The move minimises consultation and hearings initially planned for the bill – something the ALHR notes is concerning given the impact it will have on the public and key industry stakeholders.

“We are very concerned that the proposed truncated process for considering the bill evidences a lack of regard for due and democratic process,” ALHR president Kerry Weste said.

“Draft legislation should be subject to transparent consultation with the public and relevant stakeholders wherever possible. This is particularly so where proposed measures contemplate the granting of additional powers to the police and potentially impact internationally recognised human rights.”

The proposed amendments work to enable police with further search and seizure powers where they reasonably suspect people are carrying attachment devices that are designed to prevent or delay the removal of protesters from public spaces.

The draft legislation also makes it an offence for protesters to use such attachment devices in public places, with protestors facing up to two years imprisonment, Ms Weste noted.

“Australia’s international legal obligations require any restrictions on rights such as the right to peaceful assembly to be necessary and proportionate,” she said.

“ALHR is of the view that the bill does not strike an appropriate balance and goes too far in restricting Queenslanders’ rights under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, as well as their constitutionally implied right to freedom of political communication.

VIEW ALL

“Moreover the right to peaceful protest has long been respected in Queensland and is recognised in the Peaceful Assembly Act 1992 and the recently passed Queensland Human Rights Act 2019.”

Ms Weste acknowledged that while the government and police have a duty to maintain public safety, “any decision to grant additional powers to police should be based on compelling and strong evidence that such powers are necessary and proportionate to the risks sought to be addressed”.

“ALHR does not consider that such evidence has been demonstrated in these circumstances,” Ms Weste explained.

“Historically, protests have often inspired positive social change and the advancement of human rights. Protests encourage the development of an engaged and informed citizenry and strengthen representative democracy by enabling direct participation in public affairs.

“The government should resist criminalising protestor conduct and instead ensure there are mechanisms in place to ensure that citizens can freely voice their opinions on political issues so that protests can continue to be carried out peacefully in Queensland.”

Caxton Legal Centre’s Human Rights and Civil Law Practice also condemned the proposed changes.

“Until clear and compelling evidence of the justification for these new laws is made public we believe that the proposed amendments should not proceed,” said director  Bridget Burton.

“It is particularly disappointing to see these changes under consideration when Queensland’s Human Rights Act, which includes both the right to freedom of expression and the right to peaceful assembly, is currently being implemented.

“One goal of the Human Rights Act is to help build a culture in the Queensland public sector that respects and promotes human rights. We encourage the Government to continue its leadership on this, rather than responding to protest through the imposition of harsher penalties without proper consideration of the consequences of introducing these new laws and whether they are indeed required.”