, search and detain powers. I am sure we will hear more bleating about that. There is no doubt that these powers will be used by police to stifle protests that run the risk of getting completely out of control. At the end of the day, it is about ensuring that we provide a safe framework for our visitors and our workers. Bear in mind that literally thousands of workers will provide food and other much-needed services. The bill is about ensuring that everyone who is in the APEC security area is as safe as possible, and ensuring that the general public has an understanding that unless anyone has a legitimate reason for being in the area there is no reason to be there. No doubt the ability of the Commissioner of Police to prepare lists of persons who he is satisfied would pose serious threats to the safety of persons or property, or both, in an APEC security area will raise the ire of some members.
I am sure we will hear more about that from people who have been prepared to sign a letter, including Ms Sylvia Hale, who is most concerned about the extent of the legislation. I have seen a list of the people who are vehemently opposed to the bill. I suspect it might be the start of the list of people who should not be in the security area. The Greens hosted a press conference held by Michael Bozic from the New South Wales Council for Civil Liberties, who was reported by Australian Associated Press [AAP] yesterday as likening the bill to something that former Queensland Premier Joh Bjelke-Petersen would be proud of. But what is not acknowledged is that today we live in a very different world from that under Sir Joh. Terrorism was basically unheard of in Australia in the early 1970s, save for a series of bombings linked to Croatian extremists in the late 1960s and early 1970s. It is interesting that this is the second opportunity we have had, and in two completely unrelated debates, to reflect on the bombing at the Hilton hotel, the site of the Commonwealth Heads of Government Regional Meeting in February 1978 that highlighted the need for heightened security during meetings of world leaders hosted by our country.
As a result of the bombing two innocent garbage collectors, who were referred to earlier in a debate on trade unionism, and Police Constable Paul Burmistriw were killed in the explosion. Australia's perception that we were a safe haven from violence was shaken to its core. Since 1978 there have been several terrorist attacks on Australian interests, including the 1986 bombing of the Turkish Consulate General in Melbourne and the September 2004 bombing outside the Australian Embassy in Jakarta. The devastating targeting of tourists during the Bali bombings in 2002 and 2005 was also directed largely at Australians. What we do not want to see emanating from the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation meeting is innocent people injured or worse because we did not take appropriate measures. Some will say that the legislation is draconian, we should not have it, it goes too far and it denies people their natural right to protest or express their views, but at the end of the day this is an extraordinary and remarkable event. A number of people will visit a very small area within the Sydney central business district. There must be guarantees that visitors who attend and workers who participate in the event are protected to the best of our ability.
We hope that the legislation is the result of the best level of information given to the Government by the New South Wales Police Force, the Australian Federal Police and any other associated bodies. We trust, and I hope, that the authorities have not suggested other measures that are not the subject of the legislation. We hope that everything has been targeted. We want the meeting to take place in a safe environment. We do not want to see innocent people injured, and we most certainly do not want a negative impression of this country portrayed by those who will see the event as an opportunity to get their faces or the names of their various groups in the headlines. If they want to protest they should not put their own members at risk. They should go to Homebush—thousands of them—where they can march up and down outside Stadium Australia, where they will not be a risk to themselves or anybody else. They can even take some TV cameras to film them protesting. But they should do so in a way that does not place visitors and workers who are participating in the event at risk. The Opposition is very pleased to support the bill in the context of the advice we have been given.
I turn to the cognate built, the Industrial and Other Legislation Amendment (APEC Public Holiday) Bill, which makes Friday 7 September a public holiday for the purposes of State awards in local government areas of the Sydney metropolitan area. To support the massive security and logistical demands being placed on Sydney during the meeting the State Government has agreed to significant road closures in the Sydney central business district, and to reduce traffic and pedestrian movements in and around the central business district by declaring a public holiday on 7 September, which will be the busiest weekday for the forum. There can be little doubt that a large number of motorcades travelling to and from Sydney airport to The Rocks, Darling Harbour and Millers Point will create traffic congestion at best and chaos at worst. The declaration of a public holiday is designed to ensure that as many people as possible stay out of Sydney, off the roads and off public transport.
I note that the Minister for Police in another place indicated that provisions to require the closure of general shops, for example, department stores, large retailers and supermarkets, will be implemented only if security advisers make such a recommendation. The bill provides that the State will not be liable to pay compensation for economic loss in respect of anything done or omitted in good faith in connection with an APEC-related matter. The Government has a history of failing to properly plan, implement and advise the public on major events. This is one area of concern. Even the Deputy Premier, John Watkins, admitted that there would be problems. On 30 April John Watkins said that the disruption of the APEC meeting would be 50 times worse than that caused by the visit by United States Vice President Dick Cheney.
We are really concerned that, given most of the issues will be traffic related, Eric Roozendaal, the Minister for Roads, will be in charge. Perhaps we could extend the legislation to incorporate the Minister for Roads having a public holiday and having someone else step in to take control. It will come as no surprise that the Premier and other Government members have stepped away from the prediction by John Watkins. He was sent to the naughty chair for what he said. It has been left to the Premier to mop up the mess. We have seen two recent examples of the failure of the Government to plan for major events. The first was a visit to Sydney by United States Vice President Dick Cheney in February. In general, Sydneysiders were not warned and not prepared for substantial changes to traffic and pedestrian access from Sydney airport, through the central business district and extending over the Sydney Harbour Bridge to Kirribilli. We also had the visit by the QE2 and the Queen Mary.
Sydney ground to a halt as an entire community tried to catch a glimpse of the Queen Mary during her stay and the QE2 during her brief encounter with Sydney. The chaos was highlighted by my experience. During the day I tried to leave Parliament House to drive to Macquarie Fields. It took me about an hour to get out of the back of Parliament House, down Hospital Road and turn into Shakespeare Place to the traffic lights just outside the State Library, a distance of about 150 metres, all because of the traffic chaos this Government and, in particular, the Minister for Roads and the Minister for Police did not plan for. As a result of these experiences and in light of the road closures and security disruptions caused by world leaders travelling to Sydney, there is a high probability that Sydney's transport system will not cope with a normal business working day in the central business district.

