1. No category

People and Planet before Profit
Brisbane Community Action Network – G20 (BrisCAN - G20)
PO Box 5829, West End Qld 4101
www.briscan.net.au; www.facebook.com/briscan.g20
9 April 2015
Review of the G20 (Safety and Security) Act 2013
Crime and Corruption Commission
Policy and Research unit
GPO Box 3123
Brisbane Qld 4001
Email: [email protected]
Submission to: Review of the G20 (Safety and Security) Act 2013
Prepared by Greg Brown and Robin Taubenfeld
For BrisCAN – BAST – Brisbane Activist Support Team
Supported by Friends of the Earth Brisbane PACE – Peace, Anti-Nuclear & Clean Energy Collective
1.
BrisCAN is pleased to make the following public submission in relation to the review of the G20
(Safety and Security) Act 2013 (Qld) (‘G20 Act’).
2.
The submission below highlights some of the significant derogations of human rights relating to
peaceful assembly and freedom of expression that occurred in the lead up to and during the G20
event.
3.
It is argued in this submission that the policing operation overseen by the G20 taskforce was
responsible for a major suppression of civil liberties. “The taskforce stripped away Queenslanders’
democratic rights in a manner Bjelke-Petersen could only have dreamed about” one activist has
commented.
4.
It is contended that one focus of the exercise was constraining the civil liberties and curbing the
activities of the thousands who turned up to demonstrate, participate in street theatre and discuss
social justice matters in the many forums and meetings.
5.
The media, particularly the Murdoch media, willingly collaborated with the Taskforce in ensuring that
attention was deflected from any critical examination of G20 policies, discussion of the priorities of
the capitalist system it is associated with, and reflection on how to build a safe, fulfilling and
environmentally sustainable society for all of our children. Critical discussion lost out to regular front
page articles about fictitious anarchist threats that were used to justify the $450 million dollar
budget for the security operation.
6.
The suppression of civil liberties and the media’s construction of the G20 narrative denied the
broader community of an opportunity for informed debate.
7.
BrisCAN hopes that the discussion generated by this review will help lay the foundations for ensuring
that no such assault on Queenslanders’ civil liberties is permitted again.
1
Table of contents
Introduction........................................................................ ......................... 1
A
BrisCAN-G20.............................. ......................... ......................... 2
B
Human Rights Framework.................................... ......................... 3
C
Soft International Law......................................... ......................... 4
D
The G20 Legislative Framework........................... ......................... 6
E
Additional Security Services.................... ...................................... 6
F
Lawful Assembly............................................................................ 6
Public order policing models...... ............ ......................... 6
Policing and the G20............................... ......................... 8
Coercion and consent................ ............ ......................... 9
Militarised policing – a chilling factor............................... 10
The relationship between policing and the media........... 10
Pre-emptive curtailment of dissenting activities.............. 14
G20 Act, ss 17 – 18............................................................ 16
The locus of protest.......................................................... 17
G
Prohibited persons......................................................................... 18
Ciaron O’Reilly................................................................... 19
H
Surrendered and seized items....................................................... 19
J
Conclusion...................................................................................... 21
Annexure ....................................................................................................... 22
Activists’ stories about G20 policing.............................................................. 23
Sophie’s comments about G20 policing............................ ............ 23
Legion’s comments about G20 policing............................ ............ 25
Anthony’s comments about G20 policing......................... ............ 26
Ciaron’s comments about G20 policing............................ ............ 27
Stephen’s comments about G20 policing......................... ............ 28
Brad’s statement about G20 policing............................... ............ 29
Reflections on G20 by Robin Taubenfeld ...................................... ............ 30
Report from a G20 Observer by Dawn Joyce................................................. 33
BrisCAN report back about meeting with QPS on 29 Oct 2014..................... 36
BrisCAN report back about meeting with QPS on 13 Nov 2014.................... 39
Sonic cannons to be deployed during G20.................................................... 40
Draft Memorandum of Understanding..........................................................42
A
BrisCAN-G20
8.
The Brisbane Community Action Network – G20 (‘BrisCAN’) formed as a response to the Brisbane
G20 meeting, planned for Nov 15-16, 2014.
9.
BrisCAN is concerned about the ongoing ecological destruction and social and economic and
disparities perpetuated by G20 and the system it represents. BrisCAN helped to bring together
people with a diversity of views on politics and campaign tactics.
10.
BrisCAN acknowledges that we live on Aboriginal land and supports First Nations’ struggles for land,
culture and justice.
11.
Our aim was and is to facilitate vibrant community-based action for an ecologically and socially just
world and foster peaceful collaborations for progressive and positive change locally and globally in
the lead up to G20 and beyond.
2
12.
BrisCAN has argued that freedom of expression, the right to dissent and freedom of assembly are
rights crucial to the ability of ordinary people to influence public policy, seek remedies, and campaign
for environmental sustainability and a socially just society.
B
Human Rights Framework
13.
One measure of the ‘effectiveness’ of any statute is the degree to which it upholds international
human rights laws and standards. In relation to the G20 Act it is appropriate that an assessment be
made of its compatibility with human rights law pertaining to the rights to peaceful assembly and
freedom of expression.
14.
The United Nations Human Rights Council recognises:
“that the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association are essential components of
democracy, providing individuals with invaluable opportunities to, inter alia, express their political
opinions, engage in literary and artistic pursuits and other cultural, economic and social activities,
engage in religious observances or other beliefs, form and join trade unions and cooperatives, and
elect leaders to represent their interests and hold them accountable.”1
15.
Australia ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (‘ICCPR’) in 1980. Article 21
ICCPR states:
The right of peaceful assembly shall be recognized. No restrictions may be placed on the exercise of
this right other than those imposed in conformity with the law and which are necessary in a
democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, public order (ordre public),
the protection of public health or morals or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.
16.
Article 19(2) ICCPR states:
Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek,
receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing
or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice.
17.
Article 21 notes the right is not absolute and states the circumstances in which restrictions may be
imposed.
“Where such restrictions are made, States must demonstrate their necessity and only take such
measures as are proportionate to the pursuance of legitimate aims in order to ensure
continuous and effective protection of Covenant rights.”2
18.
The nature of the circumstances in which a derogation is permissible is specified in Article 4(1) ICCPR
which states:
In time of public emergency which threatens the life of the nation and the existence of which is
officially proclaimed, the States Parties to the present Covenant may take measures derogating
from their obligations under the present Covenant to the extent strictly required by the exigencies of
the situation...
19.
Various submissions made in relation the Legal Affairs and Community Safety Committee’s inquiry
into the G20 Bill arguably established that the many of the Bill’s provisions were disproportionate, if
not simply unnecessary. And no one in government or the G20 Taskforce attempted to argue that
the G20 was associated with a “public emergency which threatens the life of the nation.”
20.
Article 25 ICCPR upholds the right of all citizens to engage in participatory democracy:
1
United Nations Human Rights Council resolution A/HRC/RES/15/21, ’The rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and
of association’, 6 October 2010.
2
UN Human Rights Committee (HRC), General comment no. 31 [80], The nature of the general legal obligation
imposed on States Parties to the Covenant, 26 May 2004, CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.13, [paragraph 4] available at:
http://www.refworld.org/docid/478b26ae2.html [accessed 1 April 2015].
3
Every citizen shall have the right and the opportunity... without unreasonable restrictions:
(a) To take part in the conduct of public affairs, directly or through freely chosen representatives...
21.
As a party to the ICCPR Australia has a general obligation to give effect to the Covenant’s Articles.3
Article 50 of the ICCPR states that the Covenant’s provisions “shall extend to all parts of federal
States without any limitations or exceptions.” That is the ICCPR is binding upon the States. It is
argued that Queensland, the QPS and G20 Taskforce failed in their obligation to uphold the right of
the community to express political opinions and debate public affairs.
22.
BrisCAN-G20 suggests that a useful lesson to draw from the G20 event is the desirability of a
mechanism to ensure the enforceability of human rights instruments ratified by Australia.
23.
A further relevant human rights instrument is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Australia
voted in the General Assembly to adopt the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in December
1948. Article 19 states:
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold
opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any
media and regardless of frontiers.
24.
Article 20 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states:
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.
2. No one may be compelled to belong to an association.
C
Soft International Law
25.
A considerable body of soft law complements the principal international human rights instruments,
and provides the detail needed to guide adherence to the relevant principles.
26.
The Report of the Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of
association, (A/HRC/20/27),4 to the United Nations Human Rights Council, 21 May 2012, is reflective
of this body of law.
27.
The report defines an “assembly” as “an intentional and temporary gathering in a private or public
space for a specific purpose. It therefore includes demonstrations, inside meetings, strikes,
processions, rallies or even sits-in.”5
28.
It reaffirms that “Assemblies play a vibrant role in mobilizing the population and formulating
grievances and aspirations, facilitating the celebration of events and, importantly, influencing States‟
public policy.”6
29.
The Special Rapporteur’s report notes that the State has a positive obligation to:
o facilitate the right to peaceful assembly;7
o protect peaceful assemblies, including from agents provocateurs, including such
individuals who belong to the State apparatus or are working on its behalf;8
30.
Relevant to section 18 of the G20 Act it states that:
3
Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, Article 26.
The Report of the Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association,
(A/HRC/20/27), http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/HRCouncil/RegularSession/Session20/A-HRC-2027_en.pdf
5
Ibid [24].
6
Ibid [24].
7
Ibid [27].
8
Ibid [33].
4
4

“an individual does not cease to enjoy the right to peaceful assembly as a result of sporadic
violence or other punishable acts committed by others in the course of the demonstration, if
the individual in question remains peaceful in his or her own intentions or behaviour”.9
31.
In relation to freedom of peaceful assembly and association the Special Rapporteur:
o opposes the practice of “kettling”;10
o stresses the importance of genuine dialogue between law enforcement authorities and
protest organisers;11
o notes that any restrictions imposed on the right of peaceful assembly must be necessary
and proportionate to the aim pursued;12
o warns against the practice whereby demonstrations are allowed to take place only in
places where its impact will be muted;13
o states that the free flow of traffic should not automatically take precedence over freedom
of peaceful assembly.14
32.
The Statement by the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful
assembly and of association at the conclusion of his visit to the United Kingdom15notes that the
following practices are violations of or detrimental to freedom of peaceful assembly:
o undercover policing , ie police infiltration of activist groups;
o intelligence databases – the collection and collation of information about protestors and
activists has a chilling effect on protestors (as highlighted by the UK Court of Appeal in Wood v
Commissioner of Police for Metropolis [2009] EWCA Civ 414, [2009] 4 All ER 951, [2010] 2 LRC
184);
o categorisation of some groups of protestors as “domestic extremists” – the Special Rapporteur
notes that “Some police officials, while ostensibly differentiating between extremist groups and
others using direct action, often conflate them...”;
o containment or “kettling”;
o excessive use of force;
o “pre-emptive measures” eg. arrests of individuals suspected by the authorities “of being likely
to commit offences during protests”;
o “use of stop-and-search powers ...in the context of peaceful protests”;
o “strict police bail conditions” – specifically bail conditions that “deter protestors from further
exercising their rights.”
33.
The statement notes in relation to liaison policing that:
o the rational of liaison policing is praiseworthy, but cautions about the use of liaison officers “to
exert an insidious form of control”; and
o in order for police liaison to work the liaison function needs to be separated from intelligence
gathering which “negates the goodwill and good relations that police liaison officers can foster,
by fuelling mistrust among protestors”.
9
Ibid [25].
Ibid [37].
11
Ibid [38]
12
Ibid [40].
13
Ibid [40].
14
Ibid [41]
15
Statement by the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of
association at the conclusion of his visit to the United Kingdom
<http://www.ohchr.org/en/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=12945&LangID=E#sthash.6TRs4zaY.dpuf>
10
5
D
The G20 legislative framework
34.
BrisCAN supports the conclusions drawn in submissions to the Legal Affairs and Community Safety
Committee’s inquiry into the G20 Bill, for example by:
 the Caxton Legal Centre that the statute unnecessarily infringed fundamental freedoms,
provided far too broad discretionary powers and lacked adequate judicial oversight of
executive powers;
 Dan Rogers of Robertson O’Gorman solicitors that the Bill was unnecessary, disproportionate
to the perceived threat and inconsistent with the values underpinning our democracy;
 the Human Rights Law Centre that crucial terms were lacked clarity of definition and that the
provisions transferred significant discretion to police “increasing the risk of these extraordinary
powers being used in an arbitrary and discriminatory way”; and
 Australian Lawyers for Human Rights that the G20 Bill was simply unnecessary.
35.
The decision to create legislation specifically for the G20 was informed by legislative frameworks
used by other jurisdictions to provide powers for similar events. In developing the G20 Bill
consideration was given to the provisions of the APEC Meeting (Police Powers) Act 2007 (NSW)
(‘APEC Act’).16 Many of the APEC Act provisions were adapted and incorporated into the G20 Act.
36.
This approach resulted in various human rights breaches that occurred in the policing of APEC (eg.
prohibited persons list, reversal of the onus of proof, presumption against bail etc) being
unnecessarily repeated at the G20 events in Cairns and Brisbane.17
37.
The pretexts used for justifying the G20 Act’s derogation of basic rights and liberties were spurious.
