Governments in two Australian states have been accused of undermining democracy by introducing legislation designed to criminalise environmental protests.
The changes introduced by the Rockliff Liberal government passed the state’s lower house with support from the Labor opposition.
In both cases, the governments said new laws were necessary to protect workers’ safety and, in the case of the Tasmanian laws, to protect business interests. Both denied they were attacking the right to protest or free speech, but groups from across civil society described the changes as disproportionate and undemocratic.
Kieran Pender, a senior lawyer with the Human Rights Law Centre (and an occasional Guardian contributor), said the laws were part of an alarming national trend of undemocratic infringements on protest rights.
They followed the New South Wales parliament last month passing a bill (see below or previous blog) that introduced penalties of up to two years’ jail for protesters who blocked roads, ports or rail, he said.
“The right to protest is a core democratic value that must be protected,” Pender said.
Victoria’s surprise penalties
The Victorian legislation surprised observers when introduced. In a joint statement, the Human Rights Law Centre and Environmental Justice Australia urged the Andrews government to withdraw it, and accused it of undermining the freedom to protest “in order to shield business profits”.
The introduction of the legislation follows the government announcing in 2019 that it would phase out native forest logging by 2030, and several legal cases being brought against the state-owned logging agency VicForests over alleged logging breaches.
Decision to renew Victorian logging agreements criticised after summer bushfires
Ellen Maybery, a senior lawyer with Environmental Justice Australia, said the proposed new criminal penalties were “harsh” and a “politically motivated crackdown on legitimate political expression” ahead of the November state election.
“Our climate and vital ecosystems are collapsing before our eyes and people who understand this cannot stay silent,” she said.
A Victorian government spokesperson said forest protests in the state had increased, and accused campaigners of using “dangerous new tactics” that created an unacceptable risk to the safety of workers, police officers and the protesters themselves.
“There have been instances of protesters blocking heavy working machinery, locking on to machinery, tethering tree sits to machinery and standing under idle machinery,” the spokesperson said. “Forestry workers, like other workers, are entitled to be mentally and physically safe as they go about their work regardless of how people may view that work.”
A VicForests spokesperson said timber harvesting zones were “hazardous worksites.”
“We ask that people do not enter these zones for their own safety and the safety of VicForests staff and contractors,” the spokesperson said.
“We take people’s safety very seriously and any preventative action to ensure the safety of VicForests staff, contractors and the general public is prudent.”
Gemma Cafarella, a barrister and spokesperson for Liberty Victoria, said no evidence had been presented to back up the claim that there was a threat to workers’ safety, or that existing laws, which include penalties of more than $3,000, were not working.
The Victorian Greens environment spokeswoman, Ellen Sandell, said the government had not provided examples and accused Labor of doing everything it could to remove barriers to native timber logging.
Tasmania’s fourth attempt
In Tasmania, it is the Liberal government’s fourth attempt to introduce tougher anti-protest laws since being elected in 2014. Earlier bids were thrown out by the high court or failed to pass the upper house.
Ahead of the parliamentary debate, 12 civil society groups, in an open letter in the Hobart Mercury, called on MPs to protect the state’s “long and proud history of peaceful protest”, which they said included campaigns to decriminalise homosexuality, protect the Franklin River and fight for better working conditions.
“The Tasmanian government’s claim that it will not put in place anything that will limit lawful protesting is simply not true when these anti-democratic anti-protest laws do just that,” the groups, including Anglicare, TasCOSS, Amnesty International and Equality Tasmania, said.
Welcoming the bill passing the lower house with Labor support on Wednesday, Tasmania’s resources minister, Guy Barnett, said the state government had “listened to the needs of business”
“It costs money, it creates risk, and it can cause stress for the workers. In some cases there is potential for physical harm,” he said.
Where mining meets rainforest: the battle for Tasmania’s Tarkine
Barnett said the government respected Tasmanians’ right to free speech and the laws would not limit lawful protesting.
The inclusion of a clause that targets “body corporates” – organisations – has been interpreted to be specifically aimed at the Bob Brown Foundation, which has protested against logging in native forest logging coupes and drilling by mining company MMG in the Tarkine rainforest, where the company is planning to build a pipeline and waste storage facility.
Jenny Weber, the Bob Brown Foundation’s campaign manager, said the group would not back down. She said claims its protesters had put workers at risk were untrue.
“Tasmania police are well aware that our protesters are trained in nonviolent direct action, and use de-escalation techniques to maintain safety in our protests,” she said. “None of these tactics has had safety impacts on workers.”
