The message below was written by Paul McCutcheon, and posted on aus.politics last year.
With the violent protests that are being directed at Pauline Hanson, the One Nation Party and those who support it and her, I came to wonder just how legal the actions of those protesters were. Obviously, they have a right to protest. That much is a "given". But to what steps can they take such a protest?
Obviously assault for any reason except that which is required for immediate self defence is illegal as it stands but just what right do these protesters have to form in the first place?
Last night I went on a major search spree through some legal databases and discovered, amongst other things, some pretty useful information. I've included two excerpts from some of those files here so that you, the public-at-large, can make your own determinations.
Now, IANAL but these extracts appear to be pretty self-explanatory and written in a very black and white manner (no pun intended) down to such a level that even a layman such as myself can understand. ======== begin excerpt 1 ==========
28. Any person who, by violence or by threats or intimidation of any kind, hinders or interferes with the free exercise or performance, by any other person, of any political right or duty, shall be guilty of an offence.
Penalty: Imprisonment for three years.
========= end excerpt 1 ===========
This one pretty much speaks for itself and shows rather obviously that many of those people who've recently protested against Pauline Hanson and the One Nation Party have broken the law whilst doing so.
An angry mob, by its very nature, intimidates; and certain parties of that mob committed violent acts against Pauline Hanson and her supporters in the throwing of "foreign objects" such as fruit, eggs and the like. Those people are criminals, pure and simple. It doesn't take a QC to figure that one out.
In this regard I believe we've seen sufficient reason for the Federal Police to step in and make arrests as necessary to ensure that the One Nation Party's rights are protected.
======== begin excerpt 2 ==========
76. (1) A person must not intentionally and knowingly obstruct, resist, hinder, use violence against, threaten or intimidate:
(a) a Commonwealth officer who is carrying out, or attempting to carry out, a function or duty of such an officer; or
(b) a person who is exercising a power, or carrying out a function or
duty:
(i) under a law of the Commonwealth; or
(ii) on behalf of the Commonwealth or a public authority under the
Commonwealth;
or who is attempting to exercise such a power or carry out such a function or duty.
Penalty: Imprisonment for 2 years.
(2) This section does not limit the power of a court to punish a contempt of the court.
(3) Subsection (1) is not intended to exclude or limit the concurrent operation of any law of the Australian Capital Territory in a case where the officer referred to in paragraph (1) (a), or the person referred to in paragraph (1) (b), is a member of the Australian Federal Police.
========= end excerpt 2 ===========
The second one applies specifically to people such as Pauline Hanson, Paul Filing, their combined members of staff, the Western Australian Police Force personell, and the Australian Federal Police personell who attend these venues.
It's not as all encompassing as the first of the two excerpts but it makes it obvious that the protesters have absolutely no right to block these rallys from going ahead. When the protesters took over the venues of these rallys they denied those public officers there, such as Pauline Hanson, her duty to the people to inform them.
Secondly, as the police have a responsibility and a duty to protect her and those who support her and the One Nation Party from harm from these violent mobs, anyone who hinders or interferes with the police carrying out that duty have also committed an offence as excerpted above in s76. (1)(b)(ii).