Activists slam new anti-protest laws as ‘knee-jerk’ after three days of protests

Activist groups have hit back at the state government’s new anti-protest laws saying they are anti-democratic and a knee-jerk reaction.

It comes as a group that calls itself Blockade Australia has disrupted traffic across Sydney for three days, with two protesters facing deportation for their involvement. The group has little history in Australia but claims to be concerned, not just about climate change, but about the “colonial and extractive systems of Australia”.

A spokesperson for the group declined to even tell the Herald how many members it had, but whatever its size, its actions have already prompted anger not only from disrupted drivers but authorities and politicians.

Fewer than three hours after Thursday’s third day of protesting, harsher penalties were introduced by the NSW government for those disrupting any bridge or tunnel across Greater Sydney. Under the new crackdown, offenders will face $22,000 fines and two years’ imprisonment.

A spokesperson told the Herald and The Age that Blockade Australia was formed in November last year in response to the climate crisis, aiming to “take resistance seriously and think about what kind of action will wield power relevant to the eyes of the Australian state”.

The group’s first notable action targeted one of the world’s largest coal export hubs, the Port of Newcastle, over two weeks late last year. Asked why they were now targeting Port Botany, which exports no fossil fuels, the spokesperson said the group was “identifying targets critical to the economy and blockading them”.

Protesters blockaded Port Botany again on Wednesday.Credit: Blockade Australia

The container port plays a part in the “exploitation of global supply chains ... and the destruction of the planet”, according to the group, and direct action was “the only way to effectively ... participate in the political arena”.

Authorities have been quick to condemn the activists, and on Thursday that frustration boiled over as federal Immigration Minister Alex Hawke exercised his power to cancel the visas of two German nationals involved in the protests.

Despite the condemnation, the group’s spokesperson said it was unrepentant and was already planning more action in Sydney for later this year.

Whether the activists succeed in winning support for their cause, Deakin University senior research fellow Dr Josh Roose said there was a long history of non-violent civil disobedience protests in Australia that have caused considerable disruption to infrastructure and economic projects. These include the 1982 Franklin River protests in Tasmania or the 1984 anti-nuclear protests. He said in many cases it only took one individual to cause mass disruption.

By targeting economic infrastructure, Dr Roose said the group was securing attention and media coverage – one of its primary goals. He noted other groups, such as far-right “freedom” protesters, had caused as much or more disruption in recent protests and had resorted to violence.

“In the lead up to the federal election, we’ll see protests from the far-left ... to the alt-right. Every political group on the spectrum is seeking to make their mark on the media and political landscape,” he said.

More broadly speaking, Dr Roose said there were three main factors that have led to increased protests across Australia, including growing economic inequality, the pandemic, and social media.

Blockade Australia activists disrupt traffic at Port Botany on Wednesday afternoon.Credit: Blockade Australia

Social media, specifically the rise of encrypted messaging apps, had enabled an unprecedented level of exploitation and an ability to send unfiltered messages with zero accountability at all hours, he said, adding that this type of communication was often used by the alt-right to incite violence.

“[Blockade Australia] is a small drop in the ocean of increasingly active and polarising protests likely to emerge over the next decade,” he said. “On the one hand, as our politicians continue to fail us in terms of economic equality, housing affordability and meaningful work, we are going to see more and more people who are disengaged and look for alternative sources of meaning.”

Redfern Legal Centre police accountability solicitor Samantha Lee said she was concerned the new penalties introduced on Thursday were a “one size fits all” approach that could have ramifications on many forms of peaceful protest into the future.

“For example, in the year 2000 over 250,000 people walked over the Harbour Bridge in support of reconciliation in Australia. This expanded use of police powers may have unforeseen consequences for people attending these types of peaceful actions,” she said.

Greenpeace Australia Pacific General Counsel Katrina Bullock said the new laws were “rushed through in a knee-jerk response to protest activity”.

“Climate defenders are routinely receiving disproportionate and excessive penalties and bail conditions which restrict their freedom of association and assembly.”

Former Greens leader and direct action veteran Bob Brown, who has no ties to the group, said he generally supported peaceful protests. “Where government won’t act, people will act. People have a right to peaceful protests,” he said. “The idea that people should stand back on the footpath and write letters has not worked. It should always be peaceful, but we will see more [action] if the government continues to fail to act on global warming and species extinction.”

Dr Rebecca Colvin, senior lecturer at the Australian National University’s Crawford School of Public Policy, said since the 2019-20 bushfire season, said the tactics of climate protests have changed. It’s become more direct and the movement itself had grown to include the voices of those previously left on the fringes, such as farmers, sportspeople, and the business and investor sector.

“With direct blockades, we find those types of actions can have a powerful effect in terms of getting climate change onto public agenda, but it can also have the effect of alienating some people who aren’t on board,” she said. “Something that we should all be concerned about is where a single protest movement is, no matter who is protesting or what their purpose is, if it is an impetus for the government increasing its ability to shut down public dissent.”

The Morning Edition newsletter is our guide to the day’s most important and interesting stories, analysis and insights. Sign up here.