Governance, Protest and Sport: An Australian Perspective

Download 182.25 Kb.
Date conversion24.02.2016
Size182.25 Kb.
1   2   3   4
5 Legacies of Public and Private Regulation

Detailed histories of British popular recreation in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries by Hugh Cunningham[97] and Guy Osborn[98] demonstrate a predictable and continuous oscillation between public and private governance. This process involves the same core regulatory issues essentially serving identical purposes. However, while the public strand facilitates open democratic participation in civic affairs, private governance decrees community involvement is an impediment to the specialist and professional management of popular recreation. Land enclosure trends in nineteenth century Britain support this argument, with public law and centralised criminal justice helping to alleviate restrictions created by the privatisation of popular recreational space and the related inter-class protests this fostered.[99] By extension, the centralisation and popularisation of many state-sponsored entertainment and cultural pursuits in the previous era allowed for the evolution of communitarian and public recreational options as a form of protest against arbitrary and harsh private governance and justice administration. A mutually dependent evolution is discernible, with public and private legal alternatives representing two opposing sides of the same regulatory coin.

The civil actions of false imprisonment and trespass to the person in Clifford v. Brandon were directed at a private individual with state-sanctioned law enforcement powers. Centralised consolidation of the criminal justice system ensures these same actions are available against public police and agents of state. The core difference is the shift from the private and specialist management of protest and order maintenance to the centralised statutory regulation of public behaviour at entertainment and cultural events. As the foregoing analysis demonstrates, both private and public forms of regulation have potentially repressive effects on the right to protest. In each case, considerable discretion is granted to private or public agents to define and respond to a vast range of actions threatening to disturb the smooth and peaceful running of major entertainment events. The core difference rests with the Western constitutional requirement that state intrusion into community life to preserve peace, order and good governance be met with clearly discernible statutory limits:[100] a de facto bill of rights through criminal and related laws. Private governance, through corporate structures and professional state-sanctioned or site-specific managerialism, dispenses with this requirement. The consequence is a suspension of the democratic rule of law, the realistic prospect of direct organised protest in response, as well as a host of allied implications on the right to participate in civic affairs.[101]

Neither approach provides an ideal paradigm when dealing with the problematic concept of protest and the peaceful regulation of collective behaviour at popular entertainment sites. Motorcycle and related sub-cultures have been subject to repressive, intrusive and confrontational public law administration, while concerns of middle-class residents in and around the Albert Park site continue to be relegated in the face of lucrative tourism and corporate revenue promoted by specialist event management. What is clear is the continuance of a public-private cycle revisiting many limitations inherent in Western justice administration. A recent Victorian proposal, aimed at regaining ground lost to corporate governance by providing a legislative right to peaceful assembly, is illustrative.

The Peaceful Assemblies Bill seeks to repeal the Unlawful Assemblies Act and is aimed at ‘ensuring that the police have adequate powers to enable them to protect the community, without interfering in the civil rights of citizens engaged in lawful activities’.[102] The ten clause Bill provides amended definitions of ‘riotous assembly’, extends ‘riot act’ powers to senior operational police with summary penalties for failure to disperse within 15 minutes, and declares the right to peaceful protest subsists subject to ‘the rights of members of the public to enjoy the natural environment and the rights of persons to carry on business and other lawful activities’.[103] While seemingly meeting these ministerial aims three core criticisms can be discerned.

First, the Bill provides no constitutionally enshrined guarantee of a citizen’s right to peaceful protest. In fact, the right to protest is subject to existing rights protected under public and private law, thereby reinventing a hierarchy of rights where protest has minimal scope to compete on equal terms. Second, the term ‘public place’, commonly used in Summary Offences legislation, is employed as the basis for conferring police jurisdiction to preserve order. This term is rendered virtually redundant by a history of Australian and British common law decisions favouring the classification of any place as public to justify retrospectively a police decision to enforce criminal or summary laws,[104] and by the very corporate and privatisation developments the Bill seeks to rectify. Third, the proposal is notably silent on how the rules of peaceful and legitimate protest are to be negotiated before and during such actions by citizens and state-authorised public and private agencies. This omission is highly regrettable in a political climate where anti-globalisation campaigns and police enforcement tactics are subject to extensive and often provocative mass media publicity, and costly, lengthy and often contentious inquiries by government departments and the civil courts.[105]

