Review of the Unlawful Assemblies and Processions Act 1958

Chapter 3 - Victorian Law and Practice [Part 2]

[Return to table of contents]
[Back to Part 1 of Chapter 3 - Victorian Law and Practice]

VICTORIAN PRACTICE
Cooperative Model

3.64 In most cases, public assemblies and demonstrations in Victoria are regulated by a cooperative planning process which is conducted under the auspices of the City of Melbourne Public Authorities Team. The Team includes the Victoria Police, Vic Roads, City of Melbourne council and other relevant authorities, and meets once a month to consider applications to hold assemblies and demonstrations. The process involves extensive discussions between protest organisers and bodies likely to be affected by public gatherings. The process aims to protect the right of peaceful assembly and, at the same time, minimise the disruption caused to the rest of society. On the rare occasion that legal sanctions are required, the police generally employ the numerous statutory offences designed to keep the peace.[94] The Act does not form part of the current practice of regulating public demonstrations.[95] Nor, it seems, does the PALL.

3.65 The Presiding Officers of Parliament similarly noted that demonstrations and assemblies now occur so frequently around Parliament House that:

...there is a well established routine involving the Special Events Office of the Victoria Police, the Melbourne City Council, the Office of the Serjeant-at-Arms and protest groups whereby everything is planned; traffic is diverted if necessary; extra Police stationed on the Front Steps; the Parliament Building secured etc.[96]

Role of Police

3.66 The primary responsibility for preventing disorder and maintaining the peace lies with the police. How they exercise their powers substantially determines whether and to what extent citizens are able to enjoy their rights and freedoms. Police officers have a duty to prevent breaches of the peace and are entrusted with common law and statutory powers for this purpose. Many of these powers involve the exercise of discretion.[97]

3.67 Victoria Police has appointed specific officers and units to deal with assemblies and processions. There is an industrial liaison officer, a superintendent, who liaises with unions in relation to industrial action. A chief inspector manages a special unit with statewide responsibility for ensuring demonstrations are handled equally. The Region 1 Special Events Office has particular responsibility for assemblies and processions around Parliament House.[98]

3.68 The Chief Commissioner's Instructions on Policing at Crowd Control Situations, also govern the policing of assemblies and demonstrations. The following paragraphs of the Instructions are particularly relevant:

5 Members [of Victoria Police] must report to a supervisor all reliable information concerning any event that may become or is a crowd control situation. Of particular importance is information about people acting as organisers, their plans, the numbers involved and the group they represent.

8 The Operations Commander has the overall role of effectively and efficiently commanding, controlling and coordinating the entire operation or incident... The Operations Commander must:

• Cause contact to be made with the organisers, leaders or management of all parties involved, to ascertain their intentions and to advise on Force policy and the police role. This may require the appointment of a liaison officer...

9 In some crowd control situations, it may be necessary to appoint a liaison officer... The function of the liaison officer is to contact organisers, leaders or management of all parties involved, to ascertain their intentions and to advise on Force policy and the police role.

15 District Commanders must notify Major Incident Planning Unit if it appears the crowd control situation may cross over District boundaries or that the District cannot provide adequate resources.

17 In all cases, the Major Incident Planning Unit is available to provide assistance in the planning and coordination of crowd control situations.

24 The policing of crowd control situations may involve violent confrontation with participants. Where possible, both confrontation and the use of force should be avoided. Where force cannot be avoided, use only the minimum amount reasonably necessary.

25 Only in cases of urgency can members apply the use of force without authority. In all other cases, any use of force must be specifically authorised...

26 Forward Commanders should ensure the minimal use of force by:

• Maintaining liaison with all parties involved.

• Keeping parties advised of any developments which may influence the outcome of the situation.

• Informing participants of potential use of force.

• Adopting a policy of containment.

• Exercising tact and restraint.

• Ensuring arrests are made as a last resort.

• Adopting a low key approach.

28 When contemplating the use of force, members must be aware of their legislative and common law powers. In a crowd control situation, the member must believe:

• On reasonable grounds that the reasonable use of force is necessary to prevent or stop and offence;

• Any force used is not disproportionate to the objective sought to be achieved;

• The offence sought to be prevented is an indictable offence or the lawful arrest of the person is required; and

• The person to be arrested has committed or is suspected of committing an offence. (s. 462A Crimes Act 1958).