On 5 June the New South Wales Business Chamber released a statement indicating that it had asked in February for special legislation to be introduced to create an APEC public holiday and commented that the new power to allow the Government to close businesses throughout the central business district and surrounding suburbs on the basis of security issues was probably not warranted because businesses are pragmatic and will close if the police request them to do so. The Shopping Centre Council, while noting the proposed changes, has expressed no specific concerns about their impact on its members. In the light of these factors, the Coalition will not oppose these bills.
In conclusion, I point out to members, particularly members of this House who may see themselves as playing some type of advocacy role in ensuring that protesters are able to stand at the barricades and have their say, that protesters will not get within a bull's roar of APEC delegates, who will not hear or see protesters or even know they exist. They will not know that protesters were even present. I ask those honourable members for once in their lives to think about the police officers who provide security for the conference. I urge them not to take their normal course and engage in violence. They should think about police officers, whom some members of this House purport to support in relation to workers compensation. After all, if protesters and members of this House take out their frustrations and anger on innocent, hardworking police officers, those police officers will end up in hospital—as a result of injuries that are probably not covered by workers compensation, as some members of this House have acknowledged. I urge those members to do the right thing for once. Take the weekend off and go to Byron!
Ms SYLVIA HALE [5.31 p.m.]: The Greens oppose this bill on three grounds: first, it gives to the police powers that are disproportionate to the risk that our city faces; second, the new powers are not subject to proper judicial review or oversight and are part of an ongoing process of creeping expansion of discretionary police powers in this State; third, the bill dramatically diminishes the ability of this State's citizens to exercise their right to peacefully protest in public places. I foreshadow that the Greens will oppose the bill. I will move an amendment to remove the excluded persons list provisions.
Increasingly, laws are subject to suspension in New South Wales: a state of exception mentality rules. If the Government thinks the courts or laws are impeding its exercise of sovereign power, the Government simply asks a compliant Parliament to suspend those laws for the special period. We have heard of that before—in Northern Ireland and in apartheid South Africa, for example. But the state of exception can, and no doubt will, be used as a precedent the next time there is an expectation of public protest, and so the increased powers slowly will become entrenched.

This legislation permits such measures as the creation of secret lists of excluded persons, but provides no criteria for determining who will be on the list, no right to know who is on the list, and no right of judicial review of a person's inclusion on the list. To say the least, that is a dangerous path for any democratic state to pursue. This sort of measure takes us back to the worst days of the police special branch and the discredited secret files the branch kept on people it deemed to be political activists. I am concerned that through this bill we are creating a climate whereby holding dissenting political views is enough for anyone to be considered a threat. Yet again we are being rushed into passing legislation that is inimical to the fundamental principles underpinning a democratic society.

History gives us ample warning about laws of this type, as do some of the classic novels of our literature. It is impossible, when reading this bill, not to think of George Orwell and Franz Kafka. With this legislation we are again increasing the powers of the police to spy on our citizens, to exclude people from public spaces, to search cars and premises, and to seize possessions. Since 1988 there has been a steady increase in such powers. This increase in police powers progressively has undermined some key common law rights of the State's citizens including: the right of habeas corpus, the right not to be detained without good and lawful reason; detinue, which is the right to take action for the wrongful detention of goods; the right to freedom of assembly; and the right to be treated as innocent until proved guilty.

Usually the increase in police powers comes in response to law and order stories in the popular press or to specific incidents such as the Cronulla race riots. The motivation has been to allay community concern, whether genuine or confected by tabloid media commentators, by increasing police powers. It has not mattered that adequate powers may have already existed. That has not deterred the Government from passing legislation that not only restates those powers but also accumulates greater discretionary powers in the hands of the police. Public access to information that has been gathered and used by police has become more restricted. Judicial and parliamentary oversight of police power has been diminished.

