Speaker 1: What are you hoping to achieve by coming here today?
Speaker 2: Well, I'm hoping to help show the abhorrence that a
Speaker 2: lot of Australians have for this visit and how insulting
Speaker 2: that is in the context of our multicultural community.
Speaker 1: Thousands of protesters here in Sydney. It's Monday night and
Speaker 1: they're demonstrating against the controversial visit by Israeli President Isaac Hertzel.
Speaker 1: He was invited here by the Prime Minister Anthony Alberizi
Speaker 1: after the Bondai terror attack earlier in the day. He
Speaker 1: visited Bondai and later wreath to honor the fifteen people
Speaker 1: killed in the attack. But these protesters say Hertzong is
Speaker 1: not welcome.
Speaker 3: The fact that our government has invited a member of
Speaker 3: the Israeli government here to represent Jews, I think is
Speaker 3: highly offensive to many in the Jewish community.
Speaker 4: Who's a person.
Speaker 5: Who has said that all Palasinian people are responsible for
Speaker 5: what happened on October seven and has incited that demonization
Speaker 5: of a.
Speaker 4: Whole group of people, and it's just not just and
Speaker 4: it shouldn't be here.
Speaker 1: The New South Wales government put limits on the march
Speaker 1: and protesters challenged it. They lost in a last minute
Speaker 1: decision by the court, but they won't be silenced.
Speaker 6: It's just inconceivable that people who are trying to stop
Speaker 6: the murder of children, families of people in Palestine should
Speaker 6: not be able to freely protest what is going on.
Speaker 3: And they represent sort of opportunistic push from the New
Speaker 3: Southist governments to stop protests, particularly protests against the genocide
Speaker 3: in Palestan.
Speaker 1: I'm Nicole Johnston and you're listening to seven am today
Speaker 1: President of the New South Wales Council for Civil Liberties,
Speaker 1: Timothy Roberts on whether the right to protest is under
Speaker 1: threat and what this means for the rest of the country.
Speaker 1: It's Tuesday, February ten. Tim, could you explain what this
Speaker 1: court case was about and your reaction to the ruling.
Speaker 5: Well, the court case was about the Men's government using
Speaker 5: another set of powers that had had on its books,
Speaker 5: essentially some rules around special events and the ability of
Speaker 5: the police to use powers to move on crowds of
Speaker 5: people and to disperse crowds with respect to those events.
Speaker 5: And there was a question from the Palestine Action Group
Speaker 5: in particular as to whether or not this was a
Speaker 5: valid use of that legislation. And that power, and ultimately
Speaker 5: the judge decided it was.
Speaker 1: And what else did the judge have to say about it?
Speaker 4: Well?
Speaker 5: Nothing, Basically, the judge made the decision without reasons. It's
Speaker 5: common for them to provide it later for scrutiny, and
Speaker 5: I think it was the option court to get them
Speaker 5: out as quickly as possible given the impact they had
Speaker 5: on the event and the protests themselves.
Speaker 4: But really it wasn't something that was ventilated at the time.
Speaker 1: Tim have we ever seen these types of powers given
Speaker 1: to the police before, all these types of major event
Speaker 1: laws used in this way to restrict a protest.
Speaker 4: Not in this context.
Speaker 5: This is unusual where these powers are used as big
Speaker 5: events where there's needed a large police presence and there's
Speaker 5: issues of crowds and stuff.
Speaker 4: So you can think about big sporting events and the like.
Speaker 4: So using in this context is new. And the concern
Speaker 4: therefore is.
Speaker 5: That the police will be able to draw on this
Speaker 5: power in the future going forward and use it to
Speaker 5: suppress and disperse crowds in protests.
Speaker 4: And so the court has made a decision that many
Speaker 4: might not agree with.
Speaker 5: What is unequivocal is that we have a legislator, a
Speaker 5: government that has been passing laws and giving police by
Speaker 5: too much power to control these events and to restrict
Speaker 5: interfere with our protests. So when it comes to a
Speaker 5: decision we don't agree with, that's based on laws that
Speaker 5: are on the books.
Speaker 4: If you don't agree with that, that's the question, then
Speaker 4: you need to take to.
Speaker 5: Your local member of Parliament and something in money to
Speaker 5: take to the ballot box next time if you don't
Speaker 5: agree with what's.
Speaker 1: Happened coming up? What does this all mean for freedom
Speaker 1: of expression? Tim? We've seen wide restrictions on protests in
Speaker 1: New South Wales since the Bondai attack. What do these
Speaker 1: laws actually do?
