�鶹��ý

The Human Rights Law Centre’s (HRLC) latest report on anti-protest laws should concern all those trying to win more democracy from a system geared to limit it.

Protest in Peril: Our Shrinking Democracy, released on July 10, outlines how federal and state governments are trying to crush the fundamental right to protest.

Forty-nine such laws have been introduced, across Australia, over the last 20 years, with New South Wales having the most and South Australia the highest financial penalties.

David Mejia-Canales, a senior lawyer with HRLC, told �鶹��ý that the number of new laws is “very alarming”.

While some bills did not pass, he said every single one did harm because of the “false narrative about protesters these laws assumed” — that all protesters are “vandals” or “dangerous”.

Protest in Peril found that anti-protest laws consistently target environmental, climate and animal rights activists.

The HRLC said without a federal human rights act in place, Western Australia, SA, NSW, Tasmania and the Northern Territory face harsher anti-protest laws than the ACT, Victoria and Queensland, which have human rights protections.

Despite being a signatory on all major international human rights treaties, most state and territory governments have “proposed and enacted laws to limit protest rights that are incompatible with our international human rights obligations”, the report said.

“Common elements of these laws are vague and ill-defined offences, excessive police powers, disproportionately harsh penalties and the prioritisation of corporate interests, like forestry and mining, over the rights of people to access public land to voice dissent.”

The report compared two similar laws passed in Victoria, which has a human rights charter,��and SA, which does not.

It found that while Victoria had to consider the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities when introducing, passing and enacting new laws, SA had no such process.

HRLC recommends human rights acts be passed at federal, state and territory levels to amend the inconsistent protections given to the right to protest.

This would ensure that the consideration of human rights is embedded into the parliamentary process and, after passing the law, would inform how it is applied by the police and courts.

The HRLC also scrutinised the powers given to police in anti-protest laws, as well as the exorbitant bail conditions placed on activists.

“We’re finding across the board, human rights act or not, that often police services are not properly considering the human rights of people protesting,” Mejia-Canales said. “They often don’t see their role as protecting protests and protesters, but rather protecting the public from the [protesters].”

“Police are using … very draconian bail conditions to split up protest movements,” he added. “You have conditions, like, you cannot associate with anyone else from your organisation … you are not allowed to protest anything at any time, which, in and of itself is probably unconstitutional.”

He said some bail conditions “effectively put people under house arrest and that is not the purpose of bail”. Bail is about making sure you are going to come to court, Mejia-Canales said, it is not supposed to be a punitive measure.

Mejia-Canales said the country needs a federal human rights act. “We also need comprehensive human rights education … not just for the people who are making the decisions … but also so every single one of us … understands that these rights belong to us.”

That will mean that those rights cannot be removed so easily, he said.

The report recommended that if anti-protest laws are found to be incompatible with Australia’s human rights obligations, but cannot be amended, they must be repealed.