Napthine's so-called "Silencing Act"

[Mao]

I've seen this pop up in facebook a couple of times, but there are surprisingly little news coverage about it. The only report that cites the news source is this article from the Geelong Advisor:

http://www.geelongadvertiser.com.au/news/opinion/right-of-protest-lives-in-the-memory-of-mandela/story-fnjuhr1j-1226829437152

...
The Napthine Government has tabled a bill to amend the Summary Offences Act 1966, which would expand the powers of police and public service officers (PSOs) to “move on” workers and activists who are engaged in protests, pickets and demonstrations.

The Bill also creates a new scheme of “exclusion orders” that ban individuals from entering a specified public spaces for up to 12 months.

A breach of such an exclusion order may lead to a custodial sentence of up to two years.

The Summary Offences Act 1966 provides powers for police and PSOs to give a direction for a person or persons to move on from a public place under certain circumstances. However, these powers do not currently apply to people picketing a place of employment or participating in a demonstration or protest.

These changes are clearly designed to remove the existing protections on protests, pickets and demonstrations that may foreseeably lead to a more confrontational posture between parties and police at such events.

It would also allow police to make move on orders to “groups of people” instead of individuals, meaning that police could issue orders for an entire peaceful assembly of union members to move on during a protest or picket. Failure to comply with such an order can result in a $720 fine (per person) and/or arrest.

The Bill proposes a new scheme of exclusion orders that prohibit a person from entering a specified public place for up to 12 months. The magistrates’ court could make such an order where a person has “repeatedly been directed to move on from the same public place” and the making of such an order would prevent further conduct.

Arrest powers would apply even where a person is not “caught in the act” of contravening an exclusion order. The police only need a “reasonable suspicion” that such a contravention has occurred in order to make the arrest.

The proposal allows limited judicial discretion on the content of orders, but it is unclear what effect they may have on employees who having been excluded from attending an area around their workplace.
...

http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2014/02/17/summ-f17.html

...

Grounds for issuing a move-on notice include causing an “undue obstruction” to others or impeding someone from “lawfully entering or leaving premises.” A notice can also be issued if a person has allegedly committed an offence within the past 12 hours, or if the police claim there is a risk of violence. Failure to comply with a direction would result in a $720 fine and possible arrest and detention. The notices can be issued not only by police, but also Protective Service Officers, the armed security guards who patrol train stations.
Attorney-General Robert Clarke, introducing the bill to parliament on December 12, alluded to its antidemocratic implications when he distinguished between “legitimate rights to lawful protest” and incidents in which “protesters go beyond legitimate expression of views and instead resort to threats of violence or seek to impede the rights of others to lawfully enter or leave premises.” It will be left to the police to determine what is a “legitimate” demonstration or protest.

The opposition Labor Party paved the way for the government’s measures. The previous Labor government introduced the police “move-on” powers in 2009, as part of a broader “law and order” package that also allowed police to publicly strip search people in designated zones. Supposedly aimed at violent crime, these laws have been used over the past five years to harass mainly working class youth.

The Liberal government is once again invoking the “law and order” mantra to justify its amendments to the Summary Offences Act. Attorney-General Clarke said the laws “will give police a new tool for addressing low-level street drug dealing and for breaking up gangs that gather in public places to threaten people or engage in criminal behaviour.”

The focus, however, has been on cracking down on protests and pickets. The bill removes the limited exemptions to the “move-on” powers, affecting protests and pickets, that were in Labor’s 2009 legislation.

Under existing legislation, protesters or unionists can be charged with a range of offences, including besetting premises, obstruction, hindering and trespass. These charges, however, sometimes resulted in complicated and unsuccessful prosecutions. Similarly, some magistrates overturned bail restrictions that prohibited people from returning to demonstrations. The new powers will provide police with a simple, on-the-spot, method of clearing an area and targeting any individuals involved in protests or pickets.

...

The proposed bill in question is here: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/bill/soasab2013395/

From a brief skim, it appears to be targeted at protests like the Occupy movement, or the multiple days Grocon blockade. But implications of a bill like this can be huge if used in the wrong hands. Could someone with a bit more law background give some insights?

[Professor Polonsky]

Oh shit, the protest was today and I completely forgot about it...

I'd recommend working with a pdf version of the bill, the austlii version is ugly. Of the eight criteria that will be in the Summary Offences Act (the first three that already in the Act, and the other five that are being added to it), the ones that could reasonably apply to a protest are (a) and (f). If you notice, there is a protection under subsection (5) for protestors against move on powers issued under 1(a) and (f). There is no such exemption for 1(h), meaning that the police can legally break up union pickets.

The more concerning part of the bill for me, at least, are the arrest powers and exclusion orders. The criteria for issuing a move on direction are extremely broad, which is why the power is a relatively minor one - you must leave the area for the immediate future, but cannot apply for more than 24 hours at most. Being able to arrest anyone who's not in compliance is fairly broad in itself. Being able to issue an order prohibiting someone from even being in a public area for up to 12 months is quite excessive.