Why banning future bridge protests could be risky for NSW Premier Chris Minns
Publicly, he says he doesn't regret his vocal opposition to the protest, declaring that it's not "open season" for demonstrations on the bridge.
However, having seen the enormous crowds that marched on Sunday, he must have quietly contemplated the alternative scenario.
Had the Supreme Court sided with police it's likely that a significant number of protesters would have marched anyway.
The premier himself has acknowledged a "huge groundswell" of concern about the suffering of civilians in Gaza, and protest organisers believe many participants would have been undeterred.
That could have led to ugly scenes, with the potential for mass arrests or injuries to both protesters and police.
And with a crowd that big, police may have still been forced to close the bridge on public safety grounds.
That would have undermined their authority — and that of the government.
So, the court's authorisation has saved the government that particular headache.
However, in doing so, it may have created an even bigger dilemma for Chris Minns.
The premier is concerned the court may have set a precedent, making it even more difficult to oppose future protests on the bridge.
The road he chooses in response is littered with potholes.
While the Palestine Action Group has promised another major protest on August 24, spokesperson Josh Lees says there are no plans to demonstrate on the harbour bridge any time soon.
Without another protest application being tested in court, it remains unclear whether Saturday's ruling will pave the way for a future demonstration.
However, to remove all doubt, the opposition is calling on the government to consider legislation to stop the bridge being used for a future protest.
While the premier says he has no desire to rush legislation, he's not ruling it out either.
It's a risky strategy.
Legislation would almost certainly face a legal challenge.
It could also be ignored by defiant protesters, putting them on a collision course with police, who have a tough enough job as it is.
Such a move could also cause major disquiet amongst Labor MPs, some of whom are already angry about existing laws restricting protests.
When the premier faces caucus on Tuesday morning, he'll do so knowing several of his colleagues marched on Sunday.
Two of his ministers, Penny Sharpe and Jihad Dib joined the protest.
MPs Julia Finn, Lynda Voltz, Cameron Murphy, Stephen Lawrence, Bob Nanva and Anthony D'Adam were amongst those marching too.
Last year, the premier warned his MPs who spoke out on Gaza to either focus on state issues or "run for federal parliament".
He's unlikely to be as dismissive when caucus meets today.
Mr Minns sensed the community's horror in the wake of Hamas' terrorist attacks on October 7.
But having seen the enormity of Sunday's protest, he says he also understands the depth of concern surrounding the humanitarian situation in Gaza.
While he says he's "repeatedly" expressed those concerns, his language on Monday was noticeably stronger.
While he said he was "terrified and appalled" by Hamas, he spoke of the "IDF's [Israel Defense Forces] action in bombing hospitals," describing it as a "massive concern as a human being."
While Israel has repeatedly argued that Hamas operates beneath hospitals, the images of civilian casualties are difficult to ignore.
He also said that stopping aid from entering Gaza had been "disastrous" for civilians there.
Israel's government has criticised the weekend's protest.
The country's foreign minister, Gideon Sa'ar posted a photo of a demonstrator who appeared to be holding a photo of Iran's supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, who has called for Israel's destruction.
However, the premier said most protesters went with the "right intentions".
Until now, the premier has shown a distinct lack of patience with pro-Palestinian demonstrations, particularly when they create cost and inconvenience.