Speaker 5: So, the laws that were introduced after the Pondeye attack
Speaker 5: empowered the Police Commissioner to make a declaration that particular
Speaker 5: areas are designated to be assembly free essentially, so that
Speaker 5: is to say, there's a prohibition against seeking authorization to
Speaker 5: have an assembly. Very broad powers, and I'm being particularly
Speaker 5: vague about what area means because they are as agus
Speaker 5: that in the laws and we saw over the period
Speaker 5: after Bondie and when the laws were passed the police
Speaker 5: do just that declare large ways of Sydney to be
Speaker 5: free from authorized protest and then restricting that depending on
Speaker 5: the particular circumstances that were evolving as to what protests
Speaker 5: they would allow not allowed to be authorized. It's a
Speaker 5: really really concerning future or development that's changed with these laws.
Speaker 5: Is the involvement of the police commissioner now in these
Speaker 5: decisions about what protests can and can't be authorized.
Speaker 7: Is it the role of the police to step between
Speaker 7: the animosity and part of the population, and are currently
Speaker 7: you know, to make declaration about people's so political views
Speaker 7: about that lead.
Speaker 4: No, my view is purely on community safety.
Speaker 8: I need to balance up the level of animosity about
Speaker 8: his visit with.
Speaker 4: The need for community safety.
Speaker 2: And that's what we've done again.
Speaker 5: So where before there was this broad recognition that we
Speaker 5: all had that right, an unequivocal right to protest and
Speaker 5: then also seek authorization of protest, now in these events,
Speaker 5: the police commissioner says quite broadly, no one can. And
Speaker 5: so while you know, what happened in Bondai was obviously
Speaker 5: the beginning of this particular law. You saw it impact
Speaker 5: communities related to Venezuela, communities related to Iran, other international events,
Speaker 5: other circumstances. Invasion Day was a big one those communities
Speaker 5: were also impacted by these laws, so it was really
Speaker 5: quite a stark example of a law affecting one group,
Speaker 5: or passed with the intention to protect one group, impacting
Speaker 5: as law.
Speaker 1: Tim The state government says that it's new protest laws,
Speaker 1: a short term that they don't formally ban or protest.
Speaker 1: They say they're trying to reduce tension in the community
Speaker 1: around the Hertzeg.
Speaker 8: Visit, balancing the rights of protest alongside the understandable responsibility
Speaker 8: of the New South Wales government and the police to
Speaker 8: protect a visiting head of state as well as mourners
Speaker 8: as well as protesters and regular Sydney siders who are
Speaker 8: going about their job on a Monday afternoon. We're trying
Speaker 8: to get that balance right.
Speaker 1: How convincing is that argument to you and what could
Speaker 1: be the long term impact of the crackdown.
Speaker 5: I think the long term impact of the crackdown is
Speaker 5: that we have a community that changes its understanding of
Speaker 5: what its rights are. You know, it started with an
Speaker 5: unequivocal right to assembly and political communication. It's one of
Speaker 5: the few rights that are protecting our constitution. But it's
Speaker 5: a right that we only really have if we use it.
Speaker 4: And know we have it.
Speaker 5: And the concern is that as a community that we
Speaker 5: change our understanding we live our rights. That's the start
Speaker 5: of it. But I don't think that is a particularly
Speaker 5: convincing argument at all. I think it's one of those
Speaker 5: ones that is used with things like social cohesion and
Speaker 5: the like. You know, I keep keep bringing this to
Speaker 5: the idea that you know, yeah, sure, if an angry
Speaker 5: dad coming home shats at a family for to be
Speaker 5: quiet because they're annoying him, sure the thing that's frustrated,
Speaker 5: the issue goes away. But it's not peace, it's not cohesion,
Speaker 5: it's not safe. If we want to be in a
Speaker 5: safe community, we have to have ideas be contested and
Speaker 5: we have to do it in public spaces. And that's
Speaker 5: what assembly and political communication is. So we have laws
Speaker 5: that put in the police hands the ability to control that.
Speaker 5: We've got a real problem because we'll see some groups
Speaker 5: get allowed to assemble and others not, and others sort
Speaker 5: of be permitted and rules change for some.
Speaker 4: That's the division.
Speaker 5: That's the division is when some voices are listened to
Speaker 5: and not others. And I truly believe the animosity in
Speaker 5: the environment now, the tension the stress that has come
Speaker 5: about the course of the intervention of the government in
Speaker 5: trying to silence protest and intervene. So it's actively doing
Speaker 5: the opposite of what they're saying it can do.
Speaker 4: And as this time passes.