No credible terror threat was announced and the G20 Taskforce was always aware that there is no
tradition in Australia of protestors burning police cars and smashing ATMs.
38.
It is argued that the enactment of stand-alone legislation, based upon other statutes eg. relating to
the policing of APEC, CHOGM or the G20, is unnecessary and results in repetitions of human rights
violations.
E
Additional security services
39.
Approximately “4500 QPS officers, 1500 interstate and New Zealand officers, and 650 Australian
Federal Police were involved in the security operation.” The cost of the security operation conducted
by the Commonwealth Taskforce was $450 million.18
40.
It is suggested that that funding could be more usefully used socially useful initiatives such as the
provision of meaningful jobs, resources for hospitals and schools and funding for renewable energy.
F
Lawful Assembly
Public order policing models
41.
16
One of the factors that heavily influenced the shape of major rally and march on Saturday November
15 was the public order policing model employed by the QPS.
G20 (Safety and Security) Bill 2013 Explanatory Notes, 16.
For discussion on the human rights breaches that occurred at the Sydney APEC meeting refer to Liz Snell, Protest,
Protection, Policing: The expansion of police powers and the impact on human rights in NSW, The policing of APEC
2007 as a case study, Combined Community Legal Centres’ Group (NSW) and Kingsford Legal Centre.
18
Crime and Corruption Commission Consultation Paper March 2015, 1.
6
17
42.
The QPS stated that it would liaise with protest organisers to facilitate peaceful protests at G20
events.19 Assistant Commissioner Katarina Carroll from the QPS G20 Group said the QPS
“understands and respects the right of citizens to protest lawfully in Queensland. As part of our
commitment to supporting peaceful protest, the QPS will have liaison officers available to negotiate
with assembly organisers to ensure the safety of concerned citizens and protestors to negotiate
suitable locations, dates and times for assemblies.”20
43.
Statements such as that made by Assistant Commissioner Carroll appeared to indicate a shift to
dialogue, liaison or negotiated management policing.
44.
Liaison policing and negotiated management policing might be contrasted with the ‘escalated force’
model which relied upon the use of force and was rooted in intolerance of direct forms of political
participation.21 Bjelke-Petersen for example used the escalated force model in 1977-78 in an attempt
to suppress the campaign against uranium mining.
45.
Over the last decade and a half a series of transnational summits have been marred by violence,
serious injury, mass arrests, use of riot technology and paramilitary policing methods. Policing
models including strategic incapacitation and escalated force relied upon the aggressive use of force
by police.
46.
These events included the World Trade Organisation protest at Seattle in 1999, the G8 protest at
Genoa in 2001,22 the G20 at London in 2009,23 the anti-war protest in NYC 2003,24 and Occupy Wall
Street 2011.25
47.
Escalated force models were discredited for inflaming events.26 The shift away from escalated force
policing in the UK was prompted by the public outcry following the death of Ian Tomlinson, an
innocent bystander at the 2009 G20 protest in London.27 Tomlinson died following an altercation
with police.
48.
The subsequent UK inquiry led to the handing down of the “Adapting to Protest” reports.28 UK police
now embrace a more permissive approach to policing public order in which the facilitation of the
right to protest is given considerable weight.29
19
QPS help to facilitate peaceful protest (2014) myPolice http://mypolice.qld.gov.au/g20/2014/09/21/qps-helpfacilitate-peaceful-protest/ at 4 October 2014.
20
G20 Community Information Forums, G20 2014
https://www.g20.org/news/g20_community_information_forums_held_brisbane_0 at 3 October 2014.
21
Ibid.
22
Nick Davies, The bloody battle of Genoa (2008) The Guardian
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/jul/17/italy.g8 at 2 October 2014.
23
For discussion on police violence at anti-globalisation protests see eg. Donatella Della Porta Can Democracy be
Saved: Participation, Deliberation and Social Movements (Wiley, Hoboken, 2013).
24
Alex S Vitale, ‘From Negotiated Management to Command and Control: How the New York Police Department
Polices Protests’ (2005) 15(3) Policing and Society: An International Journal of Research and Policy.
25
Patrick F Gillham, ‘Strategic incapacitation and the policing of Occupy Wall Street protests in New York City, 2011’
(2005) 15(3) Policing and Society: An International Journal of Research and Policy.
26
Hugo Gorringe and Michael Rosie, “’We will facilitate your protest’: Experiments with Liaison Policing” (2013) 7(2)
Policing, 205.
27
For example see Hugo Gorringe, Michael Rosie, David Waddington and Margarita Kominou ‘Facilitating ineffective
protest? The policing of the 2009 Edinburgh NATO protests’ (2012) 22(2) Policing and Society: An International Journal
of Research and Policy; and Hugo Gorringe and Michael Rosie, ‘We will facilitate your protest’: Experiments with
Liaison Policing’ (2013) 7(2) Policing.
28
Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Constabulary “Adapting to Protest” and “Adapting to Protest – Nurturing the
British Model of Policing” - both reports are available at
http://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmic/inspections/policing-protest-review/ at 2 October 2014.
29
David Waddington, “A ‘kinder blue’: analysing the police management of the Sheffield anti-‘Lib Dem’ protest of
March 2011” (2013) 23(1) Policing and Society: An International Journal of Research and Policy.
7
49.
The public order policing model employed in UK now places some emphasis upon the following
principles:
 facilitation – helping protestors to achieve their legitimate aims;
 communication – maintaining contact and using negotiation both prior to and during the event;
 differentiation – not treating all members of a crowd in a uniform manner, regardless of
whether they may be guilty of an offence or not.
50.
Limited law breaking may be tolerated by police under liaison policing, with peacekeeping considered
more important than law enforcement.30
51.
Some criminologists have noted that negotiated management policing as it has been implemented in
the past in the UK results in political protests being largely conducted on terms determined by the
police. That is that negotiated public order policing is about containing political dissent. 31 Protest
organisers are co-opted and in police jargon are said to be ‘had over’.32
52.
Negotiated management policing is widely perceived to mitigate police violence and uphold the right
to freedom of peaceful assembly. It has been argued that if it is to work it cannot be seen as a
“means of containment”, and “the goal of liaison should be to minimise conflict not emasculate
protest.”33
Policing and the G20
53.
Negotiated management was used by the G20 Taskforce and QPS. Police negotiators were appointed
to talk to 26 protest groups prior to the November Summit. Police attempted to avoid situations
where their actions might be characterised as heavy handed or violent. There was a heavy emphasis
upon reaching formal agreement with protest groups with 26 protest plans being signed off. And
there was some QPS assistance to some groups to help facilitate events.
54.
It is argued that the primary aim of negotiated management as it was exercised in Brisbane was the
control of dissent and prevention of disruptive protest.
55.
Negotiated management and militarised policing were two sides of the same coin, both facilitated by
the G20 Act. The range of repressive powers noted in submissions to the Legal Affairs and
Community Safety Committee’s inquiry were accompanied by section 19 of the G20 Act, pursuant to
which the Commissioner made available liaison officers to consult with and negotiate with assembly
organisers.
56.
Some assemblies were perceived to have little disruptive potential. Refugee advocates associated
with the Refugee Action Collective organised the placing of paper boats around G20 fencing etc. The
action was popular and successfully drew attention to Australia’s mistreatment of asylum seekers.
The QPS appear to have facilitated the event by intervening in response to some resistance by
Brisbane City Council.
57.
The QPS was sensitive to the potential for both adverse publicity and publicity that presented a
human image rather than that of lethal militarised personnel.
30
Donatella Della Porta Can Democracy be Saved: Participation, Deliberation and Social Movements (Wiley, Hoboken,
2013).
31
Mattias Wahlstrom, ‘The making of Protest and Protest Policing: Negotiation, Knowledge, Space and Narrative’,
Doctoral Dissertation at the Department of Sociology, University of Gothenburg, Sweden.
32
Gorringe, H et al “Facilitating ineffective protest? 118; Hugo Gorringe and Michael Rosie, “’We will facilitate your
protest’: Experiments with Liaison Policing” (2013) 7(2) Policing, 205.
33
Hugo Gorringe and Michael Rosie, “’We will facilitate your protest’: Experiments with Liaison Policing” (2013) 7(2)
Policing, 210.
8
58.
The Climate Angels were a group of women dressed as angels who campaigned about the need to
transition from coal to renewable energy. Their wings included wooden poles which satisfied the
definition of prohibited items.34 The exercised discretion and ignored the wooden poles. More
significantly the angels breached a restricted zone and staged a sit down blockade metres from a tent
in which there was a function attended by Tony Abbott. Demanding to speak to the PM the
protestors refused to budge for 2 hours. They were surrounded by a wall of police but no arrests
occurred.35 After Abbott had left and the angels decided to end the blockade police negotiators
ordered two cars to drive the angels to nominated locations. The police stored the wings in the boot
without damaging them. June, one of the climate angels said “it was very obvious that they were not
going to arrest the Angels no matter what.”
59.
In accordance with liaison policing principles some transgressions of the G20 Act were overlooked in
the interests of avoiding provocation. Banners larger than the prescribed size were present on all of
the protests. Banners larger than 1 x 2 metres were prohibited items under the Act and the QPS
consistently deemed banners greater than that size to be illegal. Many demonstrators in the large
Tibetan contingent used large wooden poles for their flags. The QPS did not demand the surrender
of, nor attempt to seize, oversized banners from people once they were at assemblies.
60.
Assistant Commissioner Katarina Carroll participated in two smoking ceremonies at Musgrave Park
during the Summit weekend. A police patrol in the CBD was reported in the media as doing a line
dance to the tune of Nutbush City Limit. Such media opportunities helped the police to establish an
image of reasonableness, and image at odds with much of the preparations over preceding months.
Coercion and consent
61.
For most of 2014 helicopters had flown incessantly over inner city suburbs such as West End and
South Brisbane. Regular images of militarised police appeared in the Courier Mail. Six thousand
police together with defence personnel were to be stationed in Brisbane over the Summit weekend.
The QPS’s two BearCats (nine ton armoured vehicles36) were stationed in Brisbane and the NSW
water cannon was ultimately stationed at the RNA. Courier Mail coverage encouraged a perception
that parts of inner city Brisbane would be under martial law during the Summit weekend.
62.
The extensive repressive apparatus wielded by the G20 Taskforce was influential factor in discussions
between police liaison officers and assembly organisers. Protest plans were agreed to by assembly
organisers who thought they had little choice to do otherwise. The prospect of force underpinned
the gaining of consent. Police liaison officers made indicated that deviation from prescribed march
routes could result in the use of force.
63.
Various matters relating to the exercise of police discretion and the uncertainty caused by undefined
terms in the G20 Act had been raised by BriCAN as matters for discussion with the QPS prior to a
meeting of 23 July 2014. These matters were included in a MOU prepared by BrisCAN as a basis for
ongoing discussion.37 A meeting was convened on 29 October to salvage the discussions.
64.
At that meeting the QPS advised that BrisCAN would be presented with a written draft “protest plan”
for the 15 November march. They advised that the police will use these to tell BrisCAN what is
permissible.
34
G20 Act, schedule 6(6).
Greg Stolz, Brittany Vonow and Emmaline Stigwood, Brisbane G20: Police use diplomacy to keep the peace, The
Courier Mail, 17 November 2014, http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/brisbane-g20-police-usediplomacy-to-keep-the-peace/story-fnmd7bxx-1227125031153?sv=294ea5184e32003d7623272402566ca8
36
http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/bearcats-crowdbusting-moves-on-display-at-oxley-policeacademy-demonstration-ahead-of-g20/story-fnihsrf2-1226927498515?nk=66802eb3b216896370acbf5eb7db9c04
37
Refer to Annexure
9
35
65.
QPS then invited BrisCAN representatives to go to the Academy to meet some officers with G20
policing responsibilities, and to see QPS “hardware” including “long range acoustic devices”. They
informed BrisCAN negotiators that the LRADs will be stationed to ensure compliance with prescribed
march routes. The BrisCAN negotiators understood this offer to be gunboat diplomacy.
66.
The same relationship of coercion to consent underpinned dialogue that occurred between
protestors and police at the Sydney APEC meeting. The policing model used at the Sydney APEC
relied heavily upon force. There was a reliance upon the repressive legislation similar to the G20 Act,
the use of 3500 NSW police officers, 450 Australian Federal Police and 1500 defense personnel,
police snipers on rooftops, ‘special police powers to detain anyone “suspicious”, public displays of
the newly acquired $700,000 water cannon, and the extensive exclusionary CBD zones’.38
67.
Dialog was unproductive with protestors believed “they were being duped in shambolic meetings”
and were frustrated “by what they perceived to be as police lack of genuine negotiations to facilitate
the protest march.”39 Activist Anna Sampson expressed ‘anger at insincere police negotiations
conducted by lowly ranked police “largely conducted by people who didn’t have the power to make
any commitment to anything – which was a bit useless...It was presented to us as take it or leave it.
And we were the ones asked to negotiate and compromise”.’40
68.
Twenty six of the twenty seven groups approached by the QPS were reported to have signed off on
protest plans. The plans included prescribed event details and lists of restrictions based upon the
QPS interpretation of how the G20 Act would be applied.
Militarised policing – a chilling factor
69.