In an era where the rules of civil society appear to be irreversibly challenged by threats and fears of large-scale and surprise terrorist activity, notions of fostering peace and security through strong enabling laws and civil order maintenance powers predominate. However, the right to protest still remains a core and valuable element of Western democratic tradition. Multiple laws, contests and conflicts between public and private ethics confer various limits on civil behaviour, invariably at the expense of simple, accessible and inclusive rules conferring clear responsibilities on citizens and all agents of state to conduct affairs openly and peacefully. The entertainment sphere has been a principle setting for the removal of citizen rights through corporate governance, or the fortification of state power to preserve dominant and hegemonic notions of collective peace and good order. Australia’s sporting traditions suggest peaceful co-existence can be promoted through inclusion, popular reflexive narratives and thoughtful, creative acts of protest within prescribed and conventional norms. Australian sporting experience demonstrates acts of protest have a positive and largely accepted role in raising popular awareness of human rights through a powerful cultural forum incorporating minority voices and their concerns. Adapting these traditions into accessible, inclusive and rights respecting laws preserving civic peace and democratic freedom for all citizens remains the core challenge in Australia and beyond for the new millennium.


1.  Versions of this paper were presented at the International Association for the Philosophy of Sport Conference: Sport and the Body, Victoria University of Technology, Melbourne, 5 September 2000, and the 12th annual Australian and New Zealand Society of Criminology Conference, University of Melbourne, Parkville, February 2001. The author thanks Emma Ryan, Steve James, Martin Aston, Dennis Hemphill, Guy Osborn and the two anonymous referees for their patience, advice, counsel and assistance.

2.  G. Osborn, ‘Football’s Legal Legacy: Recreation, Protest and Disorder’, in S. Greenfield and G. Osborn (eds.), Law and Sport in Contemporary Society (London: Frank Cass, 2000), 51–68; E. Cashmore, Making Sense of Sports, 2nd edn. (London: Routledge, 1996).

3.  A. Freeman and E. Mensch, ‘The Public-Private Distinction in American Law and Life’, Buffalo Law Review 36 (1987), 237–57.

4.  P. Bordieu, ‘How can one be a sports fan?’, in S. During (ed.), The Cultural Studies Reader (London: Routledge, 1993), 339–56; W.J. Morgan, ‘Multinational sport and literary practices and their communities: the moral salience of cultural narratives’, in M.J. MacNamee and S. J. Parry (eds.), Ethics and Sport (London: E & FN Spon, 1998), 184–204.

5.  S. Hall, ‘Encoding, decoding’, in During (note 4), 90–103.

6.  C. Cunneen and M. Findlay, ‘The Functions of Criminal Law in Riot Control’, Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology 19 (1986), 163–78.

7.  D. Schoedinger, ‘Riot Control and Legislation: A Necessary Evil’ in M. Cherif Bassiouni (ed.), The Law of Dissent and Riots (Springfield: Charles C. Thomas, 1971), 337–56, notes omitted and emphases added.

8.  I. Warren and S. Tsaousis, ‘Racism and the Law in Australian Rules Football: A Critical Analysis’, Sporting Traditions: Journal of the Australian Society for Sports History 14/1 (1997), 27–53.

9.  See A. Twomey, ‘Dead Ducks and Endangered Political Communication – Levy v. State of Victoria and Lange v. Australian Broadcasting Corporation’, Sydney Law Review 19/1 (1997), 76–94, involving the relationship between federal implied rights to freedom of political communication and state laws prohibiting duck rescuers from entering authorised shooting areas for their own safety.

10.  A.V. Dicey, The Study of the Law of the Constitution, 8th edn. (London: Macmillan, 1915), ‘Introduction’ and passim.

11.  See generally R. Hess and B. Stewart (eds.), More than a Game: An Unauthorised History of Australian Rules Football (Melbourne: Melbourne University Press, 1992).

12.  B. Wilson, ‘Pumping up the Footy: The Commercial Expansion of Professional Football in Australia’, in D. Rowe and G. Lawrence (eds.), Sport and Leisure: Trends in Australian Popular Culture (Sydney: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1990), 27–37; S. Cunningham and T. Miller, Contemporary Australian Television (Sydney: University of New South Wales Press, 1994), 63–89.