Sunday's scenes suggest that any further attempts to block them could backfire, both in caucus and on the streets.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
ABC News
17 minutes ago
- ABC News
Australia's productivity roundtable should consider what actually makes life harder
Only a fortnight to go before the Treasurer's National Economic Reform Roundtable! With submissions rolling in to the Canberra summit, the nation finds itself in the exciting middle stage of our triphasic national economic policy cycle: "Let A Thousand Flowers Bloom". That is to say, we've moved past Phase One (Grumbling About Why Politicians Don't Do Bold Reform Anymore) and are enjoying the brief efflorescence of Big Ideas before we initiate Phase Three (Methodically Weed-Killing Every Single One Because They All Make Someone Sad). See also: Kevin Rudd's 2020 Summit, Tony Abbott's 2013 Budget, Malcolm Turnbull's Ideas Boom, and whatever it was that Scott Morrison was going to do before the world caught the spicy cough. Treasurer Jim Chalmers has valiantly called for participants to bring budget-neutral ideas that are not motivated by sectoral self-interest. But these are hard habits to kick, and in the Big Ideas so far submitted, the customary palimpsest of tax reform is already evident; big business has some compelling ideas for how they could pay less tax, the unions for how they could pay more, and so on. Here's a submission outlining how we could have more of the things we like, and how those things could be funded by taxing more of the things you like. Thank you, the end. Carbon pricing! A cashflow tax! Retooled R&D incentives! Taxes broadened! Tax rates flattened! If there's one sector where productivity isn't a problem right now, it's economists with big ideas writing beefy submissions on how to address the nation's productivity rate, curving gently earthward these last ten hectic years. Submissions no ordinary citizen will read. Why would we? Productivity is something only economists understand, like the non-accelerating inflation rate of unemployment, or the difference between real and nominal GDP. But what if the conversation about productivity didn't start at an economics reform summit? What if it started in the nation's kitchens? At the school gate? In the dentist's waiting room? Because that's where a huge chunk of Australia's productivity gains could be made. And where some of the least-acknowledged productivity engines in the country currently lose a lot of time blowing smoke. What if we reframed our way of talking about drags on productivity so that you wouldn't need an economics degree to whistle along? Even the term "productivity drag" is deceptive. It is, literally, a human phenomenon in economic drag. What it really means, in the baldest terms, is "headache-inducing and unnecessary complication that gets in the way of getting sh*t done." So if we're going to be in the business of asking big questions, let's make sure we ask not just the big economic questions, but the big human ones. Remembering that they're not always the same thing. Questions like: Why does the school day end at 3pm, when in the vast majority of households with two parents and kids aged under 14, both parents now work? In the 1970s, only 40 per cent of such families had both parents in employment. The more common arrangement — in 55 per cent of households even by the late 70s — was that dad worked, and mum took care of the rest. But today, in 73 per cent of two-parent families, mum and dad both work. Which means we are now running a national economy where the backup plan for sick days, school pick-up, dental appointments, and Oh-My-God-I-Forgot-My-Book-Week-Costume is… Well. It's a matter of day-to-day improvisation. And while the human brain's relentless capacity for innovation has coughed up artificial intelligence, and seamless transition to a new iPhone, and a means of firing Katy Perry into space, it hasn't managed to work out a stress-free way of getting a child's teeth looked at in the middle of the day at a dentist across town, with extra time for janky online approvals at both ends to bounce the juvenile owner-operator of the teeth from the custody of the school, plus traffic. Nor can we design a human interface for the Australian aged care system that enables a normally intelligent adult to look after an elderly parent without taking six months off work and feeling like they're the first human on earth to attempt the task. This is a failure of economic design. A brutal one. Because in this country while we have umpteen trained theorists looking at in-built incentives in the tax system or whatever, we still haven't found a way of absorbing the fact that one in seven school children will require mental health assistance every calendar year in Australia, and adding another fact — that children seeking assistance from a trained mental health professional currently wait an average 99 days for an appointment — and deciding that in total this amounts to a national productivity issue. Who's spending hours on the phone chasing appointments for these children? Losing sleep worrying about them, and standing in as best they can in the meantime? Who's forcing themselves through snowdrifts of confusing paperwork for NDIS registration or in-home care or even just the daily Sisyphean task of finding clean socks, or the shirt without the weird paint stain because everyone just remembered it's school photo day? We know who's doing it. Australian Institute of Family Studies researcher Jennifer Baxter asked perceptive questions during her COVID-era research and elicited evidence that in around 78 per cent of heterosexual couples, mum is carrying most or all of the mental load. Every family is different, of course. Many will buck the trend. (Including mine! I'm finishing this column in peace, in a busy week, because my other half has prepped dinner in advance.) But there's no doubt at all about the broader pattern here. Australian women are better educated than their male counterparts, live longer, do more unpaid work and — where they do get paid for work — get paid less than men. In productivity terms, they are a powerhouse waiting to happen. They account for 70 per cent of the part-time work in Australia, and 70 per cent