The QPS made extensive preparations for coercive responses to protests. These preparations had a
chilling effect upon the exercise of the right to protest. Many people that might otherwise have
participated in mobilisations about issues concerning the environment, industrial relations,
privatisation and so on simply left town on the Summit weekend.
70.
Assistant Commissioner Carroll had for example refused to rule out the use of containment tactics
such as kettling. The QPS announced that their 2 BearCats would be deployed.
71.
Assistant Commissioner Carroll has consistently refused to rule out application of the Vicious Lawless
Association Disestablishment Act which can increase sentences in some circumstances by up to ten
or fifteen years for otherwise minor offences.
The relationship between policing and the media
72.
38
Paramilitary riot police training has been reported in the media. Media coverage of G20 related
matters typically included photos of police or military personnel with body armour, riot shields and
guns.41 An example from the Courier Mail, 27 June 2014 is below.
David Baker, Police and protestor dialog: safeguarding the peace or ritualistic sham?, International Journal of
Comparative and Applied Criminal Justice, (2014) 38(1) 92 – 93.
39
Ibid 93.
40
Ibid 93; Also refer to Liz Snell, Protest, Protection, Policing: The expansion of police powers and the impact on human
rights in NSW, The policing of APEC 2007 as a case study, Combined Community Legal Centres’ Group (NSW) and
Kingsford Legal Centre.
41
eg. http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/police-flex-muscle-ahead-of-g20-summit-20140522-zrkxn.html
10
73.
The image below accompanied an article in The Guardian online in which Assistant Commissioner
Carroll indicated her support for the right to peaceful assembly.42
74.
A narrative of violent G20 protests was established by the media.43
42
Joshua Robertson, G20 Brisbane: police prepare for large-scale political demonstrations, theguardian.com, 4
November 2014, http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/nov/04/g20-brisbane-police-prepare-demonstrations
43
eg. Police ready for mass arrests at G20 summit in Brisbane,
http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/police-ready-for-mass-arrests-at-g20-summit-in-brisbane/storyfnihsrf2-1226962519933?nk=e664b7cb785403cdc006a10980e4a3eb
11
12
75.
Media reports frequently conjured up fictitious accounts of looming protestor violence or otherwise
stigmatised protestors. The Courier Mail of 31 October 2014, for example, featured a front page
exclusive titled “Anarchists’ G20 Corporate Chaos Threat – SWARM & DESTROY”.
76.
It is suggested by some academics that the creation of such a narrative will mute public outcry in
response to civil liberties violations and coercive management of protests. Peter Waddington for
example comments that “[t]he crowd must be seen to relinquish public sympathy by their actions
before the police can afford to take forceful action.”44 If protestors can be portrayed as violent the
police will be more readily able to avoid allegations of provocation.45
77.
Similar concerns were raised by NSW Community Legal Centres prior to Sydney APEC protests in
2007.46
78.
The media coverage in the lead up to the APEC meeting appears to have paralleled that of the
media’s G20 coverage. One article for example claimed that an “anarchist political
movement””announced its intention to violently disrupt [the] APEC summit and... issued a call to
action to recruit more people for a ‘mass, strategic intervention’”.47
79.
The NSW Community Legal Centres report stated “Analysis is also required in regards to the evidence
the police, politicians or media had to support assertions that the protestors of APEC would be
violent. Such assertions can serve to promote a climate of fear, general apprehension and distrust.
Arguably, in such a context it is easier for governments to purport and for the general public to
accept that public safety and security comes at the cost of impinging upon human rights.”48
80.
Della Porta argues that a danger that may flow from the establishing such a narrative is that it can
influence perceptions held by police, especially rank and file police – that demonstrators are
dangerously violent, that demonstrators may be terrorists or infiltrated by terrorists.49 This increases
the risk of excessive use of force and unnecessary arrests.
81.
Academics have argued that: “Since the police, often through professional media units, release the
information to the media, they are in control of what message is provided. In this sense, they are
gatekeepers for the information. Police may reveal information that they know will benefit their
operations and their image.”50
82.
In September BrisCAN-G20 wrote to an External Engagement Liaison Officer raising concerns:
“Some activists have expressed views that the QPS or G20 task force may be seeking to use
the media to manage public perceptions in a manner that either legitimises the use of strategic
incapacitation methods, including against peaceful protestors, or creates an expectation that such
methods will be used, thereby creating a chilling effect and deterring members of the public from
coming to protest events to voice their legitimate concerns.
44
PAJ Waddington ‘Coercion and Accommodation: Policing Public Order after the Public Order Act’ (1994) 45(3) The
British Journal of Sociology 381.
45
Eg. https://newmatilda.com/2013/12/19/how-press-sets-protest-crackdown
46
Protest, Protection Policing: The expansion of police powers and the impact on human rights in NSW.
http://www.klc.unsw.edu.au/sites/klc.unsw.edu.au/files/protest_protection_policing.pdf
47
Sarah Elks, “Protestors warn of violent challenge”, The Australian, 30 August 2007,
www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22331224-2702,00.html cited in “Protest, Protection Policing” 41.
48
Protest, Protection Policing, 24.
49
Donatella Della Porta Can Democracy be Saved: Participation, Deliberation and Social Movements (Wiley, Hoboken,
2013).
50
Jennifer L. Schulenberg, Allison Chenier, International Protest Events and the Hierarchy of Credibility: Media Frames
Defining the Police and Protestor Social Problems, Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice, 56(3), 265.
13
Another view raised is that the QPS has continued to issue media releases in relation to
protest management without seeking to curb irresponsible stigmatisation of protestors by the
media or sensationalism about protest related violence.
We expressed the view at the 23 July meeting that there is scope for the QPS to influence
how G20 matters are portrayed in the media.
Steps undertaken by the QPS media liaison or other relevant unit to curb adverse media
sensationalism would reinforce the perception of the QPS and G20 task force’s professionalism and
commitment to civil liberties and serve to establish trust between the parties.
We welcome comment and further discussion on the issue of information management and
media liaison.”
83.
One organiser of the 15 November march stated: “The police collaborated with commercial media to
scare people away from peaceful protests. They knew there would be no interstate contingent of
violent anarchist but ran with the idea anyway. They knew the protestors they were negotiating with
were organising peaceful events but sought to cast doubt over our intentions.”
84.
When these issues were raised in subsequent discussions police negotiators rejected suggestions
that the QPS media unit were responsible for media coverage. Police negotiators made no comment
on whether the QPS media unit or the G20 taskforce would seek to use their influence with the
media to curb media’s stigmatisation of protestors and the generation of climate of fear in relation to
the protests.
85.
One BrisCAN activists has suggested that the climate of fear constructed by the media stripped
numbers for the 15 November march from 10,000 that might have been expected to march because
of the issues, down to the actual 3,000 who marched on the day.
Pre-emptive curtailment of dissenting activities
86.
There appears to have been direct pre-emptive curtailment of dissenting activities.
87.
Two activists were told by Queensland Council of Unions (‘QCU’) administrative staff that they would
be unable to book meeting rooms at the QCU. The employee stated that the QCU had been advised
by the QPS to refuse room booking to any new organisations in the lead up to the G20 Summit.
88.
Prior to the G20 finance ministers meeting in Cairns QPS appear to have recommended to Office
Works that the company not print anti-G20 material for protesters. Office Works is reported to have
complied.
89.
Local media reported that:
“Officeworks stopped printing collateral for anti-G20 protestors after it was warned off by police
ahead of this weekend’s financial summit in Cairns.
The office supplies giant, which also provides digital printing to the public, says police
‘recommended’ to staff at the Cairns store that they stop printing the material – which included
posters, flyers, banners, and stickers – and the store manager chose to comply.
Officeworks public relations manager Carla Carafa says the request was isolated to that store and
to her knowledge no other shop in Australia has been asked to print the material or told not to.
“The police said the material was being posted up everywhere and defacing property and that’s
why they asked the store to stop,” she says.
Carafa says the decision was made at store level to keep the police happy and that it was a
recommendation not a legal order.”51
51
Nic White, Police shut down G20 protest printing, 22 Sep 2014, http://proprint.com.au/News/389017,police-shutdown-g20-protest-printing.aspx
14
90.
Independent journalist Max Riethmuller spoke to management at the Brisbane CBD Office Works:
“I spoke to Kate, a manager at the CBD branch of Office Works yesterday to clarify what the
situation was. ...
Max: I am following up rumours that office works have been instructed by police not to print any
material related to g20.
Kate: Yes that’s right.
Max: Interesting.
Max: From what level of the police service did that instruction come?
Kate: I don’t know, it was a specific request. The other thing is we actually reserve any right refuse
to print any material at all that may give offence to any person, we reserve the right to refuse to
print any material that might be deemed offensive. We have been specifically instructed not to
print any anti-g20 material, but other than that we can refuse to print any material we deem may
be offensive.
Max: Okay, that’s fair enough I understand that.
Max: Have you specifically deemed any and all g20 material offensive or you’ve not been even
given the opportunity to determine that because you can’t print any at all?
Kate: No, anything particularly relating to G20, we’re not printing.
Max: Can I ask have you ever received any other request from police about certain material that
shouldn’t be printed?
Kate: That I am aware of no, but I have no doubt that it has happened in the past. It’s just because
of the political nature of it I assume. The police request was more to do with the fact that the thing
was being used for vandal activity and it wasn’t okay. In each store we are not printing it because it
could potentially cause offence to a person or persons but if there was a particular store which has
been instructed not to print the material based on the fact it was being used for vandalism
essentially.
Max: Was the police instruction that all G20 material was viewed as being related to vandalism or
was it they didn’t want any of it printed just in case?
Kate: I’m not sure of the exact instruction, but we as a store are opting to not print any specific G20
material based on the fact that it will cause offence to a person or persons.”52
91.
Two activists, Clare T and Asger S, were refused service at OfficeWorks in Brisbane when seeking to
have G20 related material printed before the Summit.
92.
In Cairns a sixty year old grandmother, Myra Gold, was raided in the early hours of the morning by 4
police officers for putting up stickers saying that “G20 benefits the 1%”.53 Ms Gold said “It’s 1984
stuff. That push on me was to silence me so that they can say there’s no opposition in Australia.”
Magistrate Coates struck the charge out.54
93.
Two Cairns residents, Aleta Tulk and Adam Brooker, had earlier been charged for chalking a Cairns
footpath with the slogan “G20 benefits the 1%.” Ms Tulk said she did not intend to cause damage to
the path, hence her decision to use chalk. “I even tested it before on my own driveway to make sure
it would wash off.” Aleta and Adam were handed a three month good behaviour bond.
94.
The extensive discretion granted to the Commissioner in relation to the prohibited persons
provisions also acted as a chilling factor. All that was required for a person to be included on the
prohibited persons list was that the Commissioner had a suspicion that the person may disrupt any
part of the G20 meeting.55 The provisions were drafted in a manner such that if a review was sought
52
Max Riethmuller, G20 Proxy Censorship, 8 November 2014, http://altmax.com.au/g20-censorship/
http://m.cairnspost.com.au/news/opinion/big-brother-watch-out-forget-about-the-g20-sticker-blitz-another-kindof-revelry-may-be-a-thorny-issue/story-fnjpuwl3-1227057184366
54
Scott Forbes and Caitlin Drysdale, Police drop charges over G20 stickers in Cairns court, The Cairns Post, 20
November 2014.
55
G20 Act, s 50.
15
53
it was unlikely that the Commissioner would be compelled to provide reasons for the initial
decision.56
G20 Act, ss 17 - 18
95.
Pursuant to the provisions of the G20 Act the Peaceful Assembly Act 1992 did not apply to an
assembly in a security area.57 The Peaceful Assembly Act has since the days following the Fitzgerald
Inquiry provided a statutory right to assemble peacefully with others in a public place.58
96.
The Peaceful Assembly Act 1992 also provided protection from “civil or criminal liability because of
the obstruction of a public place.”
97.
Attempts at pre-G20 discussions to seek assurances from police negotiators that protestors would
not be charged with obstruction of a public space59 were unsuccessful.
98.
The removal of the Peaceful Assembly Act protections was perceived to be a significant curtailment
of the right to protest. One protestor claimed “The Peaceful Assembly Act that afforded us certain
rights, has been suspended in the declared zone. My parents fought for the right to march, and we
are at risk of losing it.”
99.
The G20 Act made assemblies unlawful if 2 persons acting in concert participating in the assembly
committed an offence under the Act.60 If two friends held a banner up in a procession, and the
banner was larger than the prescribed 1 x 2 metres, the procession would be illegal under section 18
of the G20 Act.
100. An assembly also lost it lawful status where one person participating in the assembly committed an
offence involving damage or destruction to property, or committed a “violent disruption offence.”
101. The term “violent disruption offence” is defined to include an offence that “is intended or is likely to
disrupt any part of the G20 meeting.”
102. It is argued that this is an unreasonable restriction on the freedom of assembly, a restriction that has
the consequence of making protests ineffectual. Protests by their nature are typically noisy with
protestors seeking to draw attention to their campaign issues. The use of a single megaphone at a
rally close to the Convention Centre however may have been sufficient for the assembly to be
deemed unlawful under section 18 of the G20 Act.