13.  Examples of each of these forms include G. Hutchinson and J. Ross (eds.), 200 Seasons of Australian Cricket (Sydney: Ironbark, 1997); C. Tatz, Obstacle Race: Aborigines in Sport (Sydney: UNSW Press, 1995); R. Masters, Inside Out: Rugby League under Scrutiny (Sydney: Ironbark, 1997); R. Cashman, Paradise of Sport: The Rise of Organised Sport in Australia (Melbourne: Oxford, 1995); T. Gleisner, The Warwick Todd Diaries (Sydney: Australian Broadcasting Corporation, 1997); T. Gleisner, Warwick Todd: Back in the Baggy Green (Sydney: Australian Broadcasting Corporation, 1998).

14.  Tatz (note 13); Cashmore (note 2).

15.  See C.R. Hill, Olympic Politics: Athens to Atlanta 1896–1996, 2nd edn. (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1996); Cashmore (note 2), 235–42; P. Sheil, Olympic Babylon (Sydney: Macmillan, 1998).

16.  See A. Thompson (ed.), Terrorism and the 2000 Olympics (Sydney: Australian Defence Studies Centre in conjunction with the Australian Defence Force Academy and the University of New South Wales, 1996).

17.  Hill (note 15), 39–40. Regrettably, the political climate surrounding the Melbourne Olympics is confined to a brief examination of the International Olympic Committee’s (IOC’s) recognition of Communist East Germany’s right to participate as an independent nation.

18.  Cashmore (note 2), 236.

19.  See generally, Herald Sun, Famous Front Pages of the 20th Century (Melbourne: Hardie Grant Books, 1999), 141–2. These extracts are extremely illustrative. The first, dated Thursday 22 November 1956, marked the opening of the Melbourne Games with photographs of the athletes’ march on the Melbourne Cricket Ground and the lighting of the torch: a brief nine-paragraph column outlines the nature of the riots in Port Said. The second, dated Saturday 24 November 1956, honours the success of Australia’s ‘pretty girls’ Betty Cuthbert and Marjorie Jackson, each breaking the world 100m sprint record in their respective heats. A single column documents the seizure and detention of the Hungarian president in a Yugoslav embassy and is directly followed by a two-paragraph report on a plot to assassinate the ‘Iraki’ (sic) prime minister. The brevity of these latter reports is notable.

20.  For details on the comparatively rushed and lax organisation of the Melbourne Games, see The Official Report of the Organizing Committee for the Games of the XVI Olympiad, Melbourne, 1956 (Melbourne: Government Printer, 1958). The Hungarian water polo team went on to win the gold medal.

21.  The Federal Bureau of Investigation named former police officer and Olympic security guard Richard Jewell as the key suspect: see J. Duncan, ‘FBI Scours home of Olympic bomb “hero”, Guardian Weekly, 11 August 1996, 3; E.M. Yoder, ‘Media Take Law Into Their Own Hands’, Guardian Weekly, 11 August 1996, 16; L. Lamont and R. Macey, ‘Sydney rethinks security plans’, The Age, 30 July 1996, A6; P. Iyer, ‘Lost Magic’, Time, 5 August 1996, 31; E. Gleick, ‘Terror’s Venue: Fear casts a gruesome shadow on moments that were meant to be golden’, Time, 5 August 1996, 33–7. This incident followed the crash of TWA flight 800 off the coast of Long Island attributed to terrorist activity: see P. Gray, ‘The Search for Sabotage’, Time, 5 August 1996, 39–41. See also Sheil (note 15), 53–61.

22.  For an astute tongue-in-cheek critique of this and other hegemonic Olympic philosophies, see the detailed research and accessible presentation of Sheil (note 15).

23.  Australian National Audit Office, Commonwealth Agencies’ Security Preparations for the Sydney 2000 Olympic Games, Performance Audit Report No.5 (Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia, 1998). This report indicates 12 major federal agencies charged with security roles at Olympic venues and Sydney’s international air terminals had virtually no inter-agency liaison with related state enforcement agencies in the build-up to the event.

24.  Freeman is no stranger to acts of protest, with her display of the Indigenous flag alongside the Australian national flag during her 400m victory at the 1994 Commonwealth Games in Victoria, Canada, arousing extensive debate on Australian nationalism and Indigenous rights: see J. Given, ‘Red, Black and Gold to Australia: Cathy Freeman and the Flags’, in Sport! Changing the Angle: Media Information Australia 75 (1995), 46–56; Warren and Tsaousis (note 8), 27–53; P. Sheil (note 15), 86–93, sub-headed ‘Black Bastards’. The chapter by Sheil is indicative of the creative parody of this text and its protest value: ‘If Only Cathy Freeman was a Lesbian …’.

