Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Immigration) Share this | Hansard source

If you come into my office you'll immediately see two things: a photograph of John Stuart Mill, the famous author of that wonderful essay on liberty, and a waxwork of the great French philosopher Voltaire. Those two historic figures, great advocates for freedom of speech, freedom of association and freedom of expression encapsulate the values which I seek to represent in this place. Both of them recognised that in terms of striking the right balance between the exercise of one person's rights, one person's freedoms, one has to consider the rights and freedoms of others. This has been articulated in various ways. One person's liberties should be granted except to the extent that they infringe upon on another person's liberties. There have been other formulations in relation to this balancing endeavour.

I believe in freedom of speech. I believe in freedom of association. I believe in freedom of expression. I believe in the right of Australians to make sure that their views are heard clearly and loudly, and I commend those Australians who exercise those rights within the legitimate limitations of the law. I've attended assemblies outside this place, and I know Senator McKenzie has attended assemblies outside this place of the stakeholders from her rural communities, which she so passionately represents, who come to this Australian parliament for their voices to be heard. When they do that, they do it in a lawful way, they do it in a respectful way and they do it in a way which doesn't cause disruption.

The question we have in this debate is whether or not the private member's bill put forward by the Greens and circulated by authority of Senator Shoebridge—I'll be very clear: I respect Senator Shoebridge's convictions and passions with respect to these freedoms of the individual. In the previous parliament I served with him on the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee, so I do respect his views in this regard.

However, having read the bill—I come back to the points which were made by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, Senator Cash—there are deep concerns with respect to the drafting of the bill, and I want to walk through those issues and place them on the record.

The outline of the bill, this Right to Protest Bill 2025, rightly refers to Australia's obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and many of these rights are part of our English common law history and have been rights which have been fought for over centuries. Article 19 of the ICCPR states that restrictions on the right to hold opinions without interference must only be those provided by law and which are necessary for, among other things, respect of the rights of others or the protection of national security, public order and public health. Article 21 of the covenant requires recognition of the right to peaceful assembly—I'll come back to that expression, the right to peaceful assembly—with minimal restrictions placed on this that are necessary in a democratic society. These covenants contained in the international treaty engage in this balancing process, which I think all Australians, or the vast majority of Australians, would agree with. An Australian has the right to express their point of view and a right to peaceful assembly to promote those views in assembly to have greater impact with respect to the expression of those views; however, it is not unfettered. Senator Watt referred to some of the legal tests which are applied in relation to the application of protecting the implied right to political communication under our Constitution. So there is balance already there in the system.

One of the curious things in this bill—if Senator Shoebridge has an opportunity to respond to this debate, it would be useful for him to respond to this question—is the definitions. The international treaty refers to peaceful assembly, yet section 3 of Senator Shoebridge's bill says:

The objects of this Act are:

(a) to recognise the right to engage in peaceful protest …

Well, what's the difference between assembly and protest? And why Senator Shoebridge using the term 'protest' instead of the term 'assembly', which is used in the international treaty? We then go to the definition of 'protest', and the definition of 'protest' is an inclusive definition that includes the following:

(a) actions that are political in nature—

and here's the issue—

(b) actions that are disruptive, or that seek to be disruptive.

So Senator Shoebridge isn't just talking about a peaceful assembly of people, of Australians exercising the right to freedom of speech; he is expanding that to encompass a protest that includes actions that are disruptive or that seek to be disruptive. That is the issue.

The vast majority of Australians would agree, in accordance with our fundamental values, that every single Australian, whether they are a senator or a new citizen, has the right to exercise their views and to express those views in public. However, there have to be limits. There necessarily have to be limits, and those limits are recognised in the international covenant. Those limits relate to things like public order, the right of other Australians to go about their business without being disrupted and the right of Australians to have access to emergency services. It may well be that, when some of these protests are organised, the intent is not to impede emergency services, but the reality is that if you conduct disrupt protest on major thoroughfares, major roads or major highways, at certain times you are going to have the collateral impact of impeding emergency services. People have a right to go about engaging in their jobs without their health and safety being impacted.

In Queensland, we've had protesters gluing themselves to pieces of equipment, gluing themselves to roads, and attaching steel mechanisms to their arms and then attaching themselves to roads and infrastructure—and, through you, Acting Deputy President Cox, I think Senator Shoebridge should reflect on some of the terminology used in one context in his contribution in that regard, and I'll come to that. People have attached these steel mechanisms to their arms and then attached them to infrastructure. To disassemble these things, our poor old emergency services personnel have to deploy the equipment they use to cut victims of car crashes out of their cars. There have to be limitations. This private member's bill doesn't recognise those limitations. In fact, as Senator Cash eloquently referred to, it has provisions which say, 'Oh, and, by the way, even if you breach the limitations, which are reasonable, you can't impose excessive fines.' What's to prevent someone from going out and doing exactly the same thing tomorrow and the next day and the next day? We don't have any answers to that in this bill. There are no answers to that in this bill.

The other point I would like Senator Shoebridge and others to reflect on is this: we are having this debate in the context where there was a march with hundreds of thousands of people across Sydney Harbour Bridge. There were marches across all of our capital cities over the last weekend, including in Brisbane, in my home state. So I ask, didn't the system work? We didn't see riot police out there preventing people from marching. They actually did march. Senator Shoebridge marched with them. So what's the mischief he's trying to address in this bill when the march actually occurred? Doesn't that mean the checks and balances under our current system worked? Whoever was organising the protests in Sydney—and someone organised a protest in Brisbane—went through a process. The public order authorities went through their process and raised their legitimate concerns with respect to the hasty convening of the protest and what it meant for their obligations to keep people safe in their city. That was considered by the judge. The judge made a determination, which was respected by all Australians. What's the problem? What's the mischief? I would have thought that that all suggests that the system actually works. That suggests that the checks and balances that we have in the system work. Senator Shoebridge, through this bill, would inadvertently—I'll say inadvertently—give people a right to engage in extreme conduct without there being checks and balances to protect the rights of other Australians. That is of deep concern.

I want to make a comment with respect to the police service. These are the people who keep us safe while we sleep in our beds at night. One of the things that struck me in relation to the discussion over the march which eventually happened over Sydney Harbour Bridge was the commentary from one of the senior officers of the New South Wales Police Force. Listening to his comments, that officer was genuinely concerned about the logistics and the impacts of having such a large-scale march with tens and tens of thousands of people convened at short notice. He was genuinely concerned as to whether or not the people participating in that march may be exposed to threats to their personal safety, just through the logistics. He was genuinely concerned as to whether or not the police service had enough time to cordon off the streets and manage the huge crowd in such a way that would protect the participants. When you heard the remarks from the senior New South Wales police officer after that march was held, you heard the sense of relief that they'd managed to get through that event without anyone being hurt.

There have been concerns raised, rightly, with respect to some of the banners that were used et cetera. But, in terms of the logistics of the march, you could sense and hear the relief of the senior member of the New South Wales police service who had the responsibility of trying to manage this huge endeavour—hundreds of thousands of people. I think that also needs to be recognised—that our emergency services personnel do their best in order to manage these issues. In my home state of Queensland, there was a recent march which showed how unnecessary this piece of legislation is.

From what I see, every single Australian who wants to exercise their view or opinion in a peaceful way has a means in which to do that, and that's how it should be. I agree with the comments of Senator Cash, I agree with the comments of Senator Watt and I acknowledge those who provided assistance to Senator Watt in preparing those comments—I'm assuming it wasn't all your own work, Senator Watt; maybe it was! I think it was very useful to get those legal principles on the record as well. With that, I am happy to conclude my remarks.