103. BrisCAN-G20 made several attempts to discuss the term “disrupt” with police negotiators as part of
an attempt to reach a memorandum of understanding in relation to G20 policing. The intention in
part was to reach a common understanding with the police about ambiguous terms such as
“disrupt”, and to clarify how police discretion and protestors’ rights were delineated.
104. Attempts to reach an understanding through discussion were rebuffed on several occasions, with
police negotiators stating at a meeting on 29 October that “We don’t negotiate with people we are
policing.”
105. Discussions with police negotiators as to when being in possession of a prohibited item might give
rise to an offence were unproductive, with police negotiators voicing inconsistent positions. The
56
G20 Act, s51.
G20 Act, s 17.
58
Peaceful Assembly Act 1992, s 5(1).
59
For example pursuant to Transport Operations (Road Use Management—Road Rules) Regulation 2009, s236.
60
G20 Act, s 18.
16
57
refusal by police negotiators to delineate how police discretion would be exercised and the
inconsistencies in positions argued by police negotiators created uncertainty, both in relation to the
use of theatrical props, megaphones, the size of banners and the wearing of face masks and whether
an assembly might be considered to lawful or unlawful.
106. The United Nations Special Rapporteur on the right to freedom of peaceful assembly notes that “an
individual does not cease to enjoy the right to peaceful assembly as a result of sporadic violence or
other punishable acts committed by others in the course of the demonstration, if the individual in
question remains peaceful in his or her own intentions or behaviour.”61
107. BrisCAN-G20 notes that subsections 18(1)(c), (d) and (e) arguably breach international human rights
standards, constrain or undermine the right to freedom of assembly, and have the effect of making
protests ineffectual. It is argued that it is inappropriate for the lawful or unlawful status of an
assembly to turn on vague or undefined terms, unreasonable restrictions and provisions relating to
the actions of “disruptive” individuals.
The locus of protest
108. Many people participated in the counter events during the week of the Summit because they wished
to challenge policies they associated with the political and corporate elites represented inside the
Convention Centre.
109. Protest organisers sought to have assemblies convened adjacent to the Convention Centre in order
for the many legitimate grievances to be brought to the attention of G20 participants.
110. The route of the big march on Saturday 15 November proceeded from Emma Miller Place, across the
Kurilpa Bridge, then via Montague, Merivale, Peel, and Manning Sts to Musgrave Park. The police
protest plan prohibited the possession of megaphones and portable PAs on the march.
111. Similar events were prevented from getting any closer to the Convention Centre.
112. Cabinet consented to further restricted zones in late September 2014.62 The new restricted zone
covered the South Bank Cultural Precinct, road intersections surrounding the conference venue.
Further restricted zones covered short sections of Glenelg, Merivale, Melbourne, Russell and Hope
streets at South Brisbane, effectively giving police the ability to prevent protests and protesters from
getting close to the conference venue at the Brisbane Convention and Exhibition Centre.
113. A protest organiser stated at the time “The changes threaten to emasculate the Nov 15 march by
prohibiting it from approaching the Convention Centre. QPS Deputy Commissioner Barnett is
reported as indicating that police made the request for an extension of the restricted zones earlier in
September. The regulation cuts the ground out from under the feet of police liaison officers who
have claimed a commitment to genuine negotiations. The police request to Cabinet calls into
question whether the QPS is approaching discussions in good faith.”
114. The state’s determination of the route of the march lessened the significance of the protests. People
who had attended to protest the neoliberalism of the G20 leaders ended up marching the back
streets of South Brisbane.
61
The Report of the Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association,
(A/HRC/20/27), http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/HRCouncil/RegularSession/Session20/A-HRC-2027_en.pdf [25].
62
G20 (Safety and Security) Regulation 2014.
17
115. Protest organisers claimed at the time that the restrictions imposed upon the rally and march went
beyond those required by security considerations and that no attempt had been made to balance
security concerns and human rights.
116. The importance of demonstrators’ rights to determine the location of assemblies has been accepted
as a factor, when balancing the right of assembly and national security, by European courts.63 English
law similarly recognises the right of determination of location eg. in litigation following attempts to
remove anti-war protestor Brian Haw from London’s Parliament Square.64 Legal recognition of
demonstrators’ right to determine location lends meaningful content to the right of assembly.
117. The United Nations Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly also warns
against the practice whereby demonstrations are allowed to take place only in places where its
impact will be muted.65
118. No genuine negotiations occurred in relation to the route of the 15 November march. Early
proposals by BrisCAN-G20 and the Sovereign Embassy were ignored by the QPS. The choice offered
by the QPS to protestors was various routes none of which came close to the Convention Centre.
G
Prohibited Persons
119. The prohibited persons’ provisions are rightly criticised on a number of grounds. The very broad
discretionary powers granted to the Commissioner and the absence of criteria as to factors that
might guide the Commissioner’s judgment about who to include on the prohibited persons list meant
that the potential existed for the arbitrary denial of individuals’ rights to participate in peaceful
assembly.
120. Section 50 states that the commissioner may place a person’s name on the list if the commissioner is
reasonably satisfied the person may disrupt any part of the G20 meeting. It is argued that this
provision is an affront to the rule of law in that it substitutes subjectivity and the arbitrary exercise of
discretion for certain and clear rules and thresholds.
121. The provisions are similar to the arrests in the UK of peaceful protestors on the day Prince William
married Kate Middleton. One of those arrested, Hannah Eiseman-Renyard, stated: “These ‘precrime’ arrests were supposedly to pre-emptively ‘prevent a breach of the peace’. In reality, they are
part of a trend of increasingly heavy-handed tactics employed against peaceful protestors, aimed at
creating a ‘chilling effect’ to dissuade others from protesting in the future.”
122. The prohibited persons appeal mechanism required neither that the commissioner provide a written
notice of a decision prior to the G20 Summit weekend or that the commissioner provide reasons for
retaining a person’s name on the list if they were reasonably satisfied that disclosure of information
on which their decision was based may be against national security interests etc.66
123. The police have publicly discussed use of the prohibited persons’ provisions of the G20 Act which
allow the Police Commissioner to publish peoples’ photos in the media when banning them for safety
63
Bundesverfassungsgericht 5 June 2007, 1 BvR 1429/07
www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/SharedDocs/Entscheidungen/DE/2007/06/rk20070606_1bvr142307.html [22] [23].
64
For example Westminster City Council v Haw [2002] EWHC 2073; R (Haw) v Secretary of State for the Home
Department [2005] EWHC 2061 and DPP v Haw [2007] EWHC 1931.
65
A/HRC/20/27 [40].
66
G20 Act, s51.
18
or security reasons.67 Such actions have the effect of deterring or curbing participation in protest
action.
124. One of the four people on the list has publicly indicated they had no intention of travelling to
Queensland for the G20.68
Ciaron O’Reilly
125. Ciaron O’Reilly, a prominent non-violent anti-war protestor, was served with a “Prohibited Person
Notice” on 13 November 2014.
126. Ciaron stated: “In my case my civil liberties, my free movement around the city, was denied by being
prohibited under the G20 Act. No offence had been committed or was going to be committed.
...There was no explanation given.”
127.
Ciaron said he had sought to use the G20 Summit to draw attention to the United States persecution
of Julian Assange and to demand that Obama should free Chelsea Manning who is serving 35 years
for exposing U.S. war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan.
128. Ciaron further stated:
“The appeal process was back to the Commissioner who had banned me. Even if I had gone
through the process of appeal the letter ends by saying these are four reasons I do not have to
provide you with reasons if I decide to retain your name on the prohibited persons list. Even if one
went through this undemocratic appeal process back to the authority that had issued the prohibition
there is still no guarantee that there would be any satisfaction or explanation why my civil liberties
have been denied.”
It is frightening that one’s human rights can be suspended or taken away on the basis of secretive
intelligence, and that that intelligence can’t be tested or challenged.
There were no reasons given. It is still a mystery now five months later.
I have been living in London for the last three years and there’s examples of this ‘Minority Report’
or pre-crime approach, evident in the 2012 royal wedding. People were detained in the early hours
of the morning on the suspicion that they may cause a breach of the peace later that day.”
...
The example provided [in the G20 Act] for why a person’s details may be published is where the
person is a know terrorist. They could not find one of the prohibited persons and they published his
name. It wasn’t because he was a terrorist it was because he had a background of violence against
the police. That seems to be the basis of shrinking civil liberties. The threat of terrorism, playing the
security card.
...
I’ve been declared a prohibited person which implies I’m a dangerous person. You can google my
name, there’s all these G20 references. There hasn’t been any explanation for that label from the
Queensland Police Force. And I’ve got to live for that when I apply for jobs. That makes life difficult.
H
Surrendered and Seized items
129. Section 60 of the G20 Act provided that a police officer may seize a prohibited item if the officer
reasonably suspects that a person has possession of the prohibited item, without lawful excuse, in a
67
http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/top-cop-ian-stewart-says-unhappy-snaps-a-potential-weaponagainst-g20-protesters/story-fnihsrf2-1226998015658
68
Neil Doorley, Brittany Vonow, Serial pest Peter Hore banned from entering the G20 security zone,The Courier-Mail ,
5 November 2014 www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/serial-pest-peter-hore-banned-from-entering-the-g20security-zone/story-fnn8dlfs-1227112699073
19
security area. A police officer could in some circumstances request surrender of prohibited items,
and where a person fails to surrender possession the officer may seize the prohibited item.69
130. Prohibited items surrendered by a person were to be returned to the person unless it was unlawful
for the person to possess the item, and prohibited items that were seized were forfeited to the
State.70
131. The issue of whether participation in a peaceful assembly was a lawful excuse was not tested in
court. In a case relating to an Anon mask, with the defendant being represented by Russo Lawyers,
the charges were dropped by the QPS before trial. Police liaison officers refused to acknowledge that
freedom of expression or participation in a peaceful assembly might be a “lawful excuse” until 13
November (see below).
132. Barrister Walter Sofronoff, who was Queensland solicitor general from 2005 until he resigned in
March 2014, said it might be lawful to wear masks in the controlled area of the inner city in order “to
make a political point”.71
133. Sofronoff made public comments on the issue at a public meeting in the Supreme Court at which
Assistant Commissioner Katarina Carroll was present. He also told Guardian Australia:
“ that wearing a mask as “a political statement” would qualify as a “lawful excuse” under the act.
“I may be wearing a mask to make a political point because symbolism is also part of political
speech, just as political donations are,” Sofronoff said.
Sofronoff said no Australian law was valid if it obstructed freedom of political speech “unless it is
reasonably adapted to a proper end consistent with maintaining our system of government”.
“The proper end that this law serves is the protection of the security of the visitors to G20,”
Sofronoff said.
This meant the arrest of someone wearing a mask who appeared to be a genuine threat of
disrupting the G20 meeting would be valid.
“But it’s not a blanket prohibition against masks, it’s a prohibition against masks provided you don’t
have a reasonable excuse, and a reasonable excuse is, ‘I’m making a political statement’,” he
said.”72
134. The QPS position in relation to the wearing of face masks shifted. Police liaison officers advised on 13
November that the wearing of a face mask at a rally was a lawful excuse. The report back to BrisCAN
on the discussion noted:
“Police negotiators said that it was recognised that the wearing of face masks may be a
means of political expression, and intention to wear a face mask at a rally is a lawful excuse.
However people who wear face masks can expect to be stopped and spoken to by police on the
day. And there is no guarantee that face masks will not be seized. They stated that this will be a
matter of individual police discretion.
The police negotiators indicated that theatrical props may not be ruled out. This was in
relation to people wearing gas masks as a theatrical prop.
The police negotiators appeared to have no room to negotiate. The position they carried
into discussions was that instructed by the Deputy Commissioner Ross Barnett.”
135. Commissioner Ian Stewart made a statement in the media the same day. The Brisbane Times
reported:
69
G20 Act, s 60.
G20 Act, s61.
71
Joshua Robertson, G20 blanket ban on masks is not supported by security laws, expert says, The Guardian Australia,
11 November 2014, http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/nov/11/g20-blanket-ban-on-masks-is-not-supportedby-security-laws-expert-says.
72
Ibid.
20
70
“Mr Stewart urged protesters to follow police orders and remain patient, especially if their
possessions were confiscated.
"Don't take our officers on in the street," he said.
"If an officer was even to confiscate property from them, don't react badly to that...That might be
seen as trying to do something which is interfering with the security of the whole community at the
time."
Mr Stewart said there was a formal process for anyone wishing to have confiscated items returned.
He encouraged them to visit the Roma Street Queensland police headquarters or ring Policelink on
131 444.”
136. The above legal considerations and statements by the Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner were
not acted upon consistently by police on the ground. This caused considerable distress to activists.
137. The experience of Andy was typical of many protestors who willing surrendered prohibited items
only to be advised later that their belongings had been destroyed. He stated:
“We had been there a couple of minutes when the police came over. Our banner was bigger than
the allowed size of 2x1m. Plus we were holding it where the world leaders could see it. I had never
had a cop so blatantly tell me that the reason he was intervening was to suppress a dissenting
voice. ... I figured there wasn’t much point in arguing, so I folded up the banner and started to
leave. But apparently not quickly enough to appease the sergeant, who took the banner off me and
gave me an exclusion notice from the G20 declared zone for the rest of the weekend. It was petty
and basically just a power trip (I was already leaving, so he clearly wasn’t preventing any crime.... I
took a break the next day before I went back to the police HQ to try to get back my hand-painted
“Free West Papua” banner that had been confiscated. The cop told me that it had been destroyed,
under a special provision in the G20 law that allows police to destroy political material.”