29 Police members also have a common law duty to prevent breaches of the peace. This includes taking whatever action is reasonable in the circumstances to prevent the occurrence or continuation of a breach of the peace...

30 In some crowd control situations it may be necessary to make arrests. If so, the following guidelines should be followed:...

• Minor offences should be ignored in the interests of containing the overall situation however, appropriate action must be taken to prevent conduct involving violence to people or damage to property.

50 A riot is defined as where three or more persons assemble together in a riotous or tumultuous manner.

51 Take prompt action when any persons in a crowd control situation are armed with weapons of any description or resort to violence. In addition to taking action to prevent a breach of the peace, police may have the situation declared as a riot. This is done by having a magistrate read aloud the riot proclamation at that situation, set out in the Unlawful Assemblies and Processions Act 1958.[99]

3.69 Representatives of Victoria Police provided further insight into the practice of policing assemblies and processions when they gave evidence at a hearing before the Committee on 3 May 1999. Victoria Police indicated that the present system of voluntary cooperation was operating reasonably well.[100] They advised the Committee that members of the force are always closely supervised when policing assemblies and demonstrations, and that supervision had been refined over the last couple of years. When advised of a planned demonstration, all police were fully briefed on the operational plan, the tactics proposed by the police commander, and the law, before going to the demonstration.[101] Victoria Police acknowledged the importance of police discretion, commenting:

What is reasonable [police action] from one situation to another will still be a police judgment call. In some circumstances we might allow people to get away with a lot more because we fear that if we go in at that time and place there will be a confrontation that we could have avoided. At the end of the day, we are always about preserving the peace.[102]

3.70 They advised that the most commonly relied upon offence used against protesters was that of trespass, under the Summary Offences Act 1996. While there was legislation relating to obstruction, this was rarely used.[103] Victoria Police were also very reluctant to use the riot provisions in section 6 of the Unlawful Assemblies and Processions Act 1958, and contemplated them being of use only where the situation was life threatening.[104]

3.71 Victoria Police also provided the Committee with some statistics relating to assemblies and demonstrations in the city area of Melbourne. The Police indicated that, in the period 1 January 1997 to 1 October 1997, there were 295 public events in or near the city area (not involving Parliament House), and 48 assemblies and demonstrations involving Parliament House.[105]

Role of City of Melbourne

3.72 The City of Melbourne ("the Council") provided some details in relation to assemblies and demonstrations held within its precincts. Approximately one application is received per week to conduct a demonstration or procession, for various purposes ranging from religious to political, economic or social. The events take place in various locations, with the most popular location being Parliament House. As soon as contact is made with the Council by the event organisers, the Council advises the police and any other relevant public authorities of event details. The public is then notified of these events by leaflet distribution, telephone, word of mouth or by other authorities such as the police and the Public Transport Corporation. The Council does not give actual approval for these events to take place. Rather the Council acknowledges their occurrence in writing and assists with event logistics.[106]

3.73 The Council also imposes certain general conditions on the conduct of these events, as follows:

1. The event and set up period will occur from 1.00pm to 6.00pm (specific to this particular event).

2. No sign or other structure should be attached to any fitting, fixture, tree etc and no structure, prop or other item is to be erected unless written approval has been obtained from the Principal Officer – Street Activity.

3. At the conclusion of the event all displays and promotional material, excess rubbish and other equipment associated with the staging of this activity is to be removed and the area should be left in a clean and tidy condition. If Council is required to undertake any re-instatement, additional cleansing or removal of rubbish or other materials, then a charge may apply to re-instate the area to its current condition.

4. The lawful directions of members of the Victoria Police and authorised Council Officers must be complied with at all times. The effect upon traffic is to be controlled by the Victoria Police and the applicant is to arrange for the marshals to assist participants.

5. No undue interference being [sic] caused to pedestrians and/or entrances to business premises. Access to the event site must be maintained for emergency vehicles and/or owners/tenants of properties requiring access. Tram lines are to be kept clear.

6. Any noise emanating from an activity is not too exceed a level of 72dB short term LAeq unless written approval has been obtained for an alternate sound level. There is to be no amplification equipment used in association with any activity unless written approval has been obtained.

7. No vehicles associated with any activity are to be parked on the site.

8. A detailed running sheet and proposed layout of any activity must be lodged with the council prior to the event.

9. The applicant is to inform and consult all owners and/or occupiers of properties in writing within the immediate proximity of the site of any activity and address any concerns raised by such parties to their reasonable satisfaction.