of the housework. Usually, the flexibility of the former facilitates the accomplishment of the latter. Australian women work part-time at internationally-remarkable rates so that they can manage the unpaid work that is still generally understood to be their responsibility. In New South Wales' Public Instruction Act of 1880 — the legislative instrument that established the secular public education system in Australia's largest state and set the school hours that are unchanged to this day — the assumptions are magnificently broad. For instance, clause 79 of the accompanying regulatory schedule provides that: "In schools containing female children but no female teacher, it will be the duty of the teacher's wife to teach needlepoint to the girls during at least four hours in each week." It's funny to read this antiquated text. But also, it's worth remembering that the assumptions underpinning school hours have not changed since 1880. This is kind of wild. And as fast as our assumptions about the rest of the world are changing, there isn't much change to the assumption that women will pick up the extra slack when it comes to caring for other humans, young or old. It's proper work, in that it requires dedication and expertise, and it's not rendered less valuable economically by the mere fact of being powered by love and concern. But because we don't count this work using the usual economic measure (ie, paying for it), it sometimes escapes conventional calculations and is just assumed to happen magically, as if fairies do it. Imagine what could be achieved if the productivity drags were removed from the life of the juggling parent! Imagine — for instance — if schools were serviced by dedicated teams of dentists and psychologists and speech pathologists who were right there to help kids exactly when they needed help! Imagine if managing all this was easy, instead of hard! Imagine if sports and activities were part of the school day, towards the end, so that parents could get their work done and pick up kids who'd made it to footy without having to be ferried there by a distracted parent trying to do a Zoom at the same time, or fretting about having to double back to work later? Productivity is an economic concept, but it's fired — or should be fired — by the universal human experience of being driven mad by unnecessary bullsh*t that makes life harder. Let's lean in to it!
ABC News
an hour ago
- ABC News
Automatic systems unlawfully cancelled 964 jobseekers' payments in two years, watchdog finds
Almost a thousand jobseekers had their income support payments unlawfully terminated over two years, the federal watchdog has found, cautioning the breach likely had a "profound if not catastrophic" impact on vulnerable people. The cancellations occurred automatically under the Targeted Compliance Framework, a system set up to monitor "mutual obligations", which are the conditions people have to meet to continue receiving payments, like job hunting and attending interviews. New laws introduced after the Robodebt scandal require agencies to consider the jobseeker's circumstances before cutting off a payment, which did not occur in 964 cancellations between April 2022 and July 2024. "Imagine that if you were already living under the poverty line, so you can't necessarily afford to pay rent, to feed yourself, to clothe yourself, but imagine then that that income is cut off for four weeks or more," Commonwealth Ombudsman Iain Anderson said. "What are you supposed to do? That's the type of catastrophe that we are talking about." The Department of Employment and Workplace Relations paused the cancellation of payments in July last year, but the watchdog found it took too long to act after identifying the issue. It then informed the Commonwealth Ombudsman in December that it had not implemented the new legislation, which was passed two years earlier, sparking an investigation into how the lapse occurred. In his findings, the Ombudsman invoked conclusions from the Robodebt royal commission that warned automated processes in the delivery of support payments can have serious impacts on highly vulnerable people. "[The Robodebt royal commissioner] noted that automation requires a lot of care and skill to make sure that things don't go wrong," Mr Anderson said. "And while this is not the same as Robodebt, in that it wasn't a deliberate intention of doing things wrongly, there just wasn't the adequate care and skill being employed to ensure parliament's instructions in terms of the legislation were properly implemented." The department was involved in developing the new laws, according to the Ombudsman, which shifted the requirement from the secretary "must" cancel payments to "may" if they determine the recipient failed to meet their obligations without an acceptable excuse. "That big change required the individual circumstances of each jobseeker to be considered before their payment was cancelled, and that's the step that they didn't do — instead the system went on automatically cancelling payments," he said. The report makes seven recommendations, including that the department not resume cancellations until the errors have been corrected and that systems are put in place to provide ongoing assurance that the framework complies with the law. All the recommendations be accepted by the department and Services Australia. The Ombudsman is also investigating whether the decision-making process that leads to cancellations is fair and reasonable, and the role of employment agencies, with the findings to be released in a second report later this year. Under the framework, recipients accrue demerit points if they fail to meet their obligations without a valid reason, which can lead to their payments being suspended, reduced or cut off. More than 883,000 Australians are currently on the scheme, according to government data. A separate review by Deloitte into the framework's computer system — which was completed in June but is yet to be publicly released — found it had become "increasingly unstable, with volatility directly impacting compliance function operation" and increasing the possibility of unexpected results "including flawed determinations". Employment Minister Amanda Rishworth did not respond to a request for comment.
