Mike Baird's anti-protest laws risk turning NSW into Bjelke-Petersen's Queensland

Date
    March 15, 2016
    Sydney Morning Herald

Freedom of speech and freedom of association are cornerstones of democracy.

Any attack on them, such as the Baird government's proposed protest laws, is an attack on our democracy and civil society.

Peaceful protests have made the world a better place. Protest helped end slavery and child labour, delivered workers rights and equal rights, delivered better air and water quality and protection of the planet's most iconic landscapes.


In Australia protests saved the Great Barrier Reef, the Daintree Rainforest, Kakadu, the Tasmanian Wilderness, Fraser Island and the many great national parks that have paved the way for our multi-billion dollar tourism industry. The Great Barrier Reef tourism industry alone is worth $6 billion and supports 60,000 jobs.

In Mike Baird's world the Great Barrier Reef would be dotted with oil rigs and tankers, the Franklin River would be dammed, the Daintree Rainforest would have been wiped out, and Fraser Island would have disappeared from sand mining.   :o

The people who fought to save these places are now seen as national heroes but Mike Baird wants to stop their kind in their tracks. He wants to stop people such as Wallaby great David Pocock from protesting about mining and trying to protect farmland.

In Baird's world the iconic Australian bushland of the Pilliga, our largest inland forest, would be dotted with 850 coal seam gas wells. Beyond that the industry would expand across our best farming country.

The proposed protest laws would give police new powers to break up protests, to search and destroy private property. If police say just one person obstructs traffic, they can shut down an entire peaceful assembly.

This is a slippery slope that gives police discretion to silence dissent and could turn NSW into a police state. Far from being a moderate, Baird is taking NSW down the sad road of Joh Bjelke-Petersen's Queensland.   :(

The laws will allow police to arrest anyone carrying or operating anything the police think will be used in a protest. Police would be able to arrest you and confiscate and destroy your car, for example, if they think it will be used to disrupt business in a protest. What has happened to the presumption of innocence?

Protesters could be fined more for opposing illegal mining activity than miners could for operating illegally. People will face $5500 fines for protesting on business premises, while mining companies will face fines of only $5000 for conducting illegal mining activities. This new $5000 maximum has plummeted from the previous maximum of $1.1 million, which is a more realistic deterrent for a resource company.

Protesters such as David Pocock who lock themselves on to mining equipment even face seven years in jail.

What is more galling is that these laws are aimed at stopping protests about coal seam gas mining in the Pilliga Forest, where Santos has been responsible for a long list of pollution incidents, including contaminating groundwater aquifers with uranium and other toxic heavy metals. No Santos executives faced jail for this environmental damage. In fact Santos was fined a mere $1500 – exactly the same penalty that one protester received simply for being in the public forest at the time it was declared "shut" for Santos' CSG activities.

It is shameful that the Coalition would want to increase penalties for people who only want to protect our farmland, water and air from an industry with a proven track record of environmental damage.   :(

NSW needs industry that will make money, create jobs and not pollute our precious farmland and water resources.

Does Baird want to be remembered as a premier with a vision for the state that embraces innovation and renewable energy and addresses climate change or does he want to be yesterday's man who hitched his reputation to a 1950s world view of motorways and failing fossil fuel industries?

The Shooters and Fishers Party should also think twice about passing this legislation if they want to gain support from the farming community, which this legislation is directly targeted at. Farmers lost faith in the National Party because of this exact issue, that they were being deserted in favour of mining.

These laws will not just affect environmental protests. Any protest activity will be affected, such as protests for better wages and conditions, protests to protect our public health system and protests against unnecessary wars.   :(

People do not take lightly breaking the law to voice their concerns. They do it because they have strong views that are not being heard.

There are already plenty of laws that are used to deal with peaceful protests.

Premier Baird must drop these proposed laws, as well as reinstate the previous penalties for mining companies. We do not want to live in a state ruled by police and business.