10. Your organisation must ensure that adequate public liability insurance is held to cover it and any organisations associated with the event. In this instance a minimum cover is deemed to be not less than $10,000,000 (10 million dollars). This is essential given that applicants take on a leadership role with "duty of care" implications for an activity.

It is understood that in taking responsibility for the organisation that you agree to fully indemnify Council against any claim laid against it either by members of the public or persons engaged in any activities associated with the event who, as a result of the activity, suffer personal injury, property damage or financial loss.

11. The activity organiser shall conform to the requirements of the Health Act, Local Government Act and any Local-laws [sic], or Regulations made thereunder and shall be liable for any breach of such Acts, Local Laws, or Regulations. All other Acts, Statutory Rules, Provisions and Regulation[s] of the Commonwealth of Australia or State of Victoria, for the time being in force shall be complied with by the activity organiser.

12. The Council reserves the right to amend or revoke use of any site at any time.[107]

The Council noted that it had not charged or issued any penalty or infringement notices to comply in connection with the holding of such events. Nor had the Council received any objections or submissions in relation to an assembly or procession.[108]

SUBMISSIONS
Support for Repeal of Act

3.75 The fundamental issue for the Committee to determine is whether the Act is redundant in light of modern views on the importance of freedom of assembly in a democratic society. Submissions received by the Committee almost unanimously suggest that the Act is redundant and may be repealed.[109]

3.76 Victoria Police submitted that all provisions of the Act, with the exception of sections 5 and 6, were redundant and could safely be repealed:

Victoria Police sees no benefit in retaining; sections 3 & 4, Part II – Party Processions, section 13, Part III – Special Constables, or Part IV – Riotously Disturbed Districts, of the Act.

These provisions are inconsistent with accepted practices of policing and community expectations of law enforcement. It is most unlikely that the community would support the appointment of untrained constables for the purpose of riot policing, the concept is not supported by Victoria Police. The right to demonstrate in public places, including the precincts of parliament, is also broadly accepted, clearly Part II is no longer relevant. Part IV seems to be based on historic concepts of riot and compensation and is apparently unchanged from the 1928 Act, it also is no longer relevant.[110]

3.77 However, Victoria Police submitted that there was a need to retain sections 5 and 6 in some form. This issue is dealt with separately below in paragraphs 3.96 to 3.103.

3.78 The Public Law Interest Group at The University of Melbourne ("PLIG") submitted that the Act was redundant and should be repealed, as it had:

...evolved in social and political circumstances very different from those which prevail in contemporary Victoria. As a consequence, it deals with the subject matter of assemblies and processions by means which are out of step with modern conditions and contemporary values.[111]

3.79 PLIG remarked that it was "generally accepted" that the right of peaceful assembly was "fundamental to a free and democratic society". After noting the position at international law[112], PLIG continued:

Implicit in the notion of "peaceful assembly" is the recognition that the law must strike a balance between the right of assembly and the need to protect the rights and freedoms of other members of society.

In our view, the [Act] fails to achieve such a balance. It seeks to regulate political demonstrations by means which are cumbersome and anachronistic. Moreover, it places unacceptable restrictions on the right of peaceful assembly.[113]

3.80 PLIG also noted that the Act:

...does not form part of the current practice of regulating public demonstrations and is unlikely to be utilised in the future...[114]

3.81 In relation to Part IV of the Act, PLIG submitted that:

...the payment of compensation by all inhabitants of riotously disturbed districts... is outmoded, impractical and likely to result in injustice for those who suffer loss or damage as a result of such disturbances. Compensation is available through an action in tort, or a compensation order made pursuant to s 86 of the Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic).[115]

3.82 The Presiding Officers of the Parliament of Victoria referred particularly to sections 3 and 4 (prohibiting assemblies and processions around Parliament House while either House is sitting), and noted that:

The reasons for such tough legislation has [sic] long since passed into history and contemporary expectations are such that, in a democratic society, it is perfectly normal and reasonable for groups to assemble in front of the building to protest or demonstrate.[116]

3.83 The Presiding Officers took the view that "sections 3 and 4 are now redundant"[117], and concluded that:

[The Act] should be repealed as it is virtually unworkable legislation – it is redundant because in reality history and community expectations have left this Act behind.[118]

3.84 The Presiding Officers did, however, identify a number of problems particular to assemblies taking place around Parliament House. This issue is dealt with separately, and at length, in Chapter 8.