25.  N. Rothwell, ‘Black-lit goes gonzo’, The Weekend Australian: Review: Books Extra, 27–28 October 2001, 2–3.

26.  Senate Legal and Constitutional References Committee, Cashing in on the Sydney Olympics: Protecting the Sydney Olympic Games from Ambush Marketing (Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia, 1995); Olympic Insignia Protection Act, Cth, 1987 subsequently replaced by the Sydney 2000 Games (Indicia and Images) Protection Act, Cth, 1996; Olympic Symbol etc (Protection) Act, UK, 1995. Most confiscated items were donated by the Australian Federal Police to East Timorese nationals after secession from Indonesia with Australian military aid.

27.  M. Robbins, ‘Serial Pest shown no goodwill’, The Weekend Australian, 25–26 August 2001, 3. Hore has disrupted numerous domestic and international events, including the funeral of Australian pop icon Michael Hutchence, the annual Melbourne Cup horserace and various sittings of state parliament. Armed with a video camera, generally topless with a lithe, tattooed body, and often raving in undecipherable language, Hore made a brief appearance during the men’s marathon on the final day of Olympic competition. The incident received minimal domestic media coverage, but was pivotal in the decision of a Brisbane magistrate to remand Hore for two months in protective custody to prevent further disruption to the 2001 Goodwill Games and Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting scheduled for 3 October 2001, subsequently cancelled after security concerns following the events of 11 September.

28.  S. Harris, Political Football: The Springbok Tour of Australia, 1971 (Melbourne: Gold Star Publications, 1972).

29.  During the mid-1980s further confrontation was anticipated with the announcement of a series of ‘rebel’ cricket tours to South Africa involving elite and semi-retired Australian cricketers. The lack of popular support for these tours ensured the events of the early 1970s were not repeated. For a general discussion of the relationship between sport, nationalism, apartheid and masculinity, see J. Nauright and T.J.L. Chandler (eds.), Making Men: Rugby and Masculine Identity (London: Frank Cass, 1996); Cashmore (note 2), 242–9. See also the New Zealand Court of Appeal decision in Finnigan v. New Zealand Rugby Football Union Inc [1985] 2 NZLR 159–208, involving the standing of club members under administrative law to challenge the Union’s decision to send a rebel team to South Africa.

30.  Given (note 24), 48–50.

31.  F. Brennan, Too Much Order With Too Little Law (St Lucia: University of Queensland Press, 1983).

32.  Twomey (note 9), 76–94.

33.  C. Cunneen, M. Findlay, R. Lynch and V. Tupper, Dynamics of Collective Conflict: Riots at the Bathurst ‘Bike Races (Sydney: Law Book Company, 1989); A. Veno and E. Veno, ‘Police, Riots and Public Order’, in D. Chappell and P. Wilson (eds.), Australian Policing: Contemporary Issues (Sydney: Butterworths, 1989), 132–48; A. Veno and E. Veno, ‘Managing Public Order at the Australian Motorcycle Grand Prix’ in J. O’Hara (ed.), Crowd Violence at Australian Sport (Sydney: Australian Society for Sports History, 1992) 49–78.

34.  R. Lynch, ‘A Symbolic Patch of Grass: Crowd Disorder and Regulation on the Sydney Cricket Ground Hill’, in O’Hara (note 33), 10–48; R. Lynch, ‘Disorder on the Sidelines of Australian Sport’, Sporting Traditions: Journal of the Australian Society for Sports History 8 (1992) 50–75.

35.  R. Hay, ‘A new look at soccer violence’, in D. Hemphill (ed.), All Part of the Game: Violence and Australian Sport (Sydney: Walla Walla Press, 1998), 41–62; I. Warren and R. Hay, ‘Order and Disorder at Sporting Venues’, in ibid., 63–85.

36.  The Ombudsman Victoria, Report of the Investigation into Alleged Failure of State and Local Authorities to Ensure Adequate Provision of Public Transport and Environmental Health Standards at the ‘Guns n’ Roses’ Concert at Calder Park Raceway, 1 February 1993 (Melbourne: Government Printer, 1993).

