Why is Australian politics grappling with the right to protest?
New Daily
Oct 14, 2024
Attempts to stifle protests of particular causes could damage Australian's right to protest, according to experts.
A push by New South Wales Premier Chris Minns to restrict protests if they prove too expensive or disruptive is another move in a long list of challenges to Australia’s right to protests, experts say.
Before pro-Palestinian protests in Sydney this month, Minns said police should be allowed to reject public assembly applications if the event will be too expensive for the state.
“It’s my view that police should be able to be in a position to deny a request for a march due to stretched police resourcing,” Minns told 2GB radio.
“Ultimately, this is taxpayer funds. It can only be distributed in a certain way.”
NSW originally applied to the state’s supreme court to block the protest from taking place, just one day before the anniversary of the October 7 attack on Israel, before reaching an agreement with organisers at the last minute.
Unions, including the police association, have pushed back against Minns’ assertion, with the head of Unions NSW stating that “democracy should not be monetised” by making organisers pay for police presence.
Unions and the police association have rebuked NSW Premier Chris Minns.
Do Australians have the right to protest?
Luke McNamara, a professor of law and justice at the University of New South Wales, said over the past decade various jurisdictions in Australia have created new offences, higher penalties and increased police power to restrict the right to protest.
“Increasingly, pressure is being brought to bear on Attorney Generals, Premiers and Chief Ministers of states and territories to do something about disruptive behaviour,” he said.
“If you are committed in a democracy to the right to protest, you have to accept that peaceful assembly, for it to be in any way effective or meaningful, has to have the capacity to grab attention, get people to listen to the message, whether they agree or not, and that inevitably involves a level of disruption.”
A report from the Human Rights Law Centre, examining bills across Australia over the past two decades that have affected the right to protest, found that Australians’ right to peacefully protest “is being steadily eroded”.
NSW, South Australia, Tasmania, Victoria and Queensland have all legislated anti-protest laws within the past five years, imposing penalties on people engaging in peaceful protest.
Civil disobedience
These laws have targeted a range of different interest groups, ranging from environmentalists to pro-Palestinian advocates, but have all served to stifle the right to protest.
McNamara said the issue is that knee-jerk laws, such as having protest organisers pay for the police presence required, can be “deeply anti-democratic”.
“I’m troubled when there’s talk of large-scale change of parameters to a particular right, like the right to protest, based on discomfort with the particular content of a protest movement,” he said.
“The mere fact that Chris Minns has decided that those particular protesters and their cause is a problem is not an adequate justification for changing the parameters or the strength of the right to protest.”
Protest, as an act of civil disobedience, doesn’t necessarily require legality.
Most of the world’s most effective protests weren’t endorsed by the state or government they targeted.
McNamara said that Australia and liberal democracies can be hypocritical on civil disobedience.
“We celebrate those historical moments like when the Springboks were the subject of protests against South African apartheid and applaud the Martin Luther King-led civil rights protesters,” he said.
“We need some historical perceptive and to recognise that at the moment there is going to be a level of discomfort, disruption and unhappiness, but accept the right to protest.”
Forum
Pages: 1 