3.85 Mr Iain Stewart of South Melbourne submitted that the Act was redundant, and suggested that:

...there is little evidence to suggest such assemblies constitute a threat to civil order or the effective working of the Parliament. Furthermore, in the unlikely event an assembly did constitute such a threat the Victoria Police has adequate statutory powers to deal with any situation that may arise.[119]

3.86 The Save Albert Park organisation also submitted that the Act was "clearly redundant".[120]

3.87 The Law Institute of Victoria ("LIV") contributed a particularly useful submission, considering each aspect of the Act in some detail. The LIV took the view that the Act:

...is not an adequate model to regulate assemblies and processions in Victoria. As it currently stands, that [sic] the Act unjustifiably impinges on the right to peaceful assembly.[121]

3.88 However, the LIV accepted that there was a need to balance the right to peaceful assembly against other rights, interests and needs, such as the need to prevent violent or other inappropriate behaviour in public places. But restrictions on the right to peaceful assembly should only be accepted where they were reasonably necessary to protect such other rights, interests and needs.[122]

3.89 The LIV then commented on the provisions of the Act in some detail. In relation to sections 3 and 4, the LIV noted that most of the purposes for which it is prohibited to assemble under the Act are "unjustified" as they impinge on the right of peaceful assembly, democratic rights implied from the Commonwealth Constitution, and international law relating to peaceful assemblies.[123] The LIV considered that the Parliamentary Precinct "is of particular significance and focus" for assemblies, particularly when Parliament is in session. Therefore:

...it seems to us unjust and undemocratic that the Act renders certain assemblies unlawful merely because they occur in this important vicinity.[124]

3.90 Further, the LIV noted:

It is arbitrary that an assembly becomes unlawful once there are more than 50 people assembling for certain purposes... The number of persons involved should not be determinative of what is or is not an unlawful assembly. This is because, for instance, the persons participating are unlikely to know precisely when the prohibited number of participants in reached. In these circumstances, it seems unjust that all the participants are liable to imprisonment.[125]

3.91 The LIV noted some difficulty in construing sections 4 and 6. It seemed that a person who did not leave the site of an assembly deemed unlawful under the Act within 15 minutes of the reading of the notice to disperse by a Magistrate could be found guilty of two indictable offences – one for being present at the unlawful assembly and another for remaining there after the expiry of the 15 minutes. This seemed unfair.[126]

3.92 The objective of section 10, according to the LIV, is not clear on its face. The LIV believed that the section operates unjustly in rendering certain assemblies unlawful, and deeming every person present at such an assembly guilty of an indictable offence merely because of their participation in such an assembly.[127]

3.93 The LIV had few comments to make in relation to Parts III and IV of the Act, merely noting that:

The concepts of "special constables" and "riotously disturbed districts" appear to belong to another era in Victorian history. The [LIV] considers that these provisions should be repealed.[128]

3.94 The LIV concluded that the common law was preferable to the current Act. [129]

Opposition to Repeal of Act

3.95 The only submission received by the Committee that opposed the repeal of the Act was that from the H R Nicholls Society ("the Society"). The Society's particular concern is with unlawful assemblies and picket lines taking place in the context of industrial relations.[130] The Committee notes the concerns of the Society. However, an examination of industrial disputes necessitates consideration of matters falling within the field of Commonwealth governance and legislation. Such an inquiry is really beyond the scope of the present review.

Sections 5 and 6

3.96 As noted previously, Victoria Police support the retention of sections 5 and 6 of the Act, for the following reasons:

Though these provisions have been used only once in recent memory (Frankston c. 1980), they serve as a reserve power. Other existing legislation and the common law does [sic] not provide police with the ability to disperse riotous assemblies. Overseas experience suggests that riots are precipitated by one event and will occur with little or no warning, escalating rapidly from a relatively minor occurrence. Given this scenario, it cannot be argued that parliament could anticipate a riot and introduce combating legislation only when necessary.

The alternative common law provisions of riot and rout and the Crimes Act offence of riotous damage to property do not provide for the dispersal of a large group of people, many of whom may be present and supporting the riot, but not specifically involved in a criminal offence. Mere presence in a crowd is not sufficient for conviction for an offence of riot. The only action open to police under these provisions is arrest of those offending or the nebulous powers available to prevent breach of the peace.

