Move-on laws repeal – open season for militant unions

Today I spoke in Parliament opposing Labor’s legislation to repeal Victoria’s move-on laws and give open season to militant unions and extremist protesters.  This is what I said:

Summary Offences Amendment (Move-on Laws) Bill 2015

MR CLARK (Box Hill) — If you ever needed proof that this bill was a pay-off to the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU), boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) and other extremist groups that support the Labor Party, you need only look at the fact that the first speaker for the government this afternoon was the Minister for Industrial Relations, or more accurately the Minister for the CFMEU, and the bill has been passionately supported by the member for Thomastown, who is the member for BDS, and reinforced by the member for Melton. We saw what happened before these move-on laws were introduced. We saw the blockades at the Emporium site and we saw what happened to Max Brenner, which was innocently trying to sell chocolates. We have seen what has happened in the past, and we can see what we could so easily go back to in the future if these move-on laws are repealed.

Labor tries to hide behind the illusion that the move-on laws are in some form a threat to peaceful protest. There is no threat to the right to peaceful protest. Nothing in the legislation we passed detracted from that right. People remain free to march, hold rallies, wave banners, listen to speakers, gather outside employers premises or on the site of projects they disagree with and hold up signs calling for people not to enter premises or the site. They remain free to use all rights that accompany peaceful protest. What they should not have the right to do freely, and what the community is entitled to have effective protection against, is blockade others or threaten violence against others, regardless of who those protesting are or who they are protesting against.

The legislation we brought to Parliament last year, and which was enacted last year, achieved balanced, measured and reasonable provisions to weigh up those respective rights — to recognise and protect the right to peaceful protest but also to recognise and protect the right of others not to have their lawful activity interfered with by those who think they can put themselves above the law.

The bill that was passed last year expanded the existing grounds on which police could issue move-on orders under the Summary Offences Act to in future enable them to be issued where a person is impeding lawful access to premises, has committed an offence in a public place, is causing others to have a reasonable fear of violence, is endangering safety or is engaging in behaviour likely to cause damage to property. We have heard no justification from those opposite for people having the right to engage in any of those things. Instead they have tried to pretend there is some sort of threat to peaceful protest instead of doing the honest thing and trying to justify, if they dare, giving people a free hand to engage in that sort of conduct.

The other key feature of the change that was made last year was that it removed the previous blanket exemption from Labor’s own move-on powers for industrial or political protest. However, the bill as enacted last year specifically preserved exemptions relating to industrial or political protest in relation to breaching the peace or unreasonable obstruction so that those move-on grounds do not apply to industrial or political actions, given their uncertainty in those contexts. It needs to be specific blockading. The law enacted was carefully crafted and struck a fair and reasonable balance between upholding the rights of all citizens to go about their lawful business, including lawful protest, and not intruding on the legitimate rights of others.

It is important to recognise that the bill before the house does two separate things. First of all it gives back a total exemption from move-on powers to unionists and protesters who want to use force to impose their views on others. The member for Melton quoted the grounds on which the move-on powers remain, but he did not tell the house there was a total exemption from those grounds for any industrial or political protest. That total exemption is being reinstated by the bill. For the same reason, the media release put out by the Attorney-General in which he said:

Under the bill to be introduced today, Victoria Police will retain those powers to respond to illegal protests —

was also completely incorrect.

The second thing that the bill does is wind back the powers of police to deal with yobbos and street gangs who harass, threaten and disrupt ordinary Victorians who are simply walking the streets or are in other public places. It is totally separate from industrial or political disputes. It scales back the powers to tackle the problem that the former Labor government itself recognised needed to be tackled of those who hang about on the streets and make life miserable for ordinary Victorians who just want to peacefully go out for a night’s entertainment with the family. The power to protect those Victorians is also being scaled back by the bill before the house.

What the Labor Party is saying is that the police should not have this capacity to act effectively and on the spot to stop people engaging in these sorts of behaviours and to stop people in an industrial or political context or indeed in any other context from endangering safety, injuring people, damaging property, committing other offences, threatening violence, dealing in drugs or blockading premises. Protection against all these actions by the police is being scaled back by the bill that is before the house.

As I said, it is completely untrue to say the move-on laws that were enacted under the previous government stop lawful and peaceful protest. What they do is give police greater powers to stop those who seek to use force or coercion against people going about their lawful business. The legislation provides protection for everyone and against anyone who seeks to put themselves above the law. It does so regardless of the cause involved — left-wing, right-wing, pro-abortion, anti-abortion, pro duck hunting, anti-duck hunting, pro-Israel, anti-Israel. The law makes no distinctions on those grounds. The law makes no distinctions as to what the cause being advocated for is or what the actions being protested against are. It defines itself based on the criteria of lawfulness and respect for other people’s rights to go about their lawful business and to carry on their lawful activities.

It is clear that those on the other side of the house have been thinking about how the legislation might apply to them in the context of a protest, and that is a perfectly legitimate thing to do. As I have demonstrated, the right to protest peacefully is in no way inhibited by the move-on laws. However, it is important for those opposite — indeed for anybody contemplating the merits of this legislation — to also think about how the law will apply when you happen to be on the receiving end of a protest and when it is others who are taking the law into their own hands and seeking to inhibit your ability to freely go about your business, be it political, be it industrial, be it economic, be it ministerial, be it governmental, be it parliamentary or be it simply your activities as an ordinary citizen. As a legislator you need to have the sense of responsibility to think about both sides of the argument and ensure that the law respects all rights. The move-on laws strike a fair and reasonable balance for all so that people can protest, but not so as to put themselves above the law or use force or violence against others.

The claims made by the government that there are alternative effective remedies just do not stand up. Look at Grocon. Look at the cost and the time it took in the Supreme Court all the way to the High Court to have its rights upheld. How many small businesses and how many individual citizens have that capacity? Look at the claims about arrest powers being an adequate substitute. They tie up police for hours. They take police away from the street and from catching crooks. If you adopt that argument, you might as well say we will get rid of all on-the-spot fine laws for traffic offences and other street offences and require all cases to proceed by summons or arrest. It would bog down the police appallingly. It demonstrates that we will accept the fact that in these street offence matters and these on-the-spot matters police can act and a citizen always has the right, as they do with these move-on laws, to take the matter to court and have their day in court if they want to. Those rights are in no way affected by the legislation that was passed last year, so that argument also does not stand up.

As I said earlier, this badly thought through bill has a second dangerous effect. It makes it far easier for yobbos, drunks, bikie gangs and street gangs to engage in street offences, threaten and harass others, deal in drugs and block the path of anybody they do not like. The powers of police to deal with those matters are scaled back by this bill. What is that going to do for community safety? What is that going to do to make the streets safer at night for all Victorians, particularly for young women? What is that going to do for the cause of trying to reclaim the night for all Victorians, when police powers to deal with these matters are being scaled back? That is not the sort of Victoria we want to see. We want to see a Victoria that is safe for all in the community. That is what these move-on laws help to achieve.

(For original Hansard report, see http://hansard.parliament.vic.gov.au/isysquery/f6fdbbb7-590d-4db3-b957-3b2ed52de2bb/53/doc/)