Speaker 5: And we heal as a community, we've got to be
Speaker 5: really worried then about what happens to our right to
Speaker 5: assemble around issues like climate change or your workers' rights,
Speaker 5: or you know, some other circumstance we want to assemble
Speaker 5: about the actions of the men's government.
Speaker 4: We now have an environment where those rights have been a.
Speaker 5: Road and we might not be able to avail ourselves
Speaker 5: all of them as readily, and that's the worry of Utimately,
Speaker 5: it's about keeping our government to account and letting them
Speaker 5: know what our views are, and we're not getting close to.
Speaker 1: That goal now. Separately, we have a number of activist groups.
Speaker 1: They've filed another Supreme Court challenge against these broader restrictions
Speaker 1: that were brought in after Bondai. What is that case about.
Speaker 4: It's about whether or not again the new laws are valid.
Speaker 5: So every time there's a constitutional challenge, if you will,
Speaker 5: to laws like this, you're balancing the question about whether
Speaker 5: or not there.
Speaker 4: Was a purpose in the one sense, a valid purpose
Speaker 4: for them, and.
Speaker 5: Whether or not because they are an infringement on these
Speaker 5: key rights to our democracy. So whether or not that
Speaker 5: burden on that particular right in New South Wales has
Speaker 5: been overly done and the groups that are challenging the
Speaker 5: laws are saying that the balance isn't right and there's
Speaker 5: an impermissible burden on our right to communicate with each
Speaker 5: other because of them, and the hope from these groups
Speaker 5: is that as that the laws will be wound back
Speaker 5: as result.
Speaker 1: Tim we're seeing these New South Wales restrictions in the
Speaker 1: middle of a wider debate about cracking down on protests
Speaker 1: all over the country. Queensland is set to introduce the
Speaker 1: first hate speech laws, banning two pro Palestinian slogans. What
Speaker 1: does all of this say about how Australia is trying
Speaker 1: to balance that idea of social cohesion with freedom of expression.
Speaker 5: I think it says that we have a real failing
Speaker 5: of political leadership in our country. Quite frankly, we have
Speaker 5: a community in distress, we have pain. We've had decades
Speaker 5: of understanding that to have reconciliation, to have cohesion, we
Speaker 5: need to have truth telling and speak in exchange, and
Speaker 5: yet we have leadership that is troubled by difficult times
Speaker 5: is choosing to use a regressive approach to that so
Speaker 5: as opposed of allowing truth telling, allowing disputes to happen.
Speaker 5: So if we have governments and leadership that have this
Speaker 5: view of our democracy where it's okay to regressively approach
Speaker 5: our ability to tell the truth to each other, it's
Speaker 5: a failing of political leadership. My part of the community
Speaker 5: is to understand and educate themselves about their rights. There's
Speaker 5: lots of ways they can look for more information about
Speaker 5: their rights, because if they did, I think would be
Speaker 5: more front of mine about what's happening and why this
Speaker 5: approach is being taken. It is interesting that the federal
Speaker 5: government and the New South Wales government who have taken
Speaker 5: the lead in this regressive approach are both states and
Speaker 5: governments that do not have a Human Rights Act in
Speaker 5: this country, do not have human rights front and center
Speaker 5: of political public decisions, while yes, some of.
Speaker 4: The other states that have followed do. I think it's
Speaker 4: telling that.
Speaker 5: In those communities where it's not part of our public discourse,
Speaker 5: our front of mine understanding of our rights, that those
Speaker 5: rights have been eroded first, so I think it's time
Speaker 5: for us to get better equated with our rights and
Speaker 5: understanding about how our democracy works.
Speaker 1: Tim, thanks for joining us.
Speaker 4: Thank you for having me.
Speaker 1: Also in the news, the Australian man behind New Zealand's
Speaker 1: deadliest mass shooting, which saw fifty one Muslim worshipers killed,
Speaker 1: is in court attempting to have his guilty please thrown out.
Speaker 1: Brenton Tarrant claims he was not in a fit state
Speaker 1: to plead guilty to the terrorism murder and attempted murder
Speaker 1: chargers in twenty nineteen. He's testified that he felt forced
Speaker 1: to admit the crimes because of the harsh prison conditions
Speaker 1: and to Ozzie. Super Bowl superstar Michael Dixon is celebrating
Speaker 1: after being labeled the real MVP in the Seattle Seahawks
Speaker 1: twenty nine to thirteen win over the Patriots. Dixon played
Speaker 1: a starring role in the victory. He's just the second
Speaker 1: Australian to start and win a Super Bowl. I'm Nicole Johnston.
Speaker 1: This is seven am catchulator.
Speaker 2: You have un