I
Conclusion
This is much more about the experience of policing in relation to the G20 and the practical application of
the G20 Act, eg. in relation to provisions about exclusion notices, the giving of directions and the bail
provisions. BrisCAN has concerns about the derogation of human rights associated with these and other
provisions of the G20 Act. We can provide further comment. If you have any questions in relation to this
submission please contact me by email.
Thank you,
Robin Taubenfeld and Greg Brown
For BrisCAN-G20 – (BAST) Brisbane Activist Support Team
Email: [email protected]
21
Annexure
22
Activists’ stories about G20 policing
Sophie’s comments about G20 policing
Interview with Greg Brown (BrisCAN)
“We were standing at the lights near the Transit Centre. I was carrying a backpack and Sarah was carrying
the banner with the poles in it. While we were standing there a group of cops who were standing about 50
metres across the road , one of them saw me and pointed to me. Everyone else instantly turned to look.
They seemed to recognise us. They spread out. When the lights turned green we crossed the road and we
were told to stop.
We were told to stop and completely surrounded. They declared they were going to search us. There were
8 – 10 police. One officer asked for the bag and banner in a commanding voice. We gave them the bag and
banner.
They took the banner from Sarah and said “You know banners are illegal to have?” Sophie said “We have a
lawful excuse. Peaceful assembly is lawful.” He said “Nup, you’re wrong.”
The banner was laid out on the ground. He said “That is definitely bigger than 2 metres.” One officer was
searching through my bag. They pulled stuff out like the 2 gas masks I had, a balaclava and some head
scarfs.”
They asked why we had the gas masks. “That’s illegal.” They asked why I had the head scarfs. I said “For
political protests.”
They asked what I was politically protesting. I said “Mass surveillance.” They said that’s not valid. They kept
asking me what I was protesting about, and saying “That’s not valid.” to my responses.
They found the multi-tool that I had in my backpack. It’s not a leatherman, it’s the size of a credit card. It
was for camping. Our intention was to camp in Musgrave Park.
They told Sarah to pick up the banner and announced that they would take us to the police station to be
searched further.
Approximately 12 police officers escorted us to the police station. We didn’t know we were under arrest
until I asked as we were just about at the police station. We were told that we were, but no reasons were
given. We were told to sit in chairs near the information desk on the ground floor. There were about 20
police there. They started taking everything out of the backpack and my jacket.
They didn’t say that we had a right to speak to a lawyer. It was only later after I had been strip searched
that I requested to speak to a lawyer. They said someone will be down to see you in a minute.
One cop started going through my phone when we were sitting in the foyer. I said can you please stop
doing that. He just looked at me and kept going through my phone. They didn’t explain anything to us. They
laid everything out on the ground. They photographed everything.
They gave Sarah an exclusion notice and told her to leave. The police officer told her to walk down to the
next corner, and that she could find her way from there. Sarah doesn’t know the city very well and that’s
when she got lost. When she was trying to find her way she got arrested.
23
I was taken to the transport van. This was about 12 noon and it was something like 39 degrees. The van
stopped as the people’s march passed, so we were sitting in the sun for something like 20 minutes. All up I
was sitting in the back of the van for about 45 minutes. The airconditioning was blowing outside air in, so it
was scorching hot. I could see the controls of the cabin airconditioner and it was set to 20 degrees. But my
one was just blowing hot. I had to sit as far away from the exhaust fan as possible.
When we got to the watchhouse they searched me again. That was a pat down search. Three female
officers took me to a small room, where they strip searched me. They didn’t say why a strip search was
required.
When they took me back to the holding cell Sarah was there. They took me to be fingerprinted then to an
individual holding cell. There was no toilet paper so I had to ask for that. After an hour or so I asked when I
could speak to a lawyer. That’s when the guy said someone will be down to see you in a minute.
About half an hour later I was given bail on my own undertaking and my belongings were given to me,
apart from the things they had seized. I was not given an opportunity to speak to someone from Legal Aid
Queensland.
“They gave me back the multi-tool and scarves. They gave me back everything except for the gasmasks and
a gasmask filter, the banner, poles and rope.”
When I asked at Roma St Headquarters what had happened to these items they said they had already been
destroyed. They said that was automatic.
They did not give me a receipt for any of the items they had taken from me. They gave me a form which
said that I had been charged with possession of a prohibited item. We had handed over the banner when
asked. The rest of the stuff was in my backpack which I handed over when asked.
About half a dozen people from BSN were served with exclusion notices. I think it was because of the
Courier Mail demonising us. They even used a picture of us in the newspaper. There was a picture
underneath of SERT in full get up with dogs. That’s when they called us ferals.
There were two articles in the Courier Mail that referred to BSN. The first one was discussing Plan B. The
second one talked about how the cops were ready to crush the ferals.
The police never approached us for discussions.The police were probably pressured by someone higher up
to do something about the anarchists.
The 18 months preparation...they were pumping themselves up and up, full of adrenalin. Then nothing
happened. Remember the week after that, there were 3 separate shooting incidents, three separate
killings. They were already stressed. It seems more than a coincidence that those three deaths occurred
immediately after the G20.
The policing was inconsistent. There was a 30 metre long banner used on the march. There were the
climate angels with the wooden poles. Lots of people had large banners. That makes me think we were
targeted.”
24
Legion’s comments about G20 policing
Interview with Greg Brown 7 January 2015
“ I wanted to go to the protests on Friday. My issue was tax avoidance by rich companies and individuals.
I was wearing the mask on the back of my head. I had heard stories that wearing a mask might be
considered illegal because they couldn’t identify you. So I decided to wear it on the back of my head.
At Bowen Hills station a police officer said can you leave the train I want to speak to you. As I walked off the
train I asked what he wanted to talk to me about. He said you are under arrest for having a prohibited item.
I said to the officer I wasn’t intending to wear it as a mask, I was not intending to hide my identity. I
pointed out that it was on the back of my head. He said it didn’t matter I was under arrest.
The officer had not asked for the mask before advising me that I was under arrest. The police officer asked
me for my name. I said I would identify myself to the custody sergeant, that is how it is done in the UK. The
police officer informed me as he handcuffed me that I was under arrest for failing to identify myself to him.
The police took the wallet from my back pocket and took the drivers’ licence from the wallet.
As we went into the lift at the platform a police officer pushed me into the corner. I am about 5”7’ and he
was about 6”1’. I said “You are crushing me.” He crushed my head into the corner of the lift.
He said “I am doing this for the protection of myself and my friends.” I said “Sir I am handcuffed. I am not
facing you. I haven’t been aggressive. There is no need for you to crush me.”
I was put into the back of a police van. One officer got me some water. They turned the air-conditioning on.
These were lovely people. But the officer who arrested me didn’t treat me right.
I noticed the mark on my face when looking at my reflection at the station. The custody sergeant said that
they could not take my complaint and that I had to go to station outside of the exclusion area. I went to the
Banyo police station. They said no one could take my complaint because none were a senior sergeant.
They took me to the Hendra police station. I had some photographs taken of the injury.
I filled out a form asking that the photographs be available for my mention on 4 December. That didn’t
happen. I had a lot of trouble obtaining photographs of the injury.
The charges are possession of a prohibited item in a security area on 14 November. The second charge was
failing to comply with a requirement to disclose personal details. They served me with an exclusion notice
on the grounds that I had a mask. The notice says I breached s 55(1)(d). They confiscated the mask. I was
excluded up until Monday midnight. I was totally denied my right to peacefully protest.”
I feel that I should have had the opportunity to hand the mask over. I wasn’t given that opportunity.
The arresting officer was excessive in the use of his powers. I was not resisting yet he put the handcuff on
my right wrist on very very tight. His sergeant loosened it. He refused me water. It was another officer later
brought me water. When I stood up so that they could take the wallet out of my pocket the arresting
officer pushed my back so that I fell back into the seat. He didn’t ask me to sit, he pushed me back. Then he
crushed my head into the lift.
The officers who transported me to Roma St were good. They turned the air-conditioning on. But the
arresting officer reminded me of bullies at school. I respect the law, I respect the police. But this gentleman
seemed to think that he was the law.
25
The police officer said to his colleagues that I was number four. I was the fourth person that he had
arrested. He took the letter of the law and interpreted it in a way that he saw fit so that he could turn
around and virtually arrest anyone that he wanted to. You wouldn’t have had to have done much for this
man to arrest you.”
Anthony’s comments about G20 policing
Interview with Greg Brown 7 January 2015
“I was at the end of the march on the Saturday. I was wearing my mask as an expression of my own views
and freedom of political expression. I thought it was something that needed to be done.
I was asked the day before if I was going to defy the ban, and I answered of course I was.
It was always my intention to demonstrate in a peaceful but very visible way. I marched. I was asked to
remove my mask. I told the police officer that I was not prepared to remove my mask, that I was doing a
peaceful civil disobedience act expressing my views about freedom of expression. Especially in relation to
the G20 laws where we had been told that we had a lawful excuse for wearing a mask. Ross Barnett said
that. But there was also going to be discretion exercised by the police.
Anon members were aware of what Ross Barnett had said the day before, that there was lawful excuse.
Because there was lawful excuse I chose to express my views by not removing the mask when directed to
by the police.
I was taken to police headquarters. There was no violence or aggression by them.
When I signed for my property I asked for my mask back. They said sorry, you’ve already signed, you’re not
getting it back. They said they had powers under the Act to destroy it.
I was charged under section 63(1) that is possession of a prohibited item without a lawful excuse.
My ability to express my political views was denied.”
(nb. Anthony’s charge was later dropped by the police. GB)
26
Ciaron’s comments about G20 policing
Interview with Greg Brown 5 April 2015
“All the hype that was leading up to the G20, and the fear, the militarisation of the police force which
ranges from the designer combat gear they wear these days to snipers on the roofs in 40 degree heat. That
must be affecting their perception of things. I think it is a very dangerous paradigm. ...
The media going into the G20 was ridiculous. All their predictions which didn’t come true, like burning
police cars, attacks on ATMs, they are not held accountable. ...
On winning the hearts and minds and handing out bottles of water. Their job is to manage dissent. If the
best means is soft power they will use soft power and co-opt the leadership and get them to police their
own movement. But they have the hard power, and they’re equipped with that and ready to go as well.
It’s an illusion to think that these police negotiators have any initiative to make decisions. They just follow
orders. Their job is to market what the state wants, and whether that is done with a bottle of water, or
pretending to be your friend, that’s their job.
You don’t want to dissolve into mutuality. I remember at the nuclear test site at Nevada the police were
very friendly. But they were defending nuclear weapons being tested at the site behind them. You treat
them like human beings. But they are there to defend something that’s pretty inhuman.
That relates back to whether you see the G20 as innately good or bad. Some of the NGO’s see it as a good
thing, they just want their voices to be heard in the context of the G20.... It’s one thing to go to Gallipoli
Barracks for vigils and to ask soldiers not to go to Iraq. But these are the guys who are sending them there.
The power elite. So it was an opportunity to non-violently confront them.
There hasn’t been a lot of history of the kind of riots that the Courier Mail was conjuring up, maybe the
bikies at Easter at Bathurst. But it’s not Belfast and it’s not Germany. So I don’t know what they were basing
their predictions on.
The police should be held accountable. They are getting well paid for not doing a good job. The police
should say there wasn’t the level of threat we perceived there would be and this is how we made those
mistakes.
It’s good that people came out on the streets during the G20 and there should be the space for discussion
and reflection. ... Heading into the 100 year anniversary of Gallipoli we are about to send another 300
soldiers back to the Caliphate and there’s no debate, there’s no reflection, there is no discussion.
We should be critical of liaison policing. The arrangement of you can have your protest if you let us have
our war. And some people are happy to accept that. And some people say no, we want to stop your war.
And it’s not a safety valve.
What I said in this case when I plead guilty. When the judge was sentencing me he said well you have to
obey the law. I said in the past in Queensland good law breaking has lead to good law making.”
27
Stephen’s comments about G20 policing
Interview with Greg Brown on 7 January 2015
“I was going to the Saturday march and I had some Anonymous masks. When we got to Bowen Hills station
the police wanted to search my bags. I let them do what they wanted. I didn’t resist in any way. They said
they were confiscating my masks. When the officer found the masks he said ‘You can’t wear those.’
They didn’t give me a receipt. They didn’t tell me what powers they were using to confiscate the masks.
They said the masks could not be returned.
I filmed the entire incident.
28
Brad’s statement about G20 policing
This is the true statement of Bradley James Rankin about the wrongful and unlawful arrest and
enforcement of a G20 exclusion notice served under duress on me by the Queensland Police on November
16th 2014.
On the late afternoon of November 15th 2014 at the corner of Russell and Cordelia Sts I was witness to the
arrest by Qld police of Ciaron O’Reilly for entering a restricted G20 zone area where he was a restricted
blacklisted person for the G20 weekend.
