Do you really think there's anything like a significant number of 'professional protestors' out there? 'Professional' means that they do it for a living. Who do you think these people ARE? Who pays them? Cos frankly I haven't seen any evidence they exist at all. More likely the term was just invented by some ponytailed sunglasses-wearing cocaine-snorting PR/lobbying/crisis-management dipshit as a way of discrediting grassroots protests. Complete invented boogeyman as far as I can tell.
I believe that the legislation will be abused by govt/law enforcement because stuff like this always is. Go have a look at a list of the organisations that, for instance, ASIO/ASIS has spied on over the years. The frigging world wildlife fund is one of them I'm pretty sure, ffs. All sorts of social justice organisations. Unions. Political parties. For no legit reason, just because the powers were available and someone in the organisation thought they could earn brownie points by picking on one of the enemies of the govt of the day, or else the govt of the day thought 'hey, these guys are annoying, i'll sic ASIO on them' and ASIO did just what they were told. This is not because security forces, police, or even politicians are inherently worse than anyone else, it's just that power in whatever form will always be abused, so no body (law enforcement or otherwise) should have more power than is absolutely necessary to do their job.
And while the might be no new crimes defined if you look at it incredibly narrowly, in effect there is. What this basically does is add 10 years in prison onto any penalty you might recieve if you've so much as kept minutes at a meeting of an organisation deemed 'criminal'. So, keep a contact list on your computer of people who want to protest the development of such-and-such, and if you then get arrested for trespass, then suddenly you're an 'office holder' and instead of getting 24 hours in the slammer you'll get a MANDATORY 10 years + 24 hours. And yes, a judge can reduce the 24 hours to a fine etc at their option, but I don't think there's any scope to reduce the 10 years for any reason whatsoever.
This is a ****, clumsy, brute-force law that will be completely ineffective at tackling the people it's supposed to be aimed at, yet has incredible potential for abuse if brought to bear by this or future governments against political targets of opportunity.
So basically its just the vibe & a basless claim that it will be abused because "stuff like this always is". Come on, you still haven't addressed the question of why the hell would they try to hide this agenda when a very open agenda of attacking protestors would garner widespread support. Why not just introduce increased penalties & mandatory sentencing for protestors who destroy property or injure others as part of any organised protest. Why not simply introduce tougher measures against protestors who infringe the rights of others in their protests or indeed simply increase the penalties & definitions of trespass?
Unfounded claim. Many protests are popular - I suspect the Tecoma one you hate so much would have a great deal of local support, and others such as protests against the north-south pipeline, coal-seam gas fracking, the desal plant etc etc have enormous levels of public support beyond those who actually turn up. Most people agree with SOME protestors, if not all, so might be leery about laws targeted at the nice old ladies who are trying to stop Evilcorp from bulldozing their cottages to build a new tollway, but would be bang alongside new laws to beat up on bikies.
You say "no body (law enforcement or otherwise) should have more power than is absolutely necessary to do their job" but you then ignore the reality that these criminal organisations have flourished under the current environment.
If these organisations are criminal, then by definition they have already committed crimes. Those crimes should be investigated and the perpetrators punished. As you say yourself, these laws don't create any new offenses, they just enable more severe punishment of existing crimes.
By what possible measure can you conclude that the current level of power is more or less than nessesary? I'm not claiming either way, I'm saying lets see if this helps or if it in fact does get abused rather than simply falling back on the default possition of it must be bad. What I know is that bikie related crime is an issue & increasingly the general public is being caught up in the violence. Police have not been able to make any meaningful impact on the criminal activities involved. Newman is obviously exploiting these facts to appear a strong leader but maybe just maybe this may be a positive step. Will locking up bikers for longer when convicted of serious crimes be a positive - yes. Does half a rope make a cowboy - no. Potential is a dirty word. Potentially any law, any power could be abused. It doesn't mean we should simply abandon laws & reforming them.
I fundamentally disagree. The first duty of lawmakers is to not make bad law. If a law is as transparently politically exploitable and loosely targeted as this one is, then it's bad law. The normal thought experiment is to imagine what you'd think of this law if your political opponents were in power and using it to the hilt. So, imagine an unscrupulous Greens govt took power (yeah, I know, not exactly likely, but bear with me...)
The Catholic Church, through its continual contempt for the legal process and shielding of child abusers, would certainly be eligible to be declared a criminal organisation. Clive Palmer's companies have illegally refused to pay the carbon price. They're criminal organisations too then, and all office-holders cop 10 years mandatory in bikie jail. Hinch and his radio station continually violate court orders. Lock em up. The AFL routinely violates all sorts of labor laws with the draft and salary cap. Off to pokey goes Vlad, everyone on the commission, and all the club heads who signed on. Alan Jones and Tony Abbott both were a part of the 'convoy of no compromise' or whatever it was, truckies blockading Parliament house about the Carbon Price. Piles of road laws were broken during that protest. Should the protest, it's organisers, and participants have been declared a criminal organisation?
These are all entirely possible under the law.
You have basically taken a quantum leap of doubt without really anything but fear to support it. Like I said IF you can ever provide a single solitary example of these measures actually being abused then we can discuss.
No. Wrong. A competent government doesn't make bad, easily abusable law, then say 'we can discuss' only AFTER there's been concrete proof it's already been abused. A competent government makes law bearing in mind that it may be abused, and seeking to write limits into the law so that it is as difficult as possible for the unscrupulous to abuse it. A simple example in this case might be to limit the definition of 'criminal' organisation to those whose members have taken part in drug, violence, or sex-related crimes with a maximum sentence above 5 years, NOT any crimes whatsoever.
Until then I have no sympathy for organised criminals in whatever guise they choose. NO I don't think professional protestors are numerous but I believe they absolutely do exists. You may not like the term "rofessional protestor" or "rent a crowd" & it may not be strictly correct (they are not employed to protest) but they do simply go from protest to protest to organise disruptions, property damage, assaults & violent cohersion tactics. See Anthony Main as an example of what I would deem as a professional protestor. Then take a drive up to Tecoma & see further examples at the McDonalds. Thats is of course if you actually do want to see evidence. I'm sure you know they exists.
I suggest that persistent protestors (I'm not going to use the term 'professional' or 'rent-a-crowd' because both terms are carefully designed to suggest that money rather than sincerity motivates these people, and I have never seen any evidence or suggestion that any 'rent' or other payments have ever been made to any protestors, and so am inclined to believe the whole thing is a big hairy lie spread by those opposing the protests) are a tiny, tiny minority. I believe they do exist, in their twos and threes maybe, the odd ex-uni-politics-communist or paranoid anti-corporate anti-government survivalist, but that the great majority of people protesting development, demolition, clearing, or even the carbon price are genuinely concerned citizens. And once again, the law as it stands should suffice to tackle these people. If they are so prone to repeated violence, assault, and destruction as you suggest, then they should be the subject of multiple successive criminal charges - assault, GBH, criminal damage, etc etc etc, to the extent that they'd be copping progressively increasing jail sentences as judges get more and more fed up with them. But this isn't happening. In the case of protests it isn't though lack of police presence - it's well documented that there's very often been more cops at Tecoma Maccas, for instance, than there have been protestors. So I'm inclined to believe that this horrible wave of anarchic violence that you're so concerned about doesn't, in fact, exist.