Hansard debates

Mrs McARTHUR (Western Victoria) (16:40): I rise today to support Mr Quilty’s notice of motion 456 in relation to the freedom of assembly. I do so having also put a notice on the agenda, motion 396, which refers to very similar aspects to those that Mr Quilty is raising. Unlike my colleague Dr Bach I have been involved in protests and assemblies, and I was very pleased to support the Save the Brumbies groups that came to this place at the very beginning of the virus outbreak. They were heavily restricted in how they could voice their opinion, and they complied with all the rules and regulations of keeping distance and numbers to 10; the second one was 20, I think. However, I was disturbed that the very next day after the brumby supporters had only been allowed to have 20 people on the steps of Parliament House the Black Lives Matter protest was allowed to have thousands. On that occasion there was clear inconsistency with how one group was treated, and I think Mr Limbrick and Mr Quilty have highlighted the inconsistencies of this position.

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—even if it is against the Premier and some draconian lockdown rules and regulations that we have experienced—including by means of public presence at a place or in a procession, should be the 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 recently gave the government great power, but 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—nor does it dispel the impression that our Premier believes he and his cabal know best and that outside and opposing voices must be, by definition, wrong.

I think it is vitally important that we allow free speech in the form of protest, if that is what we will call it. Peaceful assembly and demonstration complying with certain regulations, possibly, are vitally important in this democracy, in this country and in a liberal democratic society. We cannot infringe on other people’s space and other people’s rights, but certainly we do have to ensure that this right is maintained. It is critical to how we operate in the state of Victoria. I am pleased to support Mr Quilty’s motion, and I hope it succeeds.