I stated to the Qld police that we live in a democratic country and that this is not a police state and we have
the right to demonstrate and speak truth to power. A couple of officers took disagreement with the free
speech comments about power and rights, and one officer said I should leave or he would give me a formal
‘move on’ direction. So I left the corner of Russell and Cordilia Stsand returned to Musgrave Park.
On the next day, Sunday November 16the 2014, I went to South Bank beach to swim to cool off from the
extreme heat of the day. On my return to Musgrave Park I spoke with three police negotiators and
exchanged comments about the hot day.
Then as I was about to cross a road to continue to Musgrave Park I was stopped by a Qld police officer who
demanded that I identify myself. Another policeman claimed I was given a police direction the previous
day, to which I stated no formal order was given to me. I said “I disagree with your statement and I am
within my rights to cross this road to go to Musgrave Park to which the policeman said “I don’t care about
your rights, I just want to arrest you so take it up with the courts.” He then said I was under arrest. I
repeated that there had been no lawful direction given against me the previous day. I was cuffed, searched,
and given no options to check my status on the police system for identifying people.
I was then locked up in a police Kombi lock box in the extreme heat, waiting 15 minutes cooking in the van
until a female police driver asked me if I was okay through the cabin window, and put the aircon to cool for
the next 10-15 minutes.
I was held in a cell in the Roma Street lock up for approximately 25 minutes, then escorted to a desk
sergeant who told me to sign a G20 exclusion conditions form if I want to get out of the lock up. I signed
under duress. I dispute the reasons given by the police for the arrest. I state I have done no wrong and I
have had wrong done against me by these excessive over zealous police actions.
Signed Bradley James Rankin, Musgrave Park, Brisbane
29
Reflections on G20: by Robin Taubenfeld
By initiating open meetings to discuss "community responses" to the G20, Friends of the Earth (Brisbane
and Australia) took a key role in facilitating and supporting local community conversations and action
around the G20 Leaders' Summit, which took place in Brisbane in November 2014. As an organisation that
is non-aligned politically; committed to social and environmental justice; part of a global network of
grassroots organisations that have historically responded to the G20 and similar structures; structured
enough to have basic material infrastructure and campaign credibility; and yet not afraid of protest and
direct action, FoE was able to provide momentum for and help maintain community collaborations around
the G20.
The Brisbane Community Action Network (BrisCAN) was one such collaboration, comprising local and
international environmental, political, social justice and ecumenical groups. BrisCAN agreed to collaborate
on a Peoples' Summit and March, to respect the autonomy of groups organising within BrisCAN, and to
support the Decolonisation Before Profit Program of the Brisbane Aboriginal Sovereign Embassy (BASE).
BASE coordinated a week of ceremony, rallies, marches and forums, re-establishing the Aboriginal Embassy
in Musgrave Park, a block away from the G20 Summit venue, the Brisbane Convention Centre. Brisbane
came to a virtual standstill as the leaders of the 19 largest economies and the EU met. The meeting itself
was rather unremarkable. However, the outcomes and impacts of hosting such a meeting are worth
examining.
Scare-mongering media
It is hard to fathom the repression tolerated or the level of fear generated by the state in the lead up to the
G20. After a year of relentless scare-mongering media, manufactured largely by NewsCorp, the atmosphere
of fear was palpable.
We were warned: the entire centre of Brisbane was to be a special security area, "the red zone". Six
thousand police officers would be on the streets at any given time. We saw front-page pictures of armed
black-clad paramilitary-type police pointing guns at stereotypical "protestors". They said ferals and
anarchists were planning mayhem.
On November 8, the Saturday before the official Leaders' Summit started, the front page of Queensland's
Murdoch tabloid, the Courier Mail, carried a large picture of a police officer in riot gear, with burning cars
behind him, with the headline "City's longest week under way as invasion begins".
As the population who had not evacuated trembled, Christian social justice networks set up a "mock tax
haven", a fake luxurious beach scene in the centre of town, and the Murri community began setting up a
sovereignty camp in Musgrave Park, near the G20 Summit venue. No violence to be seen.
My own picture had earlier appeared under the headline "Protestors vow to unleash hell on our streets". At
the time the photo was taken I was wearing a Martin Luther King Jr t-shirt with the words "violence is
immoral", standing with a small group of pacifists outside a warfare arms expo. The banner I was holding
read "Qld government cuts funding for renewables, schools and hospitals − Sponsors arms fair". The t-shirt,
the peaceful protest and the banner were all missing from the photo.
The RACQ (motor) magazine featured a cover story about the police commissioner that illustrates the
insidious nature of state-manufactured consent. A normal mom of "sports-mad" 8 and 10 year olds. She
just happened to be in command of two surveillance centres specially built for the G20, at least one
30
armoured personal carrier, a contingent of over 6 000 local and foreign police officers working alongside
armed private security personnel with unprecedented police powers.
G20 planning
For Brisbane, the G20 served as a catalyst for a year of community conversations, many of them difficult,
long, insightful and meaningful. Online disagreements over messaging, styles of organising, meeting
management, "campaign" or action ownership, leadership, priorities of our demands/needs, discussion
about race, class, gender, age, ability ... many useful conversations were had, many hopeful connections
were made.
As a coordinator for BrisCAN-G20, my phone ran hot for the week of the promoted "invasion" – until on
Saturday November 16, when the Leaders' Summit was on its way, Obama and co. were in town, and the
crowd of approximately 3,000 of us marched peacefully through the streets of Brisbane carrying our
unlawfully large banners (yes, there were restrictions on the size of banners!). Some of us wore masks,
some ceremonial paint, a cohort of Climate Angels was followed by the dignified and graceful movement of
100 or so Falun Dafa practitioners. Into Musgrave Park we marched to be welcomed at the Brisbane
Sovereign Aboriginal Embassy's Decolonisation Before Profit camp.
In the lead up to the G20, we saw the Queensland Council of Unions follow police recommendations to not
allow outside groups to hold meetings in their premises, universities decide to move exam time and shut
down their campuses, city office workers given training to respond to threats from "anti-capitalists" and
local businesses who market themselves as funky, local community-centric spaces refuse to hire venues
stating they are concerned about "appearing to be against the government".
Officeworks in Cairns, where people protested the G20 Finance Ministers Meeting, and Officeworks in
Brisbane refused to print or scan G20-related material.
BrisCAN, the Aboriginal Embassy, various social justice groups, some unions and some church networks
planned actions, forums, camps, marches, listening posts, street theatre, panel discussions, punk gigs, press
conferences, film nights, street medic, legal and media teams, and public meetings.
Ukranians gathered in numbers to protest or support Putin. Tibetans and their supporters rallied in the city,
Oxfam did some street theatre stunts and other groups did creative actions. Larger organisations generally
stayed at arm's-length from the G20 actions, to ensure that they would not be associated with balaclavawearing, cop-car-smashing rabble-rousers that anyone concerned about the G20 was portrayed to be.
Nevertheless, some larger organisations did have a presence − an arm's-length presence − campaigning
against austerity or privatisation, or for action on climate change or to save the reef or for workers' rights.
The repressive apparatus of the capitalist state
Special police powers were in place to ensure that people could be arrested for not carrying ID, or searched
without suspicion, and the public had been informed that you could be in trouble for carrying "prohibited"
items such as eggs, canned tomatoes, surf boards, masks or, of course, reptiles or insects.
There was no doubt that the special powers could and would impact on Brisbane's (and Cairns's) most
vulnerable people. There seems to be an unspoken understanding that when events such as the G20 take
place, homeless people are removed, the city is "cleaned up", and we all accept limitations on our rights to
assemble.
A raft of laws had been put in place. VLAD − Vicious, Lawless Association Disestablishment Act (aka the Bikie
Laws); the G20 Act; the Out of Control Events Act (aka the Party Powers Act); the Brisbane City Council
Public Land and Council Assets Local Law 2014. These laws criminalise association, use of public space,
poverty/homelessness and political expression. Only the G20 Act is no longer in place.
31
While the Newman government severely cut funding for youths and the arts, state-sponsored graffiti
appeared on Brisbane freeway pylons, and Queens Park – one of the few remaining spaces generally used
for rallies – was turned in to a knit-bombed, kids art space and then ironically into an exclusion zone as
authorities were determined to curtail protest action in town.
#Genocidal20
A highlight for me was seeing a huge 20+ metre banner that said #Genocidal20 carried through town.
Another was the handing over of a statement developed out of the three-day Peoples' Summit to a trade
union activist from Turkey – the venue for the 2015 G20 − and hearing him speak about organising in his
community.
I felt excitement when I saw a street medic team form; reverence when a ceremony was conducted before
our biggest march; inspired when the Anonymous crew manifested a citizen journalist media space;
grateful for the support of local businesses, churches and groups; inspired by people from overseas and
interstate who came to Brisbane because they shared concerns about the G20; respect for First Nations
people asserting – not asking for – sovereignty; and hope when I saw young people and new people taking
action.
With its focus of bolstering the "growth economy," the G20 perpetuates political and economic systems
based on violence and inequality. The leaders of the 20 largest global economies gathered for their own
agendas − not ours. Among them, every declared nuclear weapons state − but they were not talking about
disarmament. They did not gather in to pursue peace and cooperation − they found it almost impossible to
even include the word "inclusive" in their concept of growth.
Structures such as the C20 (Civil Society 20), the Y20 (Youth 20), the L20 (the Labour 20) and others are
officially sanctioned, select groupings that respond to, not set, the G20 agenda. Unsurprisingly, of these
side-groupings the B20 – the "Business 20" − has the most access to the G20.
The lands that the G20 met on in Brisbane are the traditional lands of the Turbal and Jagera people. The
G20 met on stolen land – perpetuating the colonisation of this space and reconfirming its embodiment of
injustice, dispossession and inequality.
The G20 is perpetuating a system devoid of moral authority, which therefore relies on state power, and on
the power of the Murdoch tabloids to manufacture a perverse narrative.
Robin Taubenfeld is a member of Friends of the Earth, Brisbane.
32
Report from a G20 Observer: by Dawn Joyce
The Australian Friend
Journal of The Religious Society of Friends (Quakers) in Australia
15/03/15
http://australianfriend.org/af3128
Dawn Joyce, Queensland Regional Meeting
Prayer vigil at Musgrave Park.
Photo: Tony Robertson
The Brisbane Commonwealth Games protests in 1982 proved a turning point for first nations peoples.
Wayne Wharton, a Kooma man from the Cunnamulla region of south-western Queensland and veteran
activist and sovereignty campaigner, took part in the Stolenwealth Games campaign. Thirty-two years
later, Wayne galvanised his community and supporters yet again with the words: “The whole world
will be watching”. His eye was on the forthcoming G20 summit, where the leaders and finance
ministers of the world’s richest nations – and the world’s media – would converge on Brisbane in
November 2014. Despite Australia’s place among the wealthiest nations, it has as yet to acknowledge
its history of failing to honour and respect its first nations people and their deep knowledge of this
land.
During Australia Yearly Meeting 2014 in Brisbane, a group of Quakers walked from a peace vigil in
King George Square to the Brisbane Aboriginal Sovereign Embassy (BASE) at Musgrave Park. Wayne
had already been involved in a Yearly Meeting session and now he welcomed us to BASE. All but one of
the gathered group knew their land (their sovereign tribe). David Carline, a first nations Friend and
also a Kooma man, commented that in his experience this was unprecedented. But although some
things have changed perceptibly, the processes of decolonisation has scarcely begun. A new wave of
stolen children, more deaths in custody, and threats to the land and water are constant concerns. The
sacred fire was lit by David because Wayne had recently been arrested for carrying out this traditional
practice and would face jail for any contravention of bail orders.
33
In a traditional smoking ceremony, green leaves are placed on the sacred fire and each participant
moves through the cleansing smoke; but this ceremony was particularly moving in that Wayne held
our hands as he received and blessed each of us. His request was for Quakers to accompany the
difficult work of the embassy at the forthcoming G20 alternative program planned for November 2014.
His message was powerfully clear: our presence and our Quaker tabards help them to carry their
message forward.
Wayne had spent twenty years working on the Kooma land rights claim, but with a success in this
project, his attention switched to the G20. On 2 November, Queensland Quakers approved a request
for financial support with a donation of $1000 from the Pay the Rent – Land Rights Fund for a First
Nations Conference. At the national level, the First Nations Peoples Concerns Committee also approved
a donation of $800. I agreed to work as a Quaker Universalist observer and to help provide
accompaniment for this work.
On 5 November I saw a wonderful Oxfam billboard on the east side of the rail overpass right next to
the Convention Centre where the G20 Summit was to be held: The rich get richer and the poor get left
behind: G20 – Even it up. Given that the Queensland government had ordered the removal of billboards
with political messaging from near the airport, I wondered how long this signage would remain.
Activists hurried to photograph it and put the message up on social media.
On Sunday 9 November, I helped Friends of the Earth welcome Warlmanpa women, Diane and Paula,
guests from Muckaty Station in the Northern Territory. The Warlmanpa people have won a long
struggle to resist having a nuclear waste dump on their lands and I was keen to show my gratitude for
their work in exposing and resisting the machinations of the toxic nuclear industry. A welcome
corroboree for all guests set a celebratory mood, after a week of jumping bureaucratic hurdles
including a last minute requirement from Brisbane City Council for 20 toilets to be provided at a cost
of $5000. An appeal to ANTaR (Australians for Native Title and Reconciliation) members met this
target in ten hours. Fencing from an abandoned construction site and elsewhere carried banners.