37.  S. Rintoul, ‘Political Foot Brawl’, Weekend Australian, 12–13 May 2001, 22.

38.  This incident has many international parallels, including the Bosnich ‘Nazi’ salute and the reaction by Manchester United star Eric Cantona to racial taunts leading to a nine month ban and considerable debate over racism among Premier League supporters: S. Greenfield and G. Osborn, ‘When the Whites Go Marching In? Racism and Resistance in English Football’, Marquette Sports Law Journal 6/2 (1996), 315–35; Warren and Tsaousis (note 8), 27–53.

39.  See generally D. Headon (ed.), The Best Ever Australian Sports Writing: A 200 Year Collection (Melbourne: Black Inc, 2001), 5–12. These extracts highlight the extent of popular attraction to organised pugilism dating back to 1814 and illustrate the level of public resistance to the legal suppression of prizefighting by colonial authorities.

40.  G. Gardiner, ‘Racial Abuse and Football: The Australian Football League’s Racial Vilification Rule in Review’, Sporting Traditions: Journal of the Australian Society for Sports History 14/1 (1997), 3–25; Warren and Tsaousis (note 8), 27–53.

41.  M. Gunn and D. Omerod, ‘Despite the Law: Prizefighting and Professional Boxing’, in Greenfield and Osborn (note 2), 51–68.

42.  B. Beddoe, ‘“In the fight”: Phenomenology of a Pugilist’, in Hemphill (note 35), 133–9; M. Burke, ‘Is Boxing Violent?: Let’s Ask Some Boxers’, in ibid., 111–32.

43.  N. Wilson and S. Phillips, ‘Anti-US Mundine pounded’, Herald Sun, 23 October 2001, 3.

44.  See Wilson and Phillips (note 43); M. Butler, ‘Grieving twin hurt by boxer’s views’, Herald Sun, 23 October 2001, 3; D. Mason and M. Maguire, ‘Muslim leader backs The Man’, Australian, 23 October 2001, 1–2. See also ‘Mundine pounded by US’, MX, 23 October 2001, 5.

45.  G. Lally, ‘Mundine loses WBC ranking’, Herald Sun, 26 October 2001, 9; R. Guiness, ‘Mundine stripped of points’, Australian, 26 October 2001, 45; R. Neill, ‘Notoriety is no substitute for credibility’, Australian, 26 October 2001, 13; ‘Australian boxing in Mundine corner’, MX, 26 October 2001, 18; B. Kimber, ‘Mundine’s tilt at world glory cops blow’, Age, 26 October 2001, Sport 3.

46.  Sheil (note 15), 37.

47.  See generally J. Hocking, Beyond Terrorism: The Development of the Australian Security State (St Leonards: Allen and Unwin, 1993).

48.  See generally D. Brown, D. Farrier, D. Neal and D. Weisbrot, Criminal Laws: Materials and Commentary on Criminal Law and Process of New South Wales, 2nd edn. (Sydney: Federation Press, 1996), 909–1023.

49.  This criterion is central to ensure police power to respond to incidents threatening state peace and security. However, the content of the term varies considerably in each Australian state. In Victoria the relevant provisions can be found in the Summary Offences Act, Vic, 1966, s.3, which lists 16 locations classifiable as a public place, including roads, public gardens, railway facilities, public schools, markets and ‘any race-course cricket ground football ground or other such place’ whether or not admission is required. Under the Crimes Act, NSW, 1900, s.8, reference is made to equivalent definitions in any relevant act of parliament or administrative ordinance, and includes ‘a public place, or open and public place, or place of public resort’ even if the location is ordinarily private.

50.  Crimes Act, Vic, 1958, s.320. The statutory maxima are five years for affray, common assault, rout and unlawful assembly, and ten years for riot.

51.  Unlawful Assemblies and Processions Act, Vic, 1958, ss.6, 11–12.

52.  Ibid., ss.7, 10.

53.  Ibid., ss.13–21.

54.  Ibid., ss.27–55. Part IV provides for magisterial appointment of a grand jury with majority verdict powers, and a public Commissioner to determine the factual merit of compensation claims.

