Many who witnessed the horrific police violence said they had never seen anything like it before. On February 14, the Law Enforcement Conduct Commission (LECC) announced an independent investigation into the police conduct. It will examine the policing operation as well as individual cases of unlawful policing.

One of the matters LECC should investigate is which politicians and senior police were involved in organising a massive increase in available police powers shortly before Herzog’s arrival, and what instructions were given to police on the ground about those powers.

The legislation that was used is a little-known law, called the Major Events Act 2009, under which the NSW Minister for Tourism Stephen Kamper approved a new regulation which transformed Herzog’s visit into a “major event”.

Its objects are to bring “benefits” to spectators and enhance NSW’s reputation for holding events. The act grants special powers to plan and regulate major events, including shutting off access to areas, searching people and using “reasonable force” to compel citizens to comply with directions.

It relieves the state of most liability for damage caused in the exercise of these powers.

The powers have the potential to severely impact the exercise of citizens’ political rights — which is probably why the act includes a section that a political protest must not be declared a major event. The act is designed to cover events of a “sporting, cultural or other nature”.

These police powers triggered the lack of restraint witnessed on February 9. This does not mean that police actions were lawful, but that these were the powers under which they thought they were acting.

As one constable, who was part of two lines blocking protesters from entering Town Hall Square said when questioned, “I heard something about a major event”.

 Court challenge failed

The new regulation was announced on February 7, just 48 hours before Herzog arrived. The Palestinian Action Group (PAG), represented by Hanna Legal, had 24 hours to challenge the regulation.

PAG’s case was that the regulation was “unreasonable”, “disproportionate” and was created for an improper purpose of suppressing protests.........

© Green Left Weekly