Forcing private outfits, (including grassroots groups, cultural associations, and possibly churches) to pay for public policing is so open to abuse and weaponisation, would-be-censors across the country must think Christmas has come early, says Jonathan Ayling, Chief Executive of the Free Speech Union.

“Since discussing his Member's Bill with media on Monday morning, Greg Fleming MP has consistently made three claims that are clearly and patently false about his attempts to make it easier for Police to recover costs from private events. We don't believe he is doing this intentionally - it simply seems Fleming and the New Zealand National Party haven't done even half their homework on this Bill. Sloppy drafting can have a big impact.

“We've asked three times since Monday for Fleming to show us where we're wrong- he hasn't come through.

“The first false claim is that this would apply to only large events. He keeps using the example of rugby games with tens of thousands, telling me explicitly that it would mean nothing for the 'small provocative events' we're concerned could be targeted. There is nothing in the legislation that exists, or that is proposed, that even references 'large events.' The word 'large' doesn't feature at all.

“The Amendment Bill explicitly amends the law to widen events, defining them as 'sporting, cultural, religious, or entertainment event, conference, meeting, convention, or exhibition.' The net is cast so wide that it's hard to see what public event might not be included in this.

“The second error Fleming makes is that Police can already require events to pay for Police. There's nothing to see here, he suggests, it's just a technical change! This is glaringly false, as the current law says these charges can be 'provided only on the request of an individual or organisation'. This is the very clause removed by the amendment Bill.

“An example in the law used to show what this could be used for is Police vetting, where a private outfit (like a children's play group) requests Police help in ensuring those they are hiring/associating with don't have Police records. That example, included in the legislation, is worlds apart from what the proposed changes would be.

“The third incorrect statement is that the proposed law change in the United Kingdom (which this law is referenced off) is not open to abuse or weaponisation. But in the UK, these laws have been used to require organisers to pay for pro-democracy events and antisemitism awareness marches.

“Why would that not happen here? The Amendment Bill is about making it possible for Police to compel the use of their services for security, and hand out the cost. We understand why some citizens, especially if they disagree with the substance of the speech, want others to have to pay for the security costs of public expression.

“But in a liberal democracy, this is one of the core functions of State, to guarantee the ability to exercise basic freedoms. Out of everything we pay taxes for, this is one of the most foundational.”

© Scoop Media