These are NOT anti-protest laws. They're anti-interference laws. You can still go and protest until you're blue in the face. You just can't interfere with people or equipment, like chaining yourself to earth moving equipment or gates. The people operating those machines are just doing their jobs and have a legal right to carry out those jobs.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Mar 16^th, 2016 at 9:20am:

These are NOT anti-protest laws. They're anti-interference laws. You can still go and protest until you're blue in the face. You just can't interfere with people or equipment, like chaining yourself to earth moving equipment or gates. The people operating those machines are just doing their jobs and have a legal right to carry out those jobs.

bullsh1t ... this is about protecting miners ..

why drop their fines for illegal mining from $1m to $5000

Armchair_Politician wrote on Mar 16^th, 2016 at 9:20am:

These are NOT anti-protest laws. They're anti-interference laws. You can still go and protest until you're blue in the face. You just can't interfere with people or equipment, like chaining yourself to earth moving equipment or gates. The people operating those machines are just doing their jobs and have a legal right to carry out those jobs.

"The proposed protest laws would give police new powers to break up protests ... "

"The laws will allow police to arrest anyone carrying or operating anything the police think will be used in a protest."

::)

Just anti-interference laws that breach the right to protest.... OK.... it's called bullying, and is a first call card for 'governments'.

Is there any substance yet to the claims of workers being pursued and threatened, etc?  Or is that just for media consumption?  Anyone been charged or anything?

Or is the only avenue for such things as 'legitimate' charges to change the 'law' so as to give a group of armed thugs the 'right' to break up and criminalise a crowd of peaceful protestors?

greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 16^th, 2016 at 9:26am:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Mar 16th, 2016 at 9:20am: These are NOT anti-protest laws. They're anti-interference laws. You can still go and protest until you're blue in the face. You just can't interfere with people or equipment, like chaining yourself to earth moving equipment or gates. The people operating those machines are just doing their jobs and have a legal right to carry out those jobs. "The proposed protest laws would give police new powers to break up protests ... " "The laws will allow police to arrest anyone carrying or operating anything the police think will be used in a protest." ::)

Yes, those where they are being obstructive such as when people chain themselves to earth moving equipment, Police will have the power to remove those people. A perfectly reasonable response from government. If they're protesting beside the road and not blocking the road or chaining themselves to equipment, then Police will have no reason or power to remove them.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Mar 16^th, 2016 at 1:04pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 16th, 2016 at 9:26am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Mar 16th, 2016 at 9:20am: These are NOT anti-protest laws. They're anti-interference laws. You can still go and protest until you're blue in the face. You just can't interfere with people or equipment, like chaining yourself to earth moving equipment or gates. The people operating those machines are just doing their jobs and have a legal right to carry out those jobs. "The proposed protest laws would give police new powers to break up protests ... " "The laws will allow police to arrest anyone carrying or operating anything the police think will be used in a protest." ::) Yes, those where they are being obstructive such as when people chain themselves to earth moving equipment, Police will have the power to remove those people. A perfectly reasonable response from government. If they're protesting beside the road and not blocking the road or chaining themselves to equipment, then Police will have no reason or power to remove them.

where does it say that Armpit? you making it up as you go ... it says 'will be used' implying future tense. They don't need to have obstructed anyone.

John Smith wrote on Mar 16^th, 2016 at 2:22pm:

where does it say that Armpit?

......in the ACTUAL "Inclosed Lands, Crimes and Law Enforcement Legislation Amendment (Interference) Bill 2016"  ::).....and not Fairyfax's interpretation of it.... :D

http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/nswbills.nsf/0/a3f6ecf3f449e614ca257f700015556d/$FILE/ATTWYAK2.pdf/XN%20Inclosed.pdf


Quote:

