NSW Police challenge Rising Tide 50-hour flotilla protest and festival at Port of Newcastle
Water safety, drowning risks and mass civil disobedience are all major concerns for police over a large-scale climate protest set to disrupt the Port of Newcastle over an eight day period later this month, a court has heard.
Newcastle
Don't miss out on the headlines from Newcastle. Followed categories will be added to My News.
Drowning risks, mass civil disobedience and the constraints of doing mass rescues if needed are all major concerns for police over a large-scale climate protest set to disrupt the Port of Newcastle over an eight day period later this month, a court has heard.
Assistant Commissioner and Commander of NSW Northern Region David Waddell gave evidence in the Supreme Court on Friday about a planned ‘family friendly profestival’ by activist group Rising Tide taking place at the world’s largest coal port from November 19.
The protest group is seeking legal protection for a 50-hour flotilla blockade of the shipping channel and a festival on Horseshoe Beach, with 30 live music acts including Peter Garrett, John Butler and indigenous rapper ‘Dobby’.
NSW Police are challenging the group’s application which will protect participants from being charged by police for the water blockade and land assembly.
Following on from last year’s event in Newcastle when 109 people were arrested for unlawful activity on the water, Mr Waddell said police again had concerns there would be “significant dangers” to public and water safety given an increased number of protesters expected to participate this year.
He raised not only potential interaction with the port’s large bulk carriers but the increased number of small water craft expected for this year’s event.
Although the court heard that if the planned water blockade was approved, it was likely the Port would be suspended and closed for the 50-hour period.
The court also heard police manpower would need to exceed the 400 officers deployed last year to monitor the event, with a major statewide staffing order issued to facilitate the protest.
Mr Waddell also expressed concerns surrounding access to emergency services during protest activity set to take up Horseshoe Beach and the nearby carpark.
“If the carpark wasn’t available and beach taken up by protesters, how logistical would a mass rescue be possible?” Counsel representing the Commissioner of Police Lachlan Gyles SC asked.
“It would be substantially harder,” Mr Waddell replied.
The court heard while the event was originally expected to attract up to 15,000, numbers had been significantly revised with an expected 5500 at the ‘profestival’.
Counsel representing Rising Tide Neal Funnell told the court since 2005 there had been ongoing climate protest events in Newcastle which had no major incidents or consequences.
He said all arrests in 2023 were made after the 30-hour protest window lapsed.
“Would it be accurate to say interactions with police were not hostile,” Mr Funnell asked.
“That’s correct,” Mr Waddell answered.
He also argued that with a proposed event management plan in place, there was appropriate emergency vehicle access and police were not strangers to handling large events such as this, citing the V8 Supercars in Newcastle.
In his opening arguments on Friday, Mr Gyles mentioned if the application was approved, it would be inevitable all commercial movements – in the order of about 30 vessels – would have to be suspended due to the “extremely dangerous” nature of operating while the event took place.
He said if the water blockade was prohibited, the land assembly “would not make sense” with likely public disorder to follow.
“In my submission it would encourage people to lead a mass civil disobedience and attempt to go in the water and blockade it anyway,” he said.
“Police not trying to stop people from expressing their views, whether it is done safety and does not interfere with activities and lives of those in Newcastle and which doesn’t create public disturbance.”
During the proceedings, Justice Desmond Fagan cited the event as “very ambitious”.
He said, in effect, the court was being asked to shut down the port for two days which could have a significant economic impact.
“Have to take into account the very significant impact of a commercial nature will be born by these corporations or individuals going about lawful activity,” he said.
“If this port is closed one sector would self evidently incur a massive cost, my task is to weigh that up.”