Zed Seselja (ACT, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Finance, Charities and Electoral Matters) Share this | Hansard source

I'm a big supporter of the right of people to peacefully protest. It is one of our fundamental human rights, amongst many others. But I, like many Australians—I think the majority of Australians—was angered and indeed shocked by the fact that these protest marchers were allowed to go ahead in the way that they were during a time of a global pandemic. I want to go to some of the reasons why I'm angry and why I think so many Australians are angry about the way this occurred.

Australians hate double standards. They hate the idea that there is one rule for some and another rule for others in our community. We talk about the right to protest. I heard some of the political leaders and some of the state and territory leaders, including the Chief Minister of the Australian Capital Territory, Andrew Barr, and I think others, talking about how there is of course a right to protest. Yes, there is a right to protest, but there are also all sorts of other human rights that have, in one way or another, been curtailed over the past couple of months, and this is where the anger is coming from. Yes, there is a right to protest. There is also a right to worship, but that has been curtailed over the last couple of months to deal with this pandemic. There is a right to run a business, and freedom of enterprise is an important freedom in Australia, but we have seen some of those rights curtailed, for good reasons, and some of those business owners have done it tough. There is a right to freedom of movement in this country, but we take that for granted. It's the ability to move wherever we like in our cities, the ability to move across state borders and indeed the ability to move beyond our nation when we have the opportunity. All of those rights have been curtailed to one degree or another.

As governments have put in place some of those restrictions, the community has largely followed them willingly. The feedback I have had as we have imposed restrictions, first with shutting down international travel and then with limiting people's freedoms and the ability to move around in this country, is that most Australians, even some of those who've done it really tough and even some of those business owners who I've spoken to who are really struggling with some of these restrictions—notwithstanding the fact we have done so much to try and support them through that—would prefer to be running their businesses, but they haven't been able to in some circumstances. And they have done that willingly. They have said to me: 'You know what? I know this is tough, but I know why the government's doing it. They're doing it because we're all in this together. We're going to defeat this health crisis. We're going to save lives. As soon as we can we want to get back to life as we know it.' Why I think these protests, and the fact that the protest was simply waved through by state and territory leaders, have struck such a nerve is the sense of the lack of fairness and how much they have undermined the sacrifices that so many Australians have made.

We're talking about rights, but what about the right to celebrate your wedding? And what about the right of Australians to farewell their loved ones? Nothing strikes at the heart more than when you hear the stories of people who have not been able to properly farewell their loved ones because of the restrictions that were put in place. Those restrictions were explained at the time. We know that there was a danger with mass gatherings at funerals and weddings and other places. When that was explained by the national cabinet, so many Australians said, 'This is a terrible burden to bear', but they bore it. They complied. They complied with the rules whether they agreed with them or not, because they were convinced that this is what we need to do in order to protect lives in Australia.

When those same political leaders turn around and say, 'If you want to gather with 500 people, 1,000 people, 5,000 people or 10,000 people, that's about your right to protest,' other people rightly turn around and say: 'What about my rights? What about my right to farewell my loved ones? What about my right to run my business? What about my right to move around freely?' Those freedoms are important too. They have been curtailed for good reasons that have been explained to the community. The community has come with us. I think this undermines that trust.

Some of the state and territory leaders, including Andrew Barr the Chief Minister here, talk about the right to protest. I heard Premier Daniel Andrews talk about how he was 'discouraging' people from going to these protests. There was no discouragement of people in other aspects of life. We didn't say to the people who wanted to have 50, 100 or 200 people at a funeral, 'We discourage you.' Do you know what there were? There were fines. There was enforcement action.

Over the weekend I had feedback on this issue from many people, not just here in Canberra but right around the country. I had some feedback from people here in the ACT who were affected. As these protests were going on I was getting feedback from cafe owners in the ACT who had been visited by the authorities on multiple occasions counting to make sure that there were not 21 people rather than 20 or fewer in the cafe. Down the road there were thousands of people at a protest, and that was allowed. There were no fines. There were no moves by the authorities to in any way restrict that or impose any sanctions whatsoever.

Before, when only takeaway was allowed, an elderly gentleman—he was in his 80s—was getting a takeaway coffee and the cafe owner pulled out a chair for him. He was warned. He was told: 'You can't do that. You can't sit down here. We've got rules. It is only takeaway.' There was no, 'We're just going to advise you to do the right thing.' Churches here in Canberra in recent days have been warned by the police that they should not go over 20 in their gathering place—places that sometimes fit 300, 400 or 500 people. They cannot go beyond 20.

The double standards, the hypocrisy and the different standards that were applied are really what get to Australians. They say, 'This is not fair.' You have to say that they have a case. In the time I have left I have to say one of the reasons we see such frustration. I've pointed to the immense double standard of saying, 'The right to protest is important, but all of those other rights are not important and can be curtailed and restrained by the states'—sometimes, unfortunately, in fairly heavy-handed ways, and we've seen some examples that have been particularly unfortunate.

The other reason is the fact that the differences we are now seeing are not being explained. Please explain to me why in a territory where we have had no community transmission at any time it is dangerous to have more than 20 people gather in a church, a cafe, a restaurant or a pub but if you drive a couple of kilometres down the road to Queanbeyan, where they have had more community transmission—although not a lot at the moment, it must be said—it is safe to have up to 50 at a pub or a place of worship. That is another area of frustration. That is not being explained to people.

What they have done is undermine community confidence. Senator Gallagher might think this is a joke, because her mates in the Labor Party broke the rules about the restrictions and showed themselves to be above all those people who have had to put up with the rules. One rule for the rest; one rule for the Labor Party—there it is. That is why people are angry, and they are absolutely justified in their anger.