Overview of Bill The objects of this Bill are as follows: (a) to amend the Inclosed Lands Protection Act 1901 to create an aggravated form of the offence of unlawful entry on inclosed lands to increase, from $550 to $5,500, the maximum penalty that is applicable in relation to land on which a business or undertaking is being conducted and where the offender, while on the lands: (i) interferes with, or attempts or intends to interfere with, the conduct of the business or undertaking, or (ii) does anything that gives rise to a serious risk to the safety of the offender or any other person on those lands, (b) to amend the Crimes Act 1900 to extend the meaning of “mine” in connection with the existing indictable offence (that carries a maximum penalty of imprisonment for 7 years) of intentionally or recklessly interfering with a mine (including hindering the working of equipment belonging to a mine) so that it extends to equipment and other things associated with a mine and to: (i) a gas or other petroleum extraction site, and (ii) a mineral, or gas or other petroleum, exploration site, and (iii) a work construction site for proposed minerals, or gas or other petroleum, extraction, and (iv) a former mine at which works are being carried out to decommission the mine or make it safe, (c) to amend the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002 to confer additional search and seizure powers (without warrant) where a police officer suspects on reasonable grounds that a person has (or a vehicle, vessel or aircraft contains) anything that is intended to be used to lock-on or secure a person to any plant, equipment or structure for the purpose of interfering with the conduct of a business or undertaking and that is likely to be used in a manner that will give rise to a serious risk to the safety of any person, (d) to amend the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002 to remove limitations on the exercise of police powers to give directions in public places to prevent obstructions of persons or traffic (or harassment or intimidation of or fear to other persons) in the case of demonstrations, protests, processions or organised assemblies, so that directions may be given: (i) if the police officer believes on reasonable grounds that the direction is necessary to deal with a serious risk to the safety of the person to whom the direction is given or to any other person, or (ii) if the demonstration, protest, procession or assembly is obstructing traffic and is not an authorised public assembly under the Summary Offences Act 1988 in which persons are participating substantially in accordance with the authorisation, and the police officer in charge at the scene has authorised the giving of directions

.........it's not at all surprising that Leftists are against any attempt to limit the ability of collectivists to bully and intimidate individuals.

Leftism relies on mob intimidation and bully tactics.  :(

Limiting such behaviour is akin to pulling their teeth... :-?


greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 16^th, 2016 at 9:26am:

"The laws will allow police to arrest anyone carrying or operating anything the police think will be used in a protest."

That's a big porky pie.  ::) Waving a sign around is somewhat different to carrying around a dirty great chain with a half a dozen padlocks.... ::)


Quote:

where a police officer suspects on reasonable grounds that a person has (or a vehicle, vessel or aircraft contains) anything that is intended to be used to lock-on or secure a person to any plant, equipment or structure for the purpose of interfering with the conduct of a business

So if you are carrying a dirty great padlock and chain you are going to be a little bit suss....... :-?

Swagman wrote on Mar 16^th, 2016 at 8:44pm:

.........it's not at all surprising that Leftists are against any attempt to limit the ability of collectivists to bully and intimidate individuals. Leftism relies on mob intimidation and bully tactics.  :( Limiting such behaviour is akin to pulling their teeth... :-? greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 16th, 2016 at 9:26am: "The laws will allow police to arrest anyone carrying or operating anything the police think will be used in a protest." That's a big porky pie.  ::) Waving a sign around is somewhat different to carrying around a dirty great chain with a half a dozen padlocks.... ::) Quote: where a police officer suspects on reasonable grounds that a person has (or a vehicle, vessel or aircraft contains) anything that is intended to be used to lock-on or secure a person to any plant, equipment or structure for the purpose of interfering with the conduct of a business So if you are carrying a dirty great padlock and chain you are going to be a little bit suss....... :-?

You mean all those protestors are part of some group and have no individual concerns about XXX or whatever?

I've just sold the property.... but I told the farken council, years ago, that if they wanted to come in for some 'inspection' of some thing or another that cost me some unannounced fee ... they could bloody well ask me first or I'd do the inspection myself and bill THEM....... so if a farmer says - hey, wait a minute.. I don't want this... he should be entitled to say NO if he chooses..

And so should anyone else who says NO!

This is just a sidewinder move to promote big business.... not support any rights of anyone else...

Hang Baird and let him hang for a year or so... Fascist.....

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Mar 17^th, 2016 at 12:49am:

so if a farmer says - hey, wait a minute.. I don't want this... he should be entitled to say NO if he chooses..

No argument.