Laws that have increased discretionary police powers and that have reduced the civil liberties of the individual include the Sydney Harbour Foreshore Authority Act (Regulation 2006). The Sydney Harbour foreshore area covers the foreshore area in the central business district, Darling Harbour and Pyrmont, The Rocks and Ballast Point in Balmain. The regulations clamp down on a lot of activities within those areas. For example, a person must not, without authority, busk or collect money, camp or sleep overnight. The result is that homeless people can be moved on as the police or the officers of the authority see fit. The regulation requires that a person must not paint, erect or affix any decoration, sign or other equipment; climb any tree, sculpture, decoration, flagpole or other fixture; or conduct or participate in any public assembly in any public area, unless authorised by the authority.

After that we had a spate of anti-terrorism laws introducing, among other measures, preventative detention without charge. The terrorism laws appear to violate both the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 9 (1) and Article 17, and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, Article 16 and Article 37 (b), which deal with arbitrary detention and interferences with privacy. In addition, they appear to contravene Article 3 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which guarantees that those whose rights or freedoms are violated must have access to an effective remedy in the courts.

The Terrorism (Police Powers) Act 2002 granted senior police the power to act without warrant against unspecified targets and condoned overt and covert searches of premises. This was followed by the Terrorism (Police Powers) Amendment (Preventative Detention) Act 2005, which further strengthened the powers granted to police under the 2002 Act. The Preventative Detention Act permits an individual to be held without charge; allows people to be detained for up to 14 days without anyone else's knowledge; permits the making of an application to imprison someone without notice being given to that person and the withholding of information from that person; and allows the monitoring of contact between a suspect and their lawyer.

That was followed by the 2006 amendments to the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act, known as the Cronulla race riots laws, which allows for cordons and roadblocks to be set up and gives police the power to prevent entry to or leaving of an area; increases the penalty for riot from 10 to 15 years and for affray from 5 to 10 years; permits police to search vehicles, persons and their possessions; and authorises the seizure of vehicles and mobile phones for up to seven days. Some of those powers already existed. Other powers were augmented or penalties were increased. Today, within the APEC Meeting (Police Powers) Bill we see yet another new level of control. Police will be able to prevent public assemblies anywhere near the conference or near a related event or area. Incidentally, police will have the power to determine any area as a declared area, and not be constrained by those that are defined in the bill.

The police, the masters of our new world order, can meet, safely insulated against unsightly eruptions of peaceful democratic protest on the streets. Protestors must be not seen and must not be heard. They are removed from the scene altogether. The police already have the power to close down whole areas of the State by creating roadblocks. The bill extends those powers even further and permits much of the city to be a no-go zone by authorising the police to pronounce parts of the city as areas. Indeed anywhere, not just those areas shown as the core declared areas, can be made a declared area should the police so wish. There is absolutely no guarantee, despite the remarks by the Leader of the Opposition, that even Homebush may not be a declared area.

What else will this bill authorise the police to do? Police can erect fencing and barricades and create checkpoints; stop and search vehicles or persons about to enter or who are in declared areas; and ask for identification from persons in declared areas or about to enter the areas. And there is no indication as to what form of identification would be satisfactory, no criteria has been established. The bill allows police to confiscate various items including poles longer than one metre, jamming devices, marbles or ball bearings, spray paint cans, lock-on devices, chains, handcuffs, and so forth.

The Commissioner of Police, moreover, is empowered during the APEC period to prepare a list of excluded persons if the commissioner is satisfied they are persons who would pose serious threats to the safety of persons or property, or both, in an APEC security area. That is the most Kafkaesque part of the bill. People can be placed on an exclusion list without knowing why they have been placed on the list, indeed without even knowing that they have been placed on the list. According to a public comment from the office of the Minister for Police, a person should just know that they are on the list. That is disturbingly reminiscent of the predicament of Josef K, in Franz Kafka's novel, The Trial. K found himself arrested and in front of a court trying to defend himself but with absolutely no knowledge of why he was there or of what he was accused.

Under this bill people can be placed on a list, which can be a secret list, and not be told if or why they are on the list and, as a result of their inclusion, be excluded from whatever areas the police determine they cannot enter. It is probable that the Commissioner of Police will list well-known activists, some of who may have a trial pending, but against whom no offence has been recorded. It is probable that the list will include people who have been arrested at earlier public protests only to have the police subsequently drop the charges because those charges were unsustainable. It is probable that the police will have on their list well-known activists whom they simply prefer not be there; people who may never have been arrested or charged with anything. But we will never know, as there is no requirement for the list to be made public.

Debate adjourned on motion by Ms Sylvia Hale and set down as an order of the day for a future day.