It would be impossible to deal with a riot by the arrest of rioters and it is unclear as to what actions are authorised to prevent a breach of the peace in the circumstances of riot.[131]

3.97 The full text of sections 5 and 6 reads as follows:–

5. Riotous meetings

It shall not be lawful for any persons to assemble together riotously and tumultuously and to the disturbance of the public peace at any place in Victoria; and if persons so unlawfully riotously and tumultuously assembled or any of them happen to be killed maimed or hurt in the dispersing seizing or apprehending or endeavouring to disperse seize or apprehend them, the persons so dispersing seizing or apprehending or endeavouring to disperse seize or apprehend the offenders shall be free discharged and indemnified or for and concerning the killing maiming or hurting of any such person or persons so unlawfully assembled as aforesaid.

6. Persons not dispersing after notice guilty of a misdemeanour

Any magistrate shall and may proceed with or without assistance to the place where any meeting or assembly prohibited by this Part is held or takes place; and such magistrate shall then and there read or repeat aloud to the persons then and there present a notice in the words or to the effect following:

"Our Sovereign Lady the Queen doth strictly charge and command all manner of persons here assembled immediately to disperse themselves and peaceably depart to their own homes. God save the Queen."

And if any one or more of the persons so met or assembled together wilfully and knowingly oppose obstruct or in any manner wilfully or knowingly let hinder or hurt any magistrate who begins to read or repeat aloud the notice hereinbefore mentioned so that the same shall not be read or repeated as aforesaid, or after the expiration of fifteen minutes after such notice has been read or repeated or has been so hindered as aforesaid from being read or repeated remain in attendance at such assembly, he or they shall be deemed and taken to be guilty of an indictable offence.

3.98 Victoria Police acknowledged that the scope of the indemnity in section 5 was too broad, and supported the restriction of the indemnity to injury caused only by the use of reasonable force.[132] Further, the police believed that the requirement that a magistrate read the notice to disperse under section 6 was valid, as having an independent judicial officer present to assess the situation was a reasonable balance.[133]

3.99 Victoria Police suggested that, as the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) already contains sections dealing with riot, in sections 206 and 207, this may be an appropriate place for the inclusion of provisions based on sections 5 and 6 of the Act. Alternatively, the Summary Offences Act 1966 may be the appropriate place for the provisions, depending on how seriously Parliament viewed the offences.[134]

3.100 The LIV also commented on sections 5 and 6 of the Act. The LIV considered the indemnity provided by section 5 to be "highly unnecessary and undesirable" as it "invited rough treatment and carelessness rather than encourag[ing] other less harmful means of crowd control". The LIV suggested that a more appropriate provision might be to permit reasonable force to be used where necessary to disperse such assemblies.[135]

3.101 However, the LIV agreed that the reading of a notice to disperse was a good idea:

...as it provides persons with the opportunity to avoid committing an offence and yet still make the point they are endeavouring to achieve by participating in the assembly. The form of words used is, however, clearly in need of reworking using plain English.[136]

3.102 The LIV also noted that, while the current Act requires a Magistrate to read the notice to disperse, it would be more practicable for police to fulfil this role.[137]

3.103 In so far as the saving of any provisions was concerned, the LIV commented:

In the event that Parliament determined to continue to regulate assemblies and processions, it would seem preferable to include provisions dealing with such matters in existing legislation, for example, any provisions creating offences could be inserted in the Crimes Act. This would enable a reduction in the number of Victorian Acts and may also assist the public to locate the relevant statutory provision(s). If, however, there were a substantial number of provisions governing assemblies, parades and processions, it would be preferable to utilise a separate Act to facilitate persons locating all relevant provisions.[138]

COMMITTEE'S VIEW AND COMMENTS

3.104 The Committee is of the view that the Act is redundant and should be repealed. The Committee takes this view for the following reasons.

1. The right of peaceful assembly is an important right in a modern, democratic society. The Act represents an unreasonable restriction on this right.

2. The Act reflects conditions that no longer exist in, and policy decisions that are no longer relevant to, contemporary Victorian society.

3. The Act is not part of the current practice of regulating assemblies and processions in Victoria.

4. The submissions received by the Committee, including that from the Victoria Police, almost unanimously agree that the Act is redundant and should be repealed.

3.105 However, the Committee notes the comments of Victoria Police and the LIV in relation to sections 5 and 6 of the Act. The Committee agrees that a power to disperse a riotous crowd by reading a notice to disperse would be useful for the control of potential riots. The Committee further recognises that there still may be a need for such a provision, as evidenced by the Frankston riots, less than 20 years ago. However, the Committee considers that the application of the current sections 5 and 6 is uncertain, as they do not define riotous assembly.