If a miner says.... "hey wait a minute.....I want this.....he should be able to say YES if he chooses...."  ;D

Swagman wrote on Mar 16^th, 2016 at 8:31pm:

John Smith wrote on Mar 16th, 2016 at 2:22pm: where does it say that Armpit? ......in the ACTUAL "Inclosed Lands, Crimes and Law Enforcement Legislation Amendment (Interference) Bill 2016"  ::).....and not Fairyfax's interpretation of it.... :D http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/nswbills.nsf/0/a3f6ecf3f449e614ca257f700015556d/$FILE/ATTWYAK2.pdf/XN%20Inclosed.pdf Quote: Overview of Bill The objects of this Bill are as follows: (a) to amend the Inclosed Lands Protection Act 1901 to create an aggravated form of the offence of unlawful entry on inclosed lands to increase, from $550 to $5,500, the maximum penalty that is applicable in relation to land on which a business or undertaking is being conducted and where the offender, while on the lands: (i) interferes with, or attempts or intends to interfere with, the conduct of the business or undertaking, or (ii) does anything that gives rise to a serious risk to the safety of the offender or any other person on those lands, (b) to amend the Crimes Act 1900 to extend the meaning of “mine” in connection with the existing indictable offence (that carries a maximum penalty of imprisonment for 7 years) of intentionally or recklessly interfering with a mine (including hindering the working of equipment belonging to a mine) so that it extends to equipment and other things associated with a mine and to: (i) a gas or other petroleum extraction site, and (ii) a mineral, or gas or other petroleum, exploration site, and (iii) a work construction site for proposed minerals, or gas or other petroleum, extraction, and (iv) a former mine at which works are being carried out to decommission the mine or make it safe, (c) to amend the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002 to confer additional search and seizure powers (without warrant) where a police officer suspects on reasonable grounds that a person has (or a vehicle, vessel or aircraft contains) anything that is intended to be used to lock-on or secure a person to any plant, equipment or structure for the purpose of interfering with the conduct of a business or undertaking and that is likely to be used in a manner that will give rise to a serious risk to the safety of any person, (d) to amend the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002 to remove limitations on the exercise of police powers to give directions in public places to prevent obstructions of persons or traffic (or harassment or intimidation of or fear to other persons) in the case of demonstrations, protests, processions or organised assemblies, so that directions may be given: (i) if the police officer believes on reasonable grounds that the direction is necessary to deal with a serious risk to the safety of the person to whom the direction is given or to any other person, or (ii) if the demonstration, protest, procession or assembly is obstructing traffic and is not an authorised public assembly under the Summary Offences Act 1988 in which persons are participating substantially in accordance with the authorisation, and the police officer in charge at the scene has authorised the giving of directions

You just owned JS!!!  ;D ;D ;D

Swagman wrote on Mar 16^th, 2016 at 8:31pm:

John Smith wrote on Mar 16th, 2016 at 2:22pm: where does it say that Armpit? ......in the ACTUAL "Inclosed Lands, Crimes and Law Enforcement Legislation Amendment (Interference) Bill 2016"  ::).....and not Fairyfax's interpretation of it.... :D http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/nswbills.nsf/0/a3f6ecf3f449e614ca257f700015556d/$FILE/ATTWYAK2.pdf/XN%20Inclosed.pdf Quote: Overview of Bill The objects of this Bill are as follows: (a) to amend the Inclosed Lands Protection Act 1901 to create an aggravated form of the offence of unlawful entry on inclosed lands to increase, from $550 to $5,500, the maximum penalty that is applicable in relation to land on which a business or undertaking is being conducted and where the offender, while on the lands: (i) interferes with, or attempts or intends to interfere with, the conduct of the business or undertaking, or (ii) does anything that gives rise to a serious risk to the safety of the offender or any other person on those lands, (b) to amend the Crimes Act 1900 to extend the meaning of “mine” in connection with the existing indictable offence (that carries a maximum penalty of imprisonment for 7 years) of intentionally or recklessly interfering with a mine (including hindering the working of equipment belonging to a mine) so that it extends to equipment and other things associated with a mine and to: (i) a gas or other petroleum extraction site, and (ii) a mineral, or gas or other petroleum, exploration site, and (iii) a work construction site for proposed minerals, or gas or other petroleum, extraction, and (iv) a former mine at which works are being carried out to decommission the mine or make it safe, (c) to amend the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002 to confer additional search and seizure powers (without warrant) where a police officer suspects on reasonable grounds that a person has (or a vehicle, vessel or aircraft contains) anything that is intended to be used to lock-on or secure a person to any plant, equipment or structure for the purpose of interfering with the conduct of a business or undertaking and that is likely to be used in a manner that will give rise to a serious risk to the safety of any person, (d) to amend the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002 to remove limitations on the exercise of police powers to give directions in public places to prevent obstructions of persons or traffic (or harassment or intimidation of or fear to other persons) in the case of demonstrations, protests, processions or organised assemblies, so that directions may be given: (i) if the police officer believes on reasonable grounds that the direction is necessary to deal with a serious risk to the safety of the person to whom the direction is given or to any other person, or (ii) if the demonstration, protest, procession or assembly is obstructing traffic and is not an authorised public assembly under the Summary Offences Act 1988 in which persons are participating substantially in accordance with the authorisation, and the police officer in charge at the scene has authorised the giving of directions

