Image: CCTV footage of Jonathan Sriranganathan (then Councillor for the Gabba Ward) in a protest in the Queens Street Mall in Sept 2021 demonstrating against the rollout of the then federal Liberal government’s cashless welfare card.
The Mall Campaign revisited
In 1981, the Minister for Local Government Russ Hinze introduced the Queen Street Mall Act 1981, which was an attack on free speech in order that the Main Street of Brisbane could have unfettered shopping day and night. Musak rang down Queen Street where trams, buses, and cars once were. A ‘mall campaign’ for democratic rights was conducted by various groups, including the Democratic Rights Organisation (DRO).
I never liked the mall with m u s a k blaring out during late night shopping. A disneyland.
The aim of the campaign was: “To build a democratic rights campaign to oppose the ban on assembly in the Mall, to have the Local Government Queen Street Mall Amendment Act repealed, and to call for the Labor Party in Queensland to include the defence of democratic rights as part of its platform.”
This culminated in a large demonstration on 27 May 1983, where there were mass arrests by police exercising their authority under the Queen Street Mall Act. A lawyer was arrested for the mere act of coming up and saying hello to me. Ten (10) years later, under a lot of pressure from democratic rights activists, the Labor government introduced the Queensland Peaceful Assembly Act of 1992.
Section 5 of the act states : “Right of peaceful assembly –
(1) A person has the right to assemble peacefully with others in a public place.
There is a prohibition on public assembly in the local law (not passed by the parliament but through regulations set down by Brisbane City Council). Schedule 2 of the local law reads:
Activities in malls
Table 2 — Prohibited activities and prescribed penalties:
Conduct a public assembly which is not authorised under the Peaceful Assembly Act 1992.
Notwithstanding that peaceful assembly act clearly states:
s5(4) – Nothing in this section limits the power of a local authority to regulate pedestrian malls, but the power is subject to the right mentioned in subsection (1).
In Sept 2022, Magistrate Suzette Coates found Jonathan Sriranganathan guilty of undertaking a prohibited activity (the assembly), but not guilty of failing to obtain consent (to hold a placard).
In her judgement, the magistrate claimed: “There is no definition in any of the council acts of ‘advertise’ or ‘advertising material’ or ‘advertising matter’ in the Public Land and Council Assets Local Law 2014,” Magistrate Suzette Coates ruled.
This may well be even though it is contradicted by other judgements, but I have to disagree with her honour on the substantive matter of the public assembly of four people shown in the CCTV footage (above).
But then the Court of Appeal is also against me on this. In their decision in Hemelaar v Brisbane City Council [2017] QCA 241, Justices Morrison, Boddice and Flanagan proclaimed:
[41] Once it is understood that sections 5 and 7 of the Act (Queensland Peaceful Assembly Act of 1992) are complimentary provisions, there is no inconsistency between the operation of s 5(4) of the Act and an authorised public assembly in a pedestrian mall. An authorised public assembly held in a pedestrian mall must still comply with the requirements of the relevant local authority, provided those requirements do not constitute unnecessary and/or unreasonable restrictions on the person’s right to assemble peacefully with others in that pedestrian mall.
[42] The provisions of the Local Law do not constitute unnecessary or unreasonable restrictions on that right. Chapter 3 of the Local Law regulates activities within pedestrian malls which of their very nature contain large numbers of persons seeking to enjoy the natural environment and/or carry out their business. Section 15 of the Local Law expressly acknowledges that purpose in the management and regulation of pedestrian malls.
[43] Against that background, requirements that permission first be obtained for specified regulated activities, including the distribution of written material and the operation of amplifying equipment, are necessary and reasonable requirements. The distribution of material and the use of such equipment directly impacts on the ability of users of the Mall to enjoy its natural environment and its businesses.
Hemelaar went to the High Court but was refused leave to appeal. This is what two judges of the High Court said about the judgement in the court of appeal:
“There is no reason to doubt the correctness of the decision of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Queensland (Morrison JA, Boddice and Flanagan JJ). An appeal to this Court would enjoy no prospect of success.” – G.A.A. Nettle and M.M. Gordon, 7 February 2018 in HEMELAAR v BRISBANE CITY COUNCIL [2018] HCASL 1 B66/2017.
You would have to wonder who these people are especially given they were alive during the period of the Bjelke-Peterson government where the right to public assembly was banned. Even the Labor Party in government questioned the viability of this in a democracy. You can’t, or at least you shouldn’t, take away people’s right to assemble in the misguided belief that some local law thought up outside the parliament to defend shopping in a mall would prevail.
But it seems that even the High Court believes that we live in a country where shopping is more important than politics or religion.
Ian Curr
21 Dec 2023
The Mall Campaign revisited
John Tracey, please let the new candidate for Moreton, Blinky Bill, know how much I appreciate his thoughts and that I respect his keen study of history.
I do not wish to trouble him much further, especially given his recent injuries arising from the assassination attempt on his life. Let him know that I’m concerned about his health and that in the past, I have helped some of his cousins who suffered from chlamydia while I was working in the University of Queensland veterinary school.
I note that Blinky has been around for a long time, and you, as his campaign manager, would be aware that there are some unpalatable facts that must be faced concerning our history.
Drew Hutton may well be the father of the Queensland Greens. But, as you would be aware, he arrived at that point after a split in the Self Management Group (SMG) in 1977. On the other side of the split were libertarians such as Brian Laver.
By the time the 1983-free-speech campaign in the mall came around, Drew had a small group around him, numbering about seven or eight people. This is about the time you came on the scene as one of the three-gathered together in his name. I have written some of this history elsewhere, but I would like Blinky Bill to ponder deeply an incident concerning direct democracy.
In March of 1983, Drew attended a meeting of the Democratic Rights Organisation (DRO) in the old Trades Hall. He and others wanted to have a weekly speak out in the mall to challenge Russ Hinze’s Queen Street Mall Act, which came into force in 1980 restricting free speech and political assembly in that place.
There was a proposal before the DRO chairperson that we run a concerted campaign building up to the 27th of May 1983, where we would defy the ban on assembly in the mall as a collective.
Depending on the outcome, we could then decide whether it was worthwhile pursuing the campaign challenging legislation that served the interests of capitalist consumerism in the Brisbane city mall.
Drew spoke strongly against the motion, emphasizing the individuals right to free speech and methinks ignoring the right of the collective to organise. When the vote went against him supporting a concerted campaign leading up to the 27th of May 1983, Drew stood up, motioned to his entourage, and they left the room not to be seen again in those organising meetings.
Are you still with me, Blinky?
The attached photo is of Drew Hutton in the Queen Street Mall chained to a leopard tree about to be arrested on the 27th of May 1983.
Drew had made his reappearance on the very day that a hard fought campaign had led up to a couple of hundred people challenging the ban on free speech and assembly.
Drew had not consulted with the organising committee at any stage in the preceding six weeks. Nor had he assisted by participating in the weekly soapbox speaker-outs during Friday night shopping.
The aim of the mall campaign was: “To build a democratic rights campaign to oppose the government’s ban on assembly in the Mall, to have the Local Government Queen Street Mall Amendment Act repealed, and to call for the Labor Party in Queensland to include the defence of democratic rights as part of its platform.”
We had to wait another eight long years before the Labor Party finally acted and passed the Peaceful Assembly Act of 1992. To this day the Brisbane City Council still fines people organising in the mall but the police are hamstrung by the Peaceful Assembly Act that thousands of people fought for.
Ian Curr, 24 March 2025