3.106 The Committee notes the LIV's comment that it may be appropriate for a police officer of a suitably senior rank to be given the power to read the notice of dispersal, rather than a magistrate. The Committee recognises that in some situations a magistrate may not be available to read the dispersal provision. However, the Committee considers it undesirable to confer this power on members of the police generally. The Committee is of the view that an appropriate compromise would be for the provision to empower a magistrate or the Commissioner of Police to read the notice. Further, the Commissioner should be able to delegate this power to a high ranking member of the police force.

3.107 The Committee is also of the view that members of the police force should be entitled to use reasonable force to disperse a riotous assembly.

3.108 The Committee considers that section 8 of the Commonwealth Public Order (Protection of Persons and Property) Act 1971 may provide an useful example for Victoria, as it addresses all of the above issues. That provision reads as follows:–

(1) Where there is an assembly consisting of not less than twelve persons in a Territory and:

(a) persons taking part in the assembly have conducted themselves in a way that has caused a member of the Police Force of the rank of Sergeant or above reasonably to apprehend that the assembly will be carried on in a manner involving unlawful physical violence to persons or unlawful damage to property; or

(b) the assembly is being carried on in a manner involving such unlawful violence or damage;

a member of a Police Force of the rank of Sergeant or above may give a direction under this section.

(2) A direction under this section shall be given orally and in such a manner as to be likely to be audible to the persons constituting the assembly, or to as many of them as practicable, and shall be in accordance with the following form or to like effect:

In pursuance of the Public Order (Protection of Persons and Property) Act 1971 of the Commonwealth of Australia, I [name of police officer], being a Sergeant [or higher rank as the case may be] in the [name of Police Force], direct all persons taking part in this assembly to disperse forthwith. Persons who fail to disperse may render themselves liable to the penalties provided by the Act.

(3) Where:

(a) a direction is given under this section; and

(b) the assembly, to the number of not less than twelve persons, continues after the expiration of fifteen minutes from the time of the direction;

each of those persons who has, without reasonable excuse, failed to comply with the direction is guilty of an offence, punishable on conviction by imprisonment for not more than six months.

(4) For the purpose of:

(a) dispersing an assembly in respect of which a direction has been given under this section; or

(b) dispersing or suppressing an assembly to which paragraph (1)(b) applies (whether or not a direction has been given under this section in respect of the assembly);

it is lawful for a person to use such force as he or she believes, on reasonable grounds, to be necessary for that purpose and is reasonably proportionate to the danger which he or she believes, on reasonable grounds, is to be apprehended from the continuance of the assembly.

However, the Commonwealth model would have to be adapted to allow a magistrate or the Commissioner of Police to read the dispersal notice, as outlined above. Also, the Committee considers that the penalty for the breach of such a provision should be a fine and/or imprisonment, rather than imprisonment only.

3.109 The new provision should be inserted in the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic).

3.110 The Committee also considers that the Public Activities Local Law 1994 should be repealed, as it represents an unreasonable restriction on the right of peaceful assembly, and as it is not part of the current practice of regulating assemblies and processions in Victoria. The LIV made a similar observation:

In light of the importance of the right to peaceful assembly, it seems inappropriate that the City of Melbourne retains a wide discretion whether or not to grant a permit. If a permit system is to be retained, and there appears [sic] to be good reasons ...why it should not be, the criteria for the granting of a permit should be spelt out and if the criteria is met there should be no discretion to refuse to issue a permit. If a permit is refused there should be a cheap and readily accessible method of seeking review of the decision to refuse to grant the permit. Persons who are refused a permit should be notified of their right to seek review of the decision and the manner in which this may be done.[139]

3.111 However, the Committee notes that the Public Activities Local Law 1994 will be repealed by the introduction of the Activities Local Law 1999, likely to occur on 1 July 1999. The Committee will therefore refrain from making a recommendation on this matter.

3.112 The Committee must now consider whether a new legislative scheme should be introduced to regulate assemblies and processions generally in Victoria, and if so, what sort of scheme. This issue is discussed at length in Chapter 4 of this Report, which outlines and compares the different models operating in the other Australian jurisdictions and in the United Kingdom.

Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee
© Parliament of Victoria