ABC News
an hour ago
- ABC News
UN urges Australia to halt deportation of man to Nauru while complaint investigated
The United Nations has urged Australia to halt plans to deport a man to Nauru while it investigates the human rights implications of his case. Australia is seeking to deport three people released under the NZYQ decision to the tiny Pacific nation in exchange for an undisclosed payment but their removal has been stalled since February due to court challenges. The men, one of whom has a prior murder conviction, were among a group of hundreds released into the community following the High Court's dramatic 2023 ruling that their indefinite detention was unlawful. The United Nations' Human Rights Committee wrote to the Australian government last week requesting the deportation of one of the trio be halted while they consider his complaint to the body, which was submitted days earlier. It cannot compel the government to follow its direction, which it issued as an interim measure while the matter is under investigation. "The principle is simple; if your visa is cancelled, you have to leave Australia," Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke said in a statement. "That's a pretty consistent principle, applied in every functioning immigration system around the world." But the Human Rights Law Centre, which is representing the man, argues the government has an international legal responsibility not to deport people to places where they might be killed or suffer inhumane treatment. Their complaint to the United Nations on behalf of their client argued that sending him to Nauru breached this obligation because he would not be able to access adequate medical treatment, would be separated from his family, could face violence or discrimination and there is no guarantee the Nauruan government would not deport him back to Iraq, where he faces the risk of persecution. "This insidious plan affects more than just three people. It shows the Albanese government believes that some people in this country deserve fewer rights than others, and deserve repeated, lifelong punishment," associate legal director Josephine Langbien said. "These deportations would set a dangerous new baseline for how all migrants and refugees can be treated. We must demand better from our political leaders." In February, the government announced it had struck a deal with Nauru, which offered to grant visas to members of the NZYQ cohort in exchange for payment. The group — many of whom were convicted of violent offences but have served their sentences — were previously being kept indefinitely in Australian immigration detention because they had failed character tests but also had no reasonable prospects of deportation. That was until the high court's landmark decision in the case of one man, identified only as "NZYQ", triggered the cohort's release into the community. The judgement sent the government scrambling to find an alternative solution, which included attempts to monitor the cohort using ankle bracelets and curfews. But that too had to be reworked when the High Court ruled the cohort could not be treated punitively. Announcing the deal with Nauru, Mr Burke said he expected that more than the three men would eventually be deported after the initial legal challenges were cleared. It is the first test of the new laws that the government passed last year to strengthen its powers to send people without a visa to a third country for resettlement. In the interim, the government has promised the High Court that the man would not be removed from Australia until his case was resolved. Court documents show he was convicted of a crime and sentenced to a total of five years' jail before being released on parole and taken into immigration detention. His lawyers argue the ruling about his visa was not made lawfully. It is unclear when the High Court will make a judgement in the case. "The Albanese government claims to respect international law and urges other countries to do the same," Ms Langbien said. "It must demonstrate that respect by following this direction from the UN Human Rights Committee and halting these deportations."
