This speech was delivered on 2 May 2013 in the NSW Upper House. You can read the full debate online here.
UNLAWFUL ENVIRONMENTAL ACTIVISM
Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE [12.42 p.m.]: I oppose this motion and will speak up for the right to protest and the proud history of activism that is, in the end, what forces change. It is not this Parliament, this Chamber or, as a general rule, parliamentarians that bring about change. It is activism, grassroots movements and people pushing and challenging the law, that ultimately delivers change in society. I note the comments of Aidan Ricketts. He is a lecturer at the School of Law and Justice at Southern Cross University in Lismore and has been one of the key thinkers behind much of the Lock the Gate protests. At the introduction of The Activists’ Handbook, published last year, he had this to say:
- Activism, social change advocacy and the practice of democracy are inextricably linked. It is the work of activists and social movements which pushes society along, prompts it to deal with its own failings and inequalities and helps to manifest a vision of a better world.
When we think about the proud history of changing grossly unfair laws we realise that on each occasion it was ordinary people that gathered together to challenge those laws. That makes us realise why it is so vital to oppose this motion and to stand up for the courage of someone such as Jonathan Moylan, who recognised that a greater good could be achieved by his kind of activism. Let us cast our minds briefly to history. What would have happened if people had not been willing to challenge the United Kingdom laws that allowed slavery and that encouraged and led to gross profiteering by slave traders using English ships? If those laws had not been challenged in the nineteenth century by brave activists who put their bodies on the line to oppose the slave trade we would not have stopped slavery.
Let us move to the beginning of the twentieth century when women ran campaign after campaign to win the right to vote. Suffragettes broke the law and held protests which at the time were condemned by conservative politicians, just as Jonathan Moylan is being condemned by conservative politicians here today. Those women bravely challenged the laws that prohibited them from voting. They were willing to flout the law and stand up for a higher ideal, and the Peter Phelps, the Scot MacDonalds, and the Fred Niles of the time condemned those women when they stood up. Whether it was in South Australia, England or New South Wales, women were condemned in the same way as conservative politicians are now condemning Jonathan Moylan.
Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE: When Rosa Parks took her courageous action and sat in a part of the bus that under a local ordinance was prohibited to her because of her colour she was breaking the law. She was breaking an unfair and unjust law. She was breaking a law that should not have been on the statute book. By doing so she was taking action that the likes of Mr Scot MacDonald would condemn—breaking a law. The argument underpinning this motion is that the only way to challenge an unjust law is by making an approach to the vested interests who support the unjust law. That is an ideology that I and most people who are interested in positive social change comprehensively reject.
In the late 1960s to early 1970s a number of Aboriginal elders and activists occupied Wave Hill Station in the Northern Territory. According to the laws that existed at that time, that was trespass. In the eyes of Mr Scot MacDonald it was an illegal occupation. The Aborigines said that the laws that denied Aboriginal land rights and treated this continent as terra nullius—to allow the land to be divided regardless of the rights of Aborigines—were unjust. The Aborigines said they would sit there and occupy the land and, if necessary, trespass and face criminal sanction until they got their land rights—and thank goodness they did. If they had not taken that step to defy the law, demand their land rights and demand justice we would not have land rights laws. Effectively, the motion seeks to attack the merit and actions of Jonathan Moylan. It is appropriate to read onto the record what he said, which may explain why he took those steps and why this Parliament and most parliaments will be ineffectual in addressing the effects of climate change and the power of the coal industry. He stated:
- We are living in a dream world if we think that politicians and the business world are going to sort out the problem of coal expansion on their own. History shows us that when power relations are unevenly matched, change always comes from below. Every right we have has come from ordinary people doing extraordinary things and the time to act is rapidly running out.
I commend the words of Jonathan Moylan and all brave activists who are willing to put themselves on the line to challenge unfair laws when their actions are taken on behalf of a necessary greater good. We all have the right not only to protest but also to break a law when we believe that the law is unjust. I am grateful for the thinking of Aidan Ricketts, who states:
- Even within an overall respect for the rule of law, a participatory view of democracy insists that protesters have the
right to (conscientiously) break the law
- to make a political statement. This does not necessarily mean that they do not expect any legal consequences to follow; it may simply mean that they assert a right to conscientiously break a law but are prepared to suffer the prescribed consequences. The environmental movement worldwide and particularly in Australia has been a leading proponent of this approach. Greenpeace is an international organization that has prominently practised this approach at a global level.
That is a right. No matter how many laws are prescribed to prevent environmental activism, to privilege the coal industry and degrade the environment, to privilege coal and the coal seam gas industry and ignore the long-term sustainable industries such as the wine, thoroughbred and agricultural industries upon which our future depends, the right to break an unjust law is the key right. It is a right that many activists prize greatly.
On 11 April this year I held an activist training day in this Parliament at which Aidan Ricketts spoke about how Lock the Gate works. We also heard from other brave activists from the animal rights movement, such as Lynda Stoner and Emma Hurst. They spoke about how, on occasions, it may be necessary to trespass into one of those appalling sheds where caged chickens effectively are tortured day in, day out to obtain the footage that bears witness to a great abuse of those animals’ basic rights; and, if necessary, to flout the law on trespass to bear witness to that, and so that people can see the truth of what happens in industrial farming.We also heard from Laurie Levy about his work for the Coalition Against Duck Shooting. Following what happened in Victoria, in the middle of last year the Shooters and Fishers Party caused this Parliament to pass laws that effectively make it a crime to protest against duck shooting. It is a crime to harass or interfere in any way with people who are shooting waterfowl in Victoria. He told us that animal rights activists in the Coalition Against Duck Shooting flouted the law. He added that they would not be constrained by a grossly unfair law that prevents them from saving the lives of native waterfowl that had been shot for fun. They will save as many birds as possible. They will not respect an example of gross ideological law-making that makes it a crime for them to place themselves between the birds and duck shooters. I condemn the motion but in doing so I acknowledge the bravery of Jonathan Moylan in taking courageous action. I also commend my colleagues in the Federal Parliament and in this Parliament who have supported that action.