so they don't have to be on the land? thanks Swag for proving armpit an id iot again.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Mar 17^th, 2016 at 1:16pm:

Swagman wrote on Mar 16th, 2016 at 8:31pm: John Smith wrote on Mar 16th, 2016 at 2:22pm: where does it say that Armpit? ......in the ACTUAL "Inclosed Lands, Crimes and Law Enforcement Legislation Amendment (Interference) Bill 2016"  ::).....and not Fairyfax's interpretation of it.... :D http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/nswbills.nsf/0/a3f6ecf3f449e614ca257f700015556d/$FILE/ATTWYAK2.pdf/XN%20Inclosed.pdf Quote: Overview of Bill The objects of this Bill are as follows: (a) to amend the Inclosed Lands Protection Act 1901 to create an aggravated form of the offence of unlawful entry on inclosed lands to increase, from $550 to $5,500, the maximum penalty that is applicable in relation to land on which a business or undertaking is being conducted and where the offender, while on the lands: (i) interferes with, or attempts or intends to interfere with, the conduct of the business or undertaking, or (ii) does anything that gives rise to a serious risk to the safety of the offender or any other person on those lands, (b) to amend the Crimes Act 1900 to extend the meaning of “mine” in connection with the existing indictable offence (that carries a maximum penalty of imprisonment for 7 years) of intentionally or recklessly interfering with a mine (including hindering the working of equipment belonging to a mine) so that it extends to equipment and other things associated with a mine and to: (i) a gas or other petroleum extraction site, and (ii) a mineral, or gas or other petroleum, exploration site, and (iii) a work construction site for proposed minerals, or gas or other petroleum, extraction, and (iv) a former mine at which works are being carried out to decommission the mine or make it safe, (c) to amend the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002 to confer additional search and seizure powers (without warrant) where a police officer suspects on reasonable grounds that a person has (or a vehicle, vessel or aircraft contains) anything that is intended to be used to lock-on or secure a person to any plant, equipment or structure for the purpose of interfering with the conduct of a business or undertaking and that is likely to be used in a manner that will give rise to a serious risk to the safety of any person, (d) to amend the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002 to remove limitations on the exercise of police powers to give directions in public places to prevent obstructions of persons or traffic (or harassment or intimidation of or fear to other persons) in the case of demonstrations, protests, processions or organised assemblies, so that directions may be given: (i) if the police officer believes on reasonable grounds that the direction is necessary to deal with a serious risk to the safety of the person to whom the direction is given or to any other person, or (ii) if the demonstration, protest, procession or assembly is obstructing traffic and is not an authorised public assembly under the Summary Offences Act 1988 in which persons are participating substantially in accordance with the authorisation, and the police officer in charge at the scene has authorised the giving of directions You just owned JS!!!  ;D ;D ;D

and one day you'll learn to read ;D ;D

This should put an end to trespassing by protestors.

A green senator was arrested for trespassing,these laws will stop idiots like this who think they are above the law.

abc.net.au/news/2016-03-14/jeremy-Buckingham-escapes-conviction-for-trespassing/7245454

Baronvonrort wrote on Mar 17^th, 2016 at 5:02pm:

This should put an end to trespassing by protestors. A green senator was arrested for trespassing,these laws will stop idiots like this who think they are above the law. abc.net.au/news/2016-03-14/jeremy-Buckingham-escapes-conviction-for-trespassing/7245454

I'd have no problem with that if it was applied equally .... when will they charge miners with trespass?