The Greens MP Rosalie Woodruff said the changes were an “attack on democracy” and it was “tragic” that Labor had supported the legislation after failing to amend it.
A Labor spokesperson did not respond to requests for comment. The bill will come before the upper house later this year.
In 2017, the former Australian Greens leader Bob Brown won a landmark court case against an earlier version of Tasmania’s anti-protest laws. The high court judged the laws directly targeted implied freedom of political expression in the constitution and were unconstitutional.
Despite Matt Keen saying the odd environmentally friendly statement, the NSW Liberal Nationals government is a well-oiled machine designed to facilitate the wants of the fossil fuel industry and shield it from a rising number of constituents who oppose its detrimental effects.
For the past decade, the Coalition hasn’t been able to produce effective policies to limit emissions. However, in little over a week, it was able to ram through draconian anti-protest laws, after a few activists put their liberty on the line to directly impact the profits of the fossil fuel masters,.
So, now, we’re talking about actions that used to trigger fines of $440 or $2,200 carrying penalties of up to 2 years imprisonment and/or a $22,000 fine.
But, not to worry, we can still take legitimate forms of protest “in writing, in the mass media” or in authorised street marches and assemblies.
And what’s become plainly obvious is that even with the flooding, the megafires and the extended drought we’ve experienced, when push comes to shove, as the weather becomes more extreme and demonstrations escalate, the authorities are simply going to legislate stricter anti-protest laws.
“obstructing CBD traffic without authorisation could, under the new laws, [be] fined $22,000, as well as [be] thrown into prison for up to two years.”
The scenario from here is already mapped out in a myriad of dystopian films: climate deteriorates further leading to more determined direct actions to prevent fossil fuel extraction, which eventually leads to shoot-to-kill powers being employed when corporate profits are directly threatened.
Clearing obstructions
The Roads and Crimes Legislation Amendment Bill 2022 passed through the NSW Legislative Assembly on Friday afternoon. This was not a scheduled sitting day of parliament, rather the Coalition called it late the night prior, as it was so determined to get these laws enacted.
The changes it makes follow an initial amendment made by NSW metropolitan roads minister Natalie Ward to section 144G of the Roads Act 1993 (NSW), so that trespassing on, damaging or obstructing any bridge or tunnel now carries a $22,000 fine and/or up to two years imprisonment.
Passed on 1 April, the bill, which was introduced by NSW attorney general Mark Speakman, extends the section 144G offence, so that it now covers blocking roads.
Up until last week, this offence only applied to obstructing or damaging the Sydney Harbour Bridge and so too, did the extreme penalties.
With the insertion of section 214A into the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), the Speakman bill also created the new offence of damaging or disrupting a major facility, which also carries the same draconian penalties as section 144G: up to two years inside and the $22,000 fine.
This new offence involves a prohibition on trespassing, climbing upon or blocking a major facility so that it either damages it, obstructs entry into it, leads to it having to close down or it causes people attempting to enter the facility to be redirected.
A major facility is classed as a railway station or other transport facility, any ports, and infrastructure facilities, including those that deliver energy. This new section 214A offence does not apply when it comes to workers taking industrial action.
Breaking effective protest
Speakman outlined during his second reading speech on the bill that the laws were needed due to the series of coordinated actions Blockade Australia carried out in relation to Port Botany last week, as well as the recent obstructing of peak hour traffic on Sydney’s Spit Bridge by Fireproof Australia.
“As well as the major inconvenience that incidents like these cause to the community, there are also severe financial impacts,” Speakman stressed, “with the cost of this economic vandalism estimated to run into the millions of dollars through direct economic loss and lost productivity.”
“The bill in no way seeks to impose a general prohibition on protests,” the chief lawmaker further fibs. And he goes on to wax lyrical about the importance that protest holds for a working democracy, and how the Summary Offences Act 1988 (NSW) actually facilitates legal protests.
But this is what it all boils down to, the process of getting a protest authorised via the NSW Police Force takes away the ability of demonstrators to use obstruction and inconvenience to put their message across to the general public.
Climate protesters are obstructing roads unannounced as they want to cause disruption to draw public attention to the dire state of the climate, while they’re also targeting facilities because that directly affects the profit margins of the corporations.
A further chilling
The new laws don’t just have the potential to shut down dissent over climate inaction, as the extension of the section 144G offence to roadways has the potential for authorities to shut down expressions of dissent they would rather not take place in public.
Then NSW police commissioner Mick Fuller attempted to have the June 2020 Black Lives Matter protest banned due to COVID. But this was after the first lockdown had been lifted. And despite an initial ruling prohibiting the event from going ahead legally, 10,000 demonstrators showed up.