Although the fence was incomplete, it suggested that important business was planned here: but unlike
the barriers around the Brisbane Convention Centre, it was not policed by hundreds of officers.
Given the experience of previous G20 protesters, there was a heightened fear of violence from riot
police imported from all over Australia and New Zealand. Caxton Legal Service initiated an Observer
Project, in which they would work in teams of two to provide an independent record of events.
Because Monday 10 November was a workday, all the volunteers from the Caxton observer project
were at their normal jobs. Thus the “observer” presence was one person in a Quaker tabard plus
members of the Brisbane Street Medics collective with their distinctive Green Cross armbands.
The first of five embassy rallies to focus on particular issues of concern centred on the latest wave of
Stolen Children. I greeted Monty who headed up the police community liaison team of mostly
Caucasian men and women in pale blue caps and he was happy to wear a white poppy to mark
Remembrance Eve. I had met Monty earlier in the year as part of the BrisCAN-G20 (Brisbane
Community Action Network) coordinating team. Quite a few others accepted a white poppy for peace.
The rally went overtime, so I was unable to accompany the march because of the Quaker peace vigil to
mark Remembrance Eve, scheduled from noon to 1 pm.
Tuesday 11 November (Remembrance Day): About 40 people accepted a white poppy. Monty said his
daughter had appropriated his peace poppy, so I gladly gave him another one. The theme today was
Our Land, Our Water, Our Life, Our Future: the title says it all! The traditional custodians of this land
remind us constantly that “if we care for country, it will care for us”; but a settler “control” mentality
still overshadows the call for sustainable practices. After the rally, we marched over Victoria Bridge as
it was still open to pedestrians. Back at the “yarning circle”, I heard some of the details of the
patronising deal that had been offered to the Marlmanpa people. Even had the materials to be stored
been benign, the proposed management of the trust fund to send students away to private boarding
schools still resonated with a distinctly patriarchal tenor.
34
The rallies and marches for Wednesday and Thursday were cancelled and a further march added for
Sunday. This gave me an opportunity to take in some of the Peoples Summit which was also endorsed
and supported by a donation of $250 from Queensland Quakers. Liaison with Frontline Films and the
embassy saw the premiere of Waging Peace at the embassy on Thursday night. This was entirely
appropriate, following a call from local elder Sam Watson for collaborative solutions to injustice as
part of the afternoon Peoples Summit session. The film was well received. It was, as we say, “in right
ordering”. Chris Hughes, a member of Australia Yearly Meeting First Nations Committee, arrived from
Melbourne and it was wonderful to have an “observer buddy” for the remainder of the week.
Friday’s rally and march focused on Deaths in Custody. A royal commission in 1987 investigated
Aboriginal deaths in custody over a ten year period, giving over 330 recommendations. Its
recommendations are still valid today, but very few have been implemented, and every year
Aboriginal people continue to die in custody. I found it difficult to listen to the pain and the trauma and
the anger that racial profiling has generated. Some speakers were overcome with emotion. Other
speakers were articulate and “Putinesque” in their strategising. We marched past the main city watch
house, a site of much suffering; then over the Kurilpa pedestrian bridge since Victoria Bridge was now
in lockdown. A media report summarised the situation well: “Stifling heat and stifling security.”
Following the march, I was a little surprised to see a number of police community liaison personnel in
Musgrave Park. At a smoking ceremony, the district commissioner and his deputy joined a line-up of
elders and in an extraordinary ceremony, they and scores of people circled the sacred fire. Given the
recent history of the Brisbane embassy, this is nothing short of miraculous. I watched the police media
briefing the next morning, and the seismic shift had indeed endured the night.
Saturday marked a combined BrisCAN and First Nations rally and march, with thousands of protesters.
One highlight was seeing a huge banner carried aloft by about 20 people. Its message, Genocidal 20,
reflects the plight of First Nations people here and across the world. Given that the banner size under
the restrictive G20 laws was 2×1 metres, this is a significant win for civil society. Although some
people reported face masks were confiscated during bag searches on trains, quite a few masks were
worn – particularly the iconic Anonymous mask – albeit on the back of the head.
Before Sunday’s rally and march, a car tooting support was pulled up by police with no police liaison
personnel in sight. Although other cars had tooted, this one was driven by a Brisbane Black. The car
was swarmed by police and rally supporters, citizen journalists and photographers. I asked a six foot
police officer in riot gear where he came from. He replied with a tight-lipped: “Australia.” I replied:
“I’m from Brisbane. Where are you from?” He repeated: “Australia.” A man with a camera brushed past
me with a quiet “Onya” (good on you). A young black woman quipped: “How many police does it take
to do a license check?” Humour always helps. The arrival of police community liaison officers further
defused a nasty incident of racial profiling. It brought home to me this reality: that without eyes and
ears to deter such profiling, vulnerable individuals face prejudice alone, and Australia ends up with
disproportionate numbers of angry, helpless people in the court system and in the jails.
After a long list of speakers, I witnessed my first flag burning. Wayne had told the police to respect the
ceremony and its message. And they did. One woman was in tears as the Australian flag burned, but I
do not know if it was because she was distressed, or relieved that injustice was being ceremoniously
recognised. As the flames died down, an elder invited the fire department to “come and extinguish 200
years of colonial injustice”. The march to Musgrave Park was halted at Kurilpa Point. Named by the
Turrbul people as Kurilpa (place of the water rat) it was a regarded in the city’s earliest history as a
meeting place for indigenous tribes and a popular crossing point before the river was bridged. In the
shade of huge old trees I was witness to dancers young and old as they celebrated energetically in 40
degree heat.
This week marks a momentous move forward in the struggle of Australia’s first nation peoples. It has
been a privilege to walk peacefully with them. The focus of this campaign now shifts to a peace
convergence in Canberra in April 2015 to continue work towards recognition in Australia’s military
history of the Frontier Wars fought across this continent for a century. This history is still widely
denied and ignored, and it remains history that Australia needs to face.
35
BrisCAN report back about meeting with QPS on 29 Oct 2014
Attendees:
BrisCAN BAST representatives (3 people), Steve V (QPS External Engagement Liaison Officer), Peter H.
(police negotiator) and “Monty” MC (a co-ordinator of police negotiators).
The purpose of the meeting was to discuss issues included in the draft MOU. The purpose of the MOU was
to establish some framework for cooperation to facilitate peaceful protest.
BrisCAN’s interest was to seek agreement about the space for peaceful protest and to use the discussion to
facilitate effective protest. In relation to these aims the discussion was unproductive.
The policing policy discussed appears to be intended to suppress the ability for marches to function as
independent expressions of dissent.
General discussion
Steve V. advised upfront that the QPS would not sign an MOU with BrisCAN. He stated that the QPS G20
solicitor had advised against the QPS signing an MOU with a group they were policing. Steve V. had
suggested in July that a MOU was something that the QPS would consider.
The status of discussions about the MOU and matters included in the MOU is unclear with differences of
opinion apparent between QPS representatives.
QPS outlined that there would be 2 negotiators allocated to BrisCAN from 8 Nov onwards. They advised
that there will be negotiators present at all public BrisCAN events, including amongst other things summit
forums and assemblies.
QPS indicated that Shane Chepley was the QPS Ground Forces Commander.
QPS advised that BrisCAN would be presented with a written draft “protest plan” for the 15 November
march. Protest plans would be made available for static events (ie. meetings) soon. Protest plans are to
establish a ‘no surprises’ framework. The police will use these to tell BrisCAN what is permissible.
QPS invited BrisCAN representatives to go to the Academy to meet some officers with G20 policing
responsibilities, and to see QPS “hardware” including “long range acoustic devices” which they will station
to ensure compliance with march routes.
The QPS view is that “lawful excuse” does not include peaceful protests. That is that intended use of
loudhailers, large banners and similar items in G20 protests is not a “lawful excuse”. QPS state that “lawful
excuse” does not relate to facilitation of protests, it relates eg. to an item needed because of someone’s
employment.
BrisCAN rep asked about incorporating the use of prohibited items in “protest plans”. The protest plans are
not however mutually agreed to.
Discussion on QPS responsibilities
36
QPS agreed that police would keep a register of photographs and other electronic recordings that come
into their possession. ‘Official’ photographs would be subject to right of information. While video
recordings made by individual on duty officers is police property, the QPS advise that this is hard to track
and to get the identification number. (The problem with this system is that it allows individual officers to
retain and delete at whim.)
“Kettling” will be a measure of the last resort.
Horses will be used to block access but will not be used in an offensive manner.
Dogs used as a last resort. The view was expressed that dogs can be used to ‘take down’ single persons, but
would not be used as crowd control.
Detection dogs will not be used in crowds to find people in possession of drugs. However there would be
responses to public use of drugs because this would be an embarrassment to police.
Agreement that QPS negotiators and BrisCAN police liaison officers can play a role in de-escalating
flashpoints.
In the event of arbitrary seizure of phones and other recording devices protestors should record the
identification number of the officer concerned.
QPS stated that it would be reasonable to expect at least a verbal explanation of why a phone might be
confiscated, with details being provided of the offence that is purported to have occurred.
Police commander does not want loudhailers at all. Standing PA systems at particular locations may be
okay.
Marches may be allowed past the BCEC on Monday and Tuesday, but after that no.
Anonymous masks are prohibited items and will not be allowed
Some comments
BrisCAN rep has agreed to write to Andrew Anderson to request an opinion about whether “lawful excuse”
might include the facilitation of peaceful protest and whether it is at all possible to seek a court order
without a prosecution.
Steve V. and Peter H. particularly appeared disinterested in negotiating matters raised in the draft MOU.
There was no discussion about the scope of the term ‘disrupt’, bail procedures, use of arbitrary detention,
search powers, or matters related to the scope of police powers or interpretation of the Act. The QPS were
uninterested in negotiating or co-operative processes to facilitate peaceful protest.
Peter H. adopted a paternalistic attitude to protestor behaviour. He indicated that if protestors complied in
early protests then the QPS would consider concessions.
The invitation to attend the Academy to see QPS “hardware” including long range acoustic devices appears
to be an exercise in making it clear that the QPS mean business. The QPS want to show us what they will
use against us if we don’t comply with prescribed march routes etc.
We need to discuss our level of engagement with the QPS in relation to procedures to de-escalate
flashpoints. Relevant considerations include that we can rely upon the ILOs to exert a moderating influence
on police behaviour. We run the risk of being accused of policing the protest if we are seen to be
collaborating with police. The police will provide us with contact numbers and other details for QPS
37
negotiators. It might be worthwhile approaching police negotiators where incidents escalate and have the
potential to threaten the march.
The QPS appear uninterested in negotiations to facilitate peaceful protests, and there appears to be very
little or no scope for BrisCAN to seek to increase the space for peaceful assembly through discussion.
The QPS opposition to lawful assembly being considered to be ‘lawful excuse’ may result in confrontation
and rapid loss of any goodwill from the start of the Nov 15 rally & march if individuals are challenged over
items in their possession.
The discussions last week reaffirm that the approach of the QPS is to suppress effective protest. The route
of the march will be removed from the G20 summit. Loudhailers, large banners, face masks and other items
traditionally used in protests are proscribed. “Protest plans” will prescribe what the QPS view to be
permissible. Hardware including long range acoustic devices will be deployed to ensure compliance with
prescribed routes. All underpinned by the militarised policing operation and repressive legislation.
This represents the suppression of the ability of protests to function as independent means for signalling
political dissent during the G20 summit.
38
13 Nov 2014 – BrisCAN report back on discussions with QPS - Police continue to use threats and
intimidation to regulate G20 peaceful assemblies
BrisCAN met with police negotiators on 13 November to discuss the use of prohibited items at the rally and
march on Saturday 15 November.
The police had previously stated that their interpretation of the phrase “lawful excuse” did not include
peaceful assembly that that therefore there was no lawful excuse for possession of items normally
associated with peaceful assembly such as large banners, loudhailers and face masks.
While police claim to be implementing the law here, they have in fact been stating a particular
interpretation of the legislation. A judicial decision will be required to settle the meaning of “lawful
excuse”.
BrisCAN has argued that “lawful excuse” may well include intention to participate in peaceful assembly.
On Monday 10 November police negotiators tabled a proposition allowing for the use of 2 megaphones
and 2 large banners on the Saturday march.
On Monday 10 November and Tuesday 11 November the Brisbane Aboriginal Sovereign Embassy convened
rallies, both of which included the use of large banners.
On Tuesday 11 November the Guardian Australia reported comments by Walter Sofronoff, former Solicitor
General, that the wearing of face masks to make a political point was lawful in the G20 declared area. The
same article quoted a police spokesperson who stated “The police have determined that if the leader of a
protest group has a megaphone for the purpose of co-ordinating, organising and for the safety of the group
this will be permitted.”
The police have changed their position. Police negotiators stated that on Thursday afternoon Deputy
Commissioner Ross Barnett has said that megaphones will not be allowed on the march. Nor will large
banners.
Police negotiators said that it was recognised that the wearing of face masks may be a means of political
expression, and intention to wear a face mask at a rally is a lawful excuse. However people who wear face
masks can expect to be stopped and spoken to by police on the day. And there is no guarantee that face
masks will not be seized. They stated that this will be a matter of individual police discretion.
