New South Wales Labor MPs have expressed disquiet over their party’s support for a bill that would see protesters who block major roads, ports or train stations face up to two years in prison.
The NSW government arranged a special sitting of parliament on Friday after it failed to pass the bill following a late-night filibuster by the Greens.
Introduced this week after a series of climate protests targeting Port Botany, the Roads and Crimes Legislation Amendment bill 2022 introduces fines of up to $22,000 and up to two years in prison for anyone who causes “damage or disruption” on major roads or other “major facilities” such as ports or railway stations.
Despite alarm from unions, environmental groups and human rights organisations, as well as questions about the bill’s constitutionality, the government is determined for the bill to pass this week before parliament rises for a month.
Labor has moved a series of amendments to carve out industrial action from the bill. Other amendments, including one which exempted “peaceful protest” from the bill, was opposed by the government and defeated on Friday morning.
Despite that, Labor has committed to supporting the legislation, prompting some MPs to privately express unhappiness that the opposition leader, Chris Minns, declared the party’s support for it before it was discussed in the party’s caucus.
During a late-night sitting on Thursday, a number of Labor backbenchers, including left faction members and former trade union official Anthony D’Adam, made clear their discomfort with supporting the bill.
“I have put my body in front of cars and I have obstructed traffic, and so I feel the legislation is a profound challenge to the rights I have exercised in my political life,” D’Adam said.
“I am concerned about the narrative the house has adopted in the debate. Direct action is an old form of protest. Suffragettes chained themselves to Parliament House in a form of direct action not dissimilar to the kinds of direct action the bill is trying to criminalise.
“I am concerned about the proportionality of the approach in the bill.”
Veteran Labor MP Peter Primrose also expressed disquiet about the bill, telling parliament he would support it because the party’s caucus had already made the decision. He questioned why the government had taken such a hard line on the climate activists – including the establishment of a police strike force – but not anti-lockdown protests which occurred throughout Sydney last year.
“It is unclear why this particular protest is worthy of its own strike force given the range of protests, including violent protests, that we have seen across the state, including by a number of far right groups who not only cause property damage and inconvenience to the public but also engage in outright violence against the police and other emergency services personnel and other members of the public,” he said.
Despite the government winning Labor’s support for the bill, a late-night filibuster by the NSW Greens prevented the bill passing on Thursday.
Instead, the government ordered a rare special adjournment forcing the parliament to sit through Friday in an attempt to pass the legislation.
The Greens intend to move a swathe of amendments in a bid to delay the bill, and that debate was continuing on Friday.
The government says the bill is necessary to target a series of climate protesters who have caused disruption at Port Botany and on the Spit Bridge in Manly in recent weeks.
The roads minister, Natalie Ward, insisted the bill would not target “legal” protests, and the government has also amended the bill to exclude “spontaneous protest”, at the request of some Coalition MPs.
But she said the climate protests had caused “significant inconvenience” to the state and claimed the cost was “estimated to run into the millions of dollars through direct economic loss and lost productivity”.
“I sat on the Spit Bridge that morning and I felt it like every other commuter around me,” she said on Thursday.
“I saw people sitting in their cars with their schoolchildren trying to get to school … [The protests] have been repeated, and we are on notice that those protesters will continue to repeat their disruptive protests.”