A last-minute reprieve saw the ban lifted and the protest go ahead. However, without this counter determination, all of those demonstrators obstructing CBD traffic without authorisation could, under the new laws, have been fined $22,000, as well as been thrown in prison for up to two years.
This was the first BLM protest NSW police attempted to shut down that year, yet it wasn’t the last. And it was well understood this was because the demonstrations were raising the issue of police racism and brutality against First Nations people.
So, these new laws may have proven effective in shutting down this expression of public dissent.
Bipartisan approval
As NSW Greens MLC David Shoebridge warned Sydney Criminal Lawyersat the beginning of the week, the Liberal Nationals government did not act in this drastic manner so as to pass laws that enabled the shutdown of the anti-lockdown protests last year, despite the disruptions they posed.
Indeed, it’s well-known that those freedom demonstrations involved participants who are more likely to vote for the right of politics, as well as for more conservative policies, and hence, they didn’t pose any real threat to Coalition leadership.
Climate defenders, however, do pose a major threat. And this is not only for the Coalition. It extends to Labor as well, when it’s in power.
So, that’s why Speakman’s bill was able to traipse its way through both chambers of NSW parliament even though the Greens showed fierce opposition.
“Governments have a responsibility to ensure that freedom of assembly and freedom of protest are not unduly impinged upon,” sniggered Speakman as he ended his speech on the bill. Then he raised its greater duty, which is to ensure any “form of economic vandalism” is put to rest.
PAUL GREGOIRE
“We MUST respect this earth - it is all we have
Claudio Dametto - South Australia
“I will always Vote to Preserve Our World.
Liam McGregor - Western Australia
“A simple message that even a politician can understand
Felicity Crombach - Victoria
“Please show you care about our future generations!!
Phil Harmer - New South Wales
“Save our world , Life & health before profits.
Kerry Lillian - New South Wales
“Close down all coal mines and Do not mine gas . Make these Companies
Daniel Johnson - New South Wales
“We want carbon free energy!
Edan Clarke - New South Wales
“Feels good to be taking a voter action step
Beaver Hudson - New South Wales
“Great Initiative. Let’s Hold elected officials Accountable to their bosses, us!
John Paul Posada - New South Wales
“We need actions not words we need honest democratic govt We need a pm
Bob Pearce - South Australia
“Thank you for this great resource. I was feeling helpless. Even this small step
Silvia Anderson - Victoria
“If political parties continue receiving political donations, we will rarely have politicians working for
Dan Chicos - New South Wales
“I only vote for people who will take urgent action to restore a safe
Susie Burke - Victoria
“Current government is not representing the opinion of the majority of Australian to meet
Neil Price - Tasmania
“We are fighting to rescue our kids' future from those who seek to steal
Vanessa Norimi - Queensland
“No time to waste Now or Never My vote is for NOW
Rosalie White - Victoria
“I am only 9 but I already care
Ava Bell - New South Wales
“From New Lambton Uniting Church - Caring for our world is a moral imperative.
Niall McKay - New South Wales
“Our federal govt is an International climate Embarrassment - its about time they stepped
Oriana Tolo - Victoria
“Vote earth this time!
Sue Cooke - Queensland
“We are in one on the wealthiest countries in the world. we have the
rowan huxtable - New South Wales
“The climate Emergency is the public health opportunity and urgent priority of the 21st
Mike Forrester - Victoria
“If they want my vote they better act now
Barbara McNiff - New South Wales
“We need to act locally now for the earth. Our only home. Vote Earth
Anne Miller - New South Wales
“I often look at the places I've known all my life and see how
Jim Baird - New South Wales
“Strike one For people power!!! Democracy might prevail outside the current cronyism that faces
Lorraine Bridger - New South Wales
“Our federal politicians Are Afraid to make action on climate change a major election
Jennifer Martin - New South Wales
“climate election, let's go!
Fahimah Badrulhisham - New South Wales
“Great to see this website that is a focus on action for climate change
Lynette Sinclair - New South Wales
“Let’s show politicians and the Murdoch media that climate change is by far the
Jane Aitken - Australian Capital Territory
“If you want to stay in power You need to take action to stop
Jane Bulter - New South Wales
“We are all that stands between terminal climate change and the vulnerable. We are
Carol Khan - Queensland
“We need a Government that Believes this is real and not taking money from
Ken Gray - New South Wales
“I'm voting for my childrens future
Anneliese Alexander - New South Wales