55.  Crimes Act, Vic, 1958, ss.206–7, 316.

56.  Crimes Act, NSW, 1900, s.93E.

57.  Ibid., s.93B(5) and s.93C(1)–(5) (affray).

58.  Ibid., s.93D.

59.  See also ibid., s.545C, which prohibits knowingly joining or continuing an unlawful assembly or attending such incidents armed with any weapon likely to cause death or grievous bodily harm. An unlawful assembly is defined in s.545C(3) as ‘[a]ny assembly of five or more persons whose common object is by means of intimidation or injury to compel any person to do what he is not legally bound to do or to abstain from doing what he is legally entitled to do’.

60.  Ibid., s.33, prohibiting wounding with intent to cause harm to resist lawful arrest, s.33B, governing the use or possession of weapons designed to resist arrest, and s.546C, providing a general prohibition on resisting or aiding a person to resist police apprehension or directives; ss.456AA–63B, governing powers of arrest with or without a warrant during the commission of an indictable offence, and specific provisions applicable to transport facilities such as aeroplanes; ss.29–31, which prohibits resisting arrest with firearms, threats of injury and indictable assaults during the commission of an offence. See also Summary Offences Act, Vic, 1966, s.52.

61.  Crimes Act, NSW, 1900, ss.352–57C, which outlines powers of search and seizure and compulsory fingerprinting, photographing and medical examinations of criminal suspects; Crimes Act, Vic, 1958, ss.464–464ZK, extends these procedures and rights for suspects in custody regarding forensic procedures and intimate body samples.

62.  Crimes Act, NSW, 1900, s.547B; Crimes Act, Vic, 1958, ss.317–317A, relating to explosives and bomb hoaxes; Summary Offences Act, Vic, 1966, s.53.

63.  Crimes Act, NSW, 1900, ss.195–202, including actual destruction, threats to destroy and possession or control of items with intent to destroy property; Crimes Act, Vic, 1958, ss.197–9, 201, involving property damage and destruction, threats thereby, possession of items with intent to destroy, and defences of lawful excuse.

64.  Crimes Act, NSW, 1900, ss.204–14; Crimes Act, Vic, 1958, ss.80, 246A–E, s.469A, governing powers of arrest and search on airlines; ss.232–3, 244, governing railways.

65.  Crimes Act, NSW, 1900, s.31; Crimes Act, Vic, 1958, ss.27–8, covering extortion with threats to kill and destroy property.

66.  Crimes Act, NSW, 1900, ss.60 and 54; Crimes Act, Vic, 1958, ss.16–26, involving threats against the person and related conduct endangering life. See also Summary Offences Act, Vic, 1966, ss.23–4, governing common and aggravated assaults triable summarily.

67.  Crimes Act, NSW, 1900, ss.545D–E. See also Dangerous Goods Act, Vic, 1985; Dangerous Goods Act: Classification of Explosives Order, Vic, 7 July 1988, covering the unlawful possession and discharge of flares in public or private places.

68.  Crimes Act, Vic, 1958, ss.248–52.

69.  Crimes Act, NSW, 1900, s.547.

70.  Crimes Act, NSW, 1900, Part 9, ss.345–51, 546, applicable to summary offending; Crimes Act, Vic, 1958, ss.321–321F (conspiracy); 321G–L (incitement); 321M–S (attempts); 323–39 (aiding and abetting); 363, governing the joinder of accessories in criminal proceedings.

71.  See also Summary Offences Act, NSW, 1988, ss.4–4A, governing offensive conduct and language.

72.  See R. v. Close [1948] VLR 445; Wren v. Hardy [1951] VLR 256–67;Wavish v. Associated Newspapers Ltd [1959] VR 57–64; Mackay v. Gordon & Gotch (Australasia) Ltd [1959] VR 420–29; Buckley v. Szardurski [1973] VR 28–38; Buckley v. Wathen [1973] VR 511–16; M. Pollack, Sense and Censorship: Commentaries on censorship violence in Australia (Sydney: Reed Books, 1990), indicating most censorship actions are subject to private claims under the laws of defamation. See also Crimes Act, Vic, 1958, s.469AA, enabling the Victoria Police to seize documents containing libellous content.

73.  Summary Offences Act, Vic, 1966, ss.4–5, 7–11; Summary Offences Act, NSW, 1988, ss.5–11, 28, prohibiting violent disorder in public places involving three or more persons acting in concert.

74.  Summary Offences Act, NSW, 1988, ss.22–7. See also Public Order (Protection of Persons and Property) Act, Cth, 1971, establishing similar procedures for the authorisation of lawful assemblies and almost identical enforcement powers for the Australian Federal Police to identify and prevent disorderly conduct on Commonwealth premises, including consular and diplomatic offices and related federal sites. The Act also contains extensive powers to identify and disband associations or groups engaging in conduct threatening national security.

