By The Editor
With news breaking that industrial action, including an illegal picket, has ‘encouraged’ a western suburban chicken processor (Baiada Farms) into negotiations with the relevant union (National Union of Workers), the unanswered question is why the police have been so reluctant to enforce the law.
An illegal picket had blocked entry to the site for two weeks, despite two Supreme Court orders declaring the pickets to be illegal. Baiada, a supplier to Coles and KFC, has had its business operations substantially affected by the illegal picket.
This dispute has generated a lot of heat and light, including hotly disputed allegations on both sides of violence and safety and environmental health breaches.
Police have quite extensive powers to intervene in disputes in Victoria where they have a reasonable suspicion the law is being broken, from drunken street brawls to neighbourhood and household disputes.
Andrew Bolt reported this morning on his blog that police were not proposing to breach entry to the factory through the picket line “at this time”.
Why are industrial disputes any different from other activities?
Liberty Victoria noted with concern the advent of greater police powers granted recently to deal with anti-social behaviour:
The police (also) have increased powers to move people on. These new ‘move-on’ powers are distressingly broad. For example, under the new laws the police have power to give directions to a person to ‘move on’ whenever an officer believes the person ‘is likely to breach the peace’ or ‘is likely to endanger the safety of other persons.
Do two Supreme Court orders carry any extra weight in this respect?
After winning praise for the `no-nonsense’ approach to Occupy Melbourne protestors, police did try to dismantle the picket on 11 November but were beaten back by a mixture of unionists and hard-left activists, including Occupy Melbourne protestors. They have not tried since.
If you’re pitching to the business community with this article, which I assume you are, I wouldn’t be quoting from Andrew Bolt to support your premise. Another example of Vecci not understanding its audience.
How would Bianca feel if they were a supplier to Baiada and had their trucks trapped inside the factory? Or a customer relying on stock?
The law is the law and a Supreme Court order should mean something
[...] Yesterday, Andrew Bolt asked why the Victorian police didn’t clear away all protesters earlier. The Victorian Employers Chamber of Commerce and Industry (VECCI) parroted Bolt’s line on their own blog. [...]
Sorry when did we become a police state???? Just because something is incovenient if it is non – voilent then why would we want police to get heavy handed and cause a situation to escalate uneccessarily???
you can call any activity ‘illegal’ if you want to but if they are causing no harm or damage then what is your problem?
would you rather they became a violent protest as they do in some countries?? and who gets to say when the point has been made – is it when you are sick of seeing it??
this is an entirely different situation such as when police came under attack from protesters then yes they need to be able to weigh in and clear them out.
how did you feel watching the chinese army attack the peaceful protest by students in china all those years ago – just because authorities there thought they should move on because they had made their point and ruled them “illegal” ??????
I agree whole heartedly with your concern regarding an illegal union picket line crushing an SME. It shows the inadequacy of our current industrial relations system and the difficult landscape we find ourselves in.
However, aligning the concept of bullying union tactics with peaceful demonstration in a democracy (however vague or ill considered the demands) and suggesting that the Liberty Victoria fears of increased police powers has anything to do with police prudence on this specific incident is a very long bow at best. if not irrational. The sole use of Mr Bolt’s blog for your research on the police action demeans the argument around a very serious and necessary debate.
It seems like the force is slipping back into its old Nixonian* ways…
*as in Christine, not Richard