The police negotiators indicated that theatrical props may not be ruled out. This was in relation to people
wearing gas masks as a theatrical prop.
The police negotiators appeared to have no room to negotiate. The position they carried into discussions
was that instructed by the Deputy Commissioner Ross Barnett.
There was agreement that BrisCAN liaison people would work with police liaison to diffuse incidents eg.
where a police officer may be seeking to confiscate a person’s phone. BrisCAN have previously resolved
that any such role does not include policing the rally and march.
39
There was no discussion of matters relating to ambiguities in the Act which have a chilling effect upon
protests. BrisCAN have continued to table matters seeking agreements that might facilitate the right to
freedom of assembly.
BrisCAN members indicated that they could not sign off on a revised protest plan that restricted people’s
civil liberties.
'Sonic cannons' to be deployed during G20
November 9, 2014
Cameron Atfield
accessed 141109
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/brisbane-g20/sonic-cannons-to-be-deployed-during-g2020141108-11j4lf.html
Sonic tool: A long-range acoustic device at the G20 summit in Pittsburgh. Photo: YouTube
Protest groups have been warned sonic cannons could be used against them should their G20
demonstrations get out of hand.
But while it acknowledged it had such devices in its arsenal, the Queensland Police Service has insisted the
"long range acoustic hailing devices" would not be used as a crowd control measure.
Fairfax Media understands the Queensland Police Service has in its possession at least two models – the
LRAD 500X-RE, which has a range of two kilometres, and the handheld LRAD 100X, with a range of more
than 600 metres.
One of the groups informed of the potential use of the devices, the Brisbane Community Action Network,
was offered the opportunity to see a demonstration of the LRAD sonic cannons in action
"We were told that we could go out to the police training academy and see this device, which was the
latest in crowd control," BrisCAN spokesman Adrian Skerritt said.
40
"It seemed an exercise in intimidation."
Such devices have been used at G20 summits before, most notably in Pittsburgh in 2009.
Along with the ability to produce incapacitating noise, capable of causing extreme discomfort, the devices
can also be used as powerful loud speakers.
A QPS spokeswoman said police negotiators often used the devices as a means of communication.
"The devices may be used at G20 for communication with large crowds," she said.
"Under no circumstances will they be used as cannons or as a use of force option.
"No additional devices will be bought into Brisbane for G20."
The question of how many of the devices the QPS had at its disposal went unanswered.
Caxton Legal Centre director Scott McDougall, who was co-ordinating independent legal observers at all
G20 protests, said ear-plugs were being supplied to their volunteers in case the devices were used.
"We're concerned about anything that interferes with the rights of citizens to enjoy their political
freedoms, especially the freedom of political communication," he said.
"To the extent that it impacts on that, we're concerned about it.
"But having said that, I'm sure they would only be deployed if all the other strategies the police have at
hand don't work."
Mr Skerritt said he did not think the police would have a reason to use the devices as a crowd control
measure.
"We've indicated all the way along that we're committed to peaceful protests and [the police] know that,"
he said.
"I've been organising protests in this town for quite a number of years, about budget cuts, about civil
liberties, and we know who's coming and we have no inkling that people are going to rock up with the
intention of damaging property in the CBD."
Mr Skerritt said it would be a bad look for Brisbane if the sonic cannons were used against protesters.
"You do not want to create the impression that all the civil liberties that are cherished are simply thrown
away during this time and people's very basic democratic rights are denied to them," he said.
"I'm hoping that the police get that and are concerned about the sort of image that they project to the
world.
"It would tell the world that the authorities' commitment to civil liberties only exists on paper and in reality,
intimidation tactics will be used to try to curtail people's democratic expression."
41
DRAFT MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
On cooperation to facilitate peaceful protests leading up to and during the G20 Leaders’ Summit in
Brisbane in 2014
BETWEEN
BRISBANE COMMUNITY ACTION NETWORK – G20
AND
QUEENSLAND POLICE SERVICE
42
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
1. Recitals
This Memorandum of Understanding is reached on the …… day of ………… 2014,
Between
Brisbane Community Action Network – G20 (“BrisCAN”)
And
Queensland Police Service (“the QPS”)
to establish trust, cooperation and coordination between the parties in ensuring peaceful protests
leading up to and during the G20 Leaders’ Summit in Brisbane in 2014 (“the G20 Summit”); to
provide increased understanding of the application of the G20 (Safety and Security) Act 2013 (“the
G20 Act”) and other relevant laws.
2. Interpretation
The following words and phrases have the meaning provided in this section:
“assembly” means “assembly” as defined in section 18(2) of the G20 Act;
“assembly participants” includes people participating in G20 related protests and rallies, and
other events organised in a public place for the purpose of raising awareness of issues;
“kettling” is defined as ongoing containment of demonstrators by police in public spaces;
“political expression” means communication including theatrical performances and art;
“QPS” includes Queensland Police Officer, non-State police officers and appointed persons.
3. Commencement
This Memorandum of Understanding will commence from the date of signature of each of the
parties.
4. Period of Operation
This Memorandum of Understanding will continue to operate for the life of the G20 Act unless
terminated or amended by the parties by mutual consent.
5. Common Goal and Objectives
5.1
The purpose of this Memorandum of Understanding is to:
(a) clarify ambiguities and uncertainties within the G20 Act;
(b) establish a common goal for the parties in relation to the G20 Summit;
(c) reach a shared understanding of, and fulfil and enhance the intention and spirit of the
G20 Act in a manner that respects the rights of citizens to protest in Queensland; and
(d) maintain trust, cooperation and coordination between the parties.
5.2
The common goal of the parties is to support and facilitate peaceful protests leading up to
and during the G20 Summit.
5.3
The parties will recognise the challenges of the differing expectations of stakeholders and
take into account matters such as police powers and responsibilities, freedom of political
communication, and the right to assembly, and will seek to balance these competing rights
and interests.
43
6. The QPS Responsibilities
6.1
The QPS will maintain a register of photographs and other electronic recordings of
assemblies and assembly participants that come into their possession, and retain these
documents so that they may, if required, be subpoenaed.
6.2
The QPS will not use “kettling” against assembly participants.
6.3
The QPS will not use dogs or horses as a means of crowd control against assembly
participants.
6.4
The QPS will not use detection dogs in a manner that may cause alarm, anxiety or physical
harm.
6.5
Where incidents occur that have the potential to escalate the QPS and designated BrisCAN
police liaison members will first use all reasonable endeavours to seek a resolution that
avoids the use of force, arrests or the issuing of exclusion notices.
6.6
The QPS will not seize mobile phones and other recording devices in the possession of an
assembly participant where the participant does not provide consent.
6.7
The QPS agrees that if mobile phones and other recording devices are seized a receipt will
be issued immediately providing the specific factual details used to infer reasonable
suspicion that the item contains evidence of the commission of an offence.
6.8
The QPS media liaison and/or other relevant units will use reasonable endeavours to avoid
the issuing of media releases that either stigmatise protestors, eg. by characterising
protestors as violent, or creates an expectation of the use of force against assembly
participants.
6.9
When Queensland Police Officers are in attendance at assemblies they will ensure that their
identification numbers are visible.
7. Application of other laws
7.1
The QPS do not envisage circumstances surrounding peaceful protests that would see the
following laws invoked against assembly participants:
(a) Vicious Lawless Association Disestablishment Act 2013;
(b) Section 50 of the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000;
(c) Section 236 of the Transport Operations (Road Use Management – Road Rules)
Regulation 2009; and
(d) other obstruction laws.
7.2
A person who participates in an assembly will not, merely because of the participation, be
prosecuted for obstruction of a public place.
8. Meaning of ‘disrupt’ under the G20 Act
8.1
It is noted that the QPS have previously submitted that “In relation to the use of the term
‘disrupt’, the QPS stated: 'Disrupt' in clause 18(1)(b) is to be given its ordinary meaning. The
QPS has no intention to interfere with the fundamental right to peaceful protest and
assembly. Protest may occur in declared areas and may in fact occur adjacent to restricted
areas and motorcade areas. Police training will focus on protest management and the need
to balance the right to protest against the safety and security of the event.”
8.2
Both parties agree, in order to reduce the room for misinterpretation, that the word ‘disrupt’
does not apply to behaviour that does not prevent participants at G20 summit meetings from
44
conducting their business, and does not include simple annoyance, nuisance, inconvenience,
or noisy protests.
9. Section 82
9.1
The parties note that the presumption against bail and the issuing of exclusion notices as a
bail condition pursuant to section 82 of the G20 Act may have the effect of restricting a
person’s right to participate in lawful assemblies.
9.2
The QPS will put in place guidelines to prevent possible factual mischaracterisations being
recorded in QP9s/bench charge sheets, so as to avoid an inappropriate triggering of section
82.
10. Police powers - general
10.1 In this clause, “Police Powers” means powers conferred to the QPS under the G20 Act,
which includes but not limited to its powers under:
(a) Part 4 – Special powers in relation to security areas
(b) Part 5 – Prohibited persons and excluded persons
(c) Part 6 – Prohibited items and related provisions
(d) Part 7 – Offences
(e) Part 9 – Arrest and custody powers and bail
10.2 The QPS will not exercise Police Powers in an arbitrary or discriminatory manner or with the
intention of frustrating the enjoyment of peaceful assembly.
10.3 With respect to clause 10.1, the QPS will put in place guidelines to prevent undue restrictions
of the rights of citizens to participate in peaceful assemblies, eg. in relation to the issuing and
enforcement of exclusion notices where the person may have a lawful excuse or where
actual grounds for reasonable suspicion do not exist.
10.4 The parties agree that the relevant provisions of the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act
2000 setting out safeguards (e.g. in relation to searches, arrest, giving directions etc.) will
continue to apply throughout the G20 meeting.
11. Possession and use of prohibited items
11.1 Both parties agree that the following is not a prohibited item pursuant to Schedule 6 of the
G20 Act:
(a) ceremonial paint worn by Indigenous people; and
(b) face paint worn by children.
11.2 Both parties agree that ‘lawful excuse’ in relation to the possession and use of prohibited
items, including:
a) loudhailers;
b) large banners;
c) face masks; and
d) theatrical and artistic props,
includes intended participation in, and the facilitation of, peaceful assemblies and political
expression in declared areas.
11.3 The QPS will not seize unattended prohibited items, including loudhailers, large banners and
face masks, where it is reasonable to infer that the items are to be used to facilitate peaceful
assembly or political expression.
45
11.4 The QPS will not demand the surrender of, or seize, prohibited items including loudhailers,
large banners and face masks, where it is reasonable to infer that the items are to be used to
facilitate peaceful assembly.
11.5 The QPS agrees that where prohibited items are surrendered, the specific details of the
factual basis for the reasonable suspicion will be included on the receipt issued to the person
formerly in possession the surrendered item.
12. Police Directions
12.1 The parties note that a police officer must not give a direction that interferes with a person's
right of peaceful assembly unless it is reasonably necessary in the interests of—
(a) public safety; or
(b) public order; or
(c) the protection of the rights and freedoms of other persons.
12.2 The parties note that in order for a direction to be given pursuant to the G20 Act there must
be a factual basis for a reasonable suspicion that the direction is necessary for the safety
and security of the G20 meeting or the safety and security of a member of the public in
relation to a G20 purpose.
12.3 The parties note that it is not reasonably necessary to arrest a person for failing to comply
with a direction where the person has not heard either the direction or the reasons for the
giving of the direction, nor heard that failure to comply with the direction is an offence for
which they may be arrested.
13. Section 74
13.1 Both parties agree, in order to reduce the room for misinterpretation, that the term ‘interfere
with reasonable enjoyment’ is interpreted to mean ‘disrupt, interfere with, delay or obstruct’,
and does not refer to simple annoyance, nuisance, inconvenience, or noisy protests.
14. Arbitrary detention without charge
14.1 The parties agree that arbitrary detention, as may be facilitated by section 50 PPRA and ss
79 and 80 of the G20 Act, for the purpose of removing persons from peaceful assembly will
not be used as a G20 public order policing tactic.
14.2 The parties agree that the release of persons without charge may be appropriate in a range
of circumstances.
15. Search Powers
15.1 The QPS will not exercise its search powers under Part 4 Divisions 1 to 3 of the G20 Act in
an arbitrary or discriminatory manner, and the parties note that the safeguards in the PPRA
in relation to search powers continue to apply.
16. Miscellaneous
16.1 The QPS agrees to the use of motor vehicles in marches for the purpose of transporting
elderly and medically incapacitated persons.
16.2 The QPS will take into consideration the position expressed by BrisCAN that the act of
photographing and recording assembly participants by police will both erode trust between
protestors and police and have a chilling effect upon participation in assemblies.
46
16.3 The QPS notes the continued preference by BrisCAN that police when in attendance at
assemblies, will not possess the following accoutrements: guns, tasers, OC spray, batons,
and other weapons or things capable of being used to cause harm against assembly
participants.
Signed on the ….… day of ….…..…… 2014
-------------------------------------
----------------------------------------
for the Queensland Police Service
witness
-------------------------------------
----------------------------------------
for BrisCAN
witness
47