Hansard debates

Mrs McARTHUR (Western Victoria) (16:20): My adjournment matter is for the Minister for Police and Emergency Services and relates to the curtailment of Victorians’ rights to freedom of assembly and self-expression. We cannot deny the peoples’ discontent at continued lockdown restrictions in metropolitan Melbourne. It is clear in polling, petitions and correspondence with parliamentarians, as well as the protest gatherings held to date. Public assembly is fundamental to a properly functioning democracy, and political freedom does not begin and end at the ballot box. Allowing citizens to express political discontent, including by means of public presence at a place or in procession, should be a central duty of the state. Even when specific catastrophic circumstances arise, including public health crises, this duty does not simply disappear. Any restrictions must be limited, proportionate, frequently reviewed and actively mitigated. Our widely drawn public health orders give the government great power. They must understand that failing to act in a transparent and proportionate manner fatally undermines the public trust which democracy requires.

Controlling free assembly and political expression may be legal under emergency powers. It may be convenient politically. But abuse of it will fatally undermine the democratic covenant which underpins our society, and it does not dispel the impression that our Premier believes he and his cabal know best and outside and opposing voices must by definition be wrong. Victorians who wish to protest against existing lockdown conditions do not have any overwhelming desire to act with hostility towards Victoria Police or to cause inconvenience to the public at large, nor do police officers take any joy in unduly restricting the rights of citizens or exposing themselves to the consequences of disorderly protest. They are caught in the middle, forced to tread a fine line between enforcing the Premier’s directions and trampling on the freedoms of their fellow Victorians. Mixed messages from government have made this operational judgement harder still.

Many observers have concluded that the absence of clear guidance presuming consent for protest makes selective application of the rules possible. We have seen subjective decisions based on political convenience, not objective public health grounds, and amounting to ministerial censorship of the democratic right to free assembly. The action I seek from the minister for police, therefore, is an affirmation of the legality of public assembly and protest and the active presumption of its consent. Furthermore, an instruction to Victoria Police from the minister to work where possible with protest leaders to facilitate events would restore fundamental rights, remove the perception of bias and reduce public tensions. It would enhance public safety, reduce disruption and cost, and rebuild Victorians’ trust in their government and police.