75.  See Melbourne Cricket Ground Acts, Vic, consolidated version, 25 July 1996, incorporating Melbourne Cricket Ground Trust Act 1989, Melbourne Cricket Club Act 1974 and Melbourne Cricket Ground Regulations 1994.

76.  See also Private Agents Act, Vic, 1966, and regulations thereunder requiring compulsory training and registration for all private agents undertaking crowd control and security functions overseen by the Victoria Police.

77.  See Sydney Cricket and Sports Ground Amendment Act, NSW, 1997, inserting s.24A into the Sydney Cricket and Sports Ground Act, NSW, 1978, providing maximum fines of $5,000 for pitch invasions, and Sydney Cricket Ground and Sydney Football Stadium Amendment (Offenders) By-law 1997, cl.15A, governing exclusion orders. For an extensive review of these and related extensions of public order laws directed at security for Sydney 2000 see M. Head, ‘Olympic Security’, Alternative Law Journal 25/3 (2000), 131–5; M. Head, ‘Sydney Olympics used as “catalyst” for permanent military powers over civilian unrest’, Alternative Law Journal 25/4 (2000), 192–5.

78.  C. Davids and L. Hancock, ‘Policing, Accountability and Citizenship in the Market State’, Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology 31 (1998), 38–68 and references therein.

79.  See for example Senate Finance and Public Administration References Committee, Contracting out of Government Services, 2nd report (Canberra: Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia, 1998).

80.  The first event was held at the venue in 1996.

81.  A. Atwood, ‘Death in the Afternoon: A Sunday Age Investigation’, Sunday Age, 29 April 2001, 1–8; A. Attwood, ‘Safety overhaul for GP’, Sunday Age, 29 April 2001, 1.

82.  See also Indy Car Grand Prix Act, Qld, 1990, and regulations thereunder; Australia Formula One Grand Prix Act, S.A., 1984.

83.  Australian Grands Prix Act, Vic, 1994, s.7.

84.  Ibid., ss.8–9.

85.  Ibid., ss.20(c), 21(a)–(b).

86.  Ibid., ss 36, 39, 41, 46. Under s.41, no compensation is payable for any authorised improvements affecting local residents or businesses.

87.  See generally ibid., ss 20–1.

88.  Ibid., ss.40, 44–5.

89.  See generally ibid., s.3. Once refurbishment of the site commenced, several reports from protesters highlighted disquiet over a tactic adopted by the Victoria Police to erect temporary fences around demonstration areas aimed at preventing the entry of machinery and building workers into the park. The intention was to threaten protesters with criminal liability for trespass and encourage their removal from the venue. The author has been unable to find any litigated cases in criminal or civil reports dealing with this issue.

90.  Ibid., s.51.

91.  See Pandavopoulos (sic) v. Australian Grand Prix Corporation (Victorian Civil and Administrative Appeals Tribunal, unreported judgment, 1996/05304, 31 March 1997), involving a successful claim by John Pandazopoulos MP to obtain sponsorship documents under freedom of information laws; I. Warren, ‘Corporate Governance, Masculinities and the Superleague Case’, in D. Hemphill and C. Symons (eds.), Gender, Sexuality and Sport in Australia (Sydney: Walla Walla Press, forthcoming).

92.  C.f. The Olympic Games Act, Vic, 1955, which contained no express statement of the legal status of the Melbourne Organising Committee for the 1956 Olympic Games. The Games in Melbourne were secured by tripartite agreement between the IOC, the Melbourne Cricket Club Trust as owner of the Melbourne Cricket Ground (MCG), and the Organising Committee prior to enactment. Section 4(a) gave legal effect to the agreement, ‘and neither the Agreement nor any act or thing done in the due and proper performance thereof shall be called in question or challenged in any proceedings in any court’. Section 4(b) stipulated the MCG Trust’s power to alter venue regulations to facilitate the Games, and permitted additional regulations for the collection of entrance fees, the preservation of public order and fines for breaches of stadium regulations. Section 5 provided an appropriations procedure for Games works through local government revenue, and the state government could guarantee loans of less than £200,000 from consolidated works under s.6. See also
1   2   3   4

The database is protected by copyright © 2016
send message

    Main page