Author: MIL OSI Publisher

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Simon Bronitt, Professor of Law, University of Sydney

The police role as a “thin blue line” between public order and chaos was tested in Sydney’s CBD on Monday night.

Videos have captured the violent clashes between police and some of the thousands of protesters who gathered at the Town Hall to protest the presence of Israeli President Isaac Herzog in Australia.

One video shows a police officer repeatedly punching a man lying prone on the street, his hands pinned behind him.

New South Wales Premier Chris Minns has defended the actions of the police in Sydney, saying they faced an “impossible situation”.

No doubt, there will be investigations into the legality and reasonableness of the police response. But what’s also needed to prevent a repeat of Monday’s violence is a rethink of police training and protocols in NSW that are explicitly based on a respect for human rights, or what policing scholars call “human rights policing”.

‘Major event’ declaration

The NSW government declared Herzog’s visit to be a “major event” under state law. This gave police sweeping powers to issue move-on orders, close specific locations and search people in a designated area of the city. Essentially, it created a protest exclusion zone.

These laws, which exist in many jurisdictions, are typically used to ensure public order during major political and sporting events, such as Queensland’s prototype Major Events Act enacted before the 2014 G20 summit in Brisbane and the 2018 Commonwealth Games on the Gold Coast.

While these acts restrict otherwise lawful peaceful protests, they are limited in both time and place.

In Sydney, the NSW Supreme Court rejected a challenge to the government declaration just minutes before Monday’s protest was due to take place.

This suggested that, in the eyes of the state government and the court, public order and safety outweighed the rights of protesters, in this instance, to march through the CBD as they wished.

But the expanded legal powers of the police in these situations do not render declared public spaces “human rights-free zones”.

And public order was clearly not maintained in Sydney since the situation at Town Hall quickly devolved into violence.

So what went wrong? And how does policing need to change?

How policing in these situations can work

Policing is especially challenging in cases where two or more opposing groups seek to exercise the same rights to protest in the same public space, or the location or size of a protest raises concerns about public safety or potentially interferes with other lawful rights.

The G20 summit and Commonwealth Games in Queensland, both of which took place without significant incidents of disorder, show how this can be successfully done. These events provide a model for human rights policing – what worked well, and why.

My international review of policing the G20 summit and other major events a decade ago, conducted with two leading policing scholars, David Baker and Philip Stenning, was based on extensive empirical research. It identified several important lessons:

1) Police play a key role in upholding human rights. Balancing competing interests requires respectful dialogue between police and protest organisers and other affected community stakeholders before an event takes place

2) Framing police powers expressly within a statutory human rights framework is desirable. However, Queensland police’s own policies, practices and training were key to upholding human rights. As the public safety policy manual stated:

When possible, police will attempt to negotiate with all groups wanting to march or to use a particular space. In managing the use of public space, police will be impartial, and will use their discretion to facilitate the lawful activities of all parties

3) Policing protests also benefits from the presence of independent legal observers. They can assist in clarifying the rights and responsibilities of protesters, and help de-escalate tense situations.

Senior police officials said there had been discussions with the Palestine Action Group before Monday’s protest, in which they encouraged protesters to move to Hyde Park outside the exclusion zone.

However, there is always a risk that dialogue between police and protest organisers ahead of a demonstration does not work as planned. There can be miscommunication, mistrust and unexpected departures from agreed plans and protocol.

Large protests also attract diverse groups of people that organisers have no control over, including those who willingly engage in violent confrontations with police or opposing groups.

That said, allowing time for proper dialogue with protest organisers and community representatives can help anticipate potential flashpoints and identify the points when police will have to intervene. This dialogue can generate better understanding of:

• when police give protesters a reasonable direction to disperse from an area

• what constitutes a “reasonable time” to leave that area

• what legal steps (arrest and removal) might be taken by police against those who refuse to comply

• the range of “reasonable force” police will use to disperse crowds or arrest those who don’t comply.

Reasonable force generally depends on the situation. Above all, physical force and deployment of pepper spray must be consistent with police training and policies, and as with any coercive powers, should be used as a matter of last resort.

What needs to be done?

Proportionate and accountable policing needs to be founded in a respect for human rights to the maximum extent possible.

But it’s also important to note that human rights are rarely absolute. As a result, a person’s freedom to protest may legitimately be restricted in the interest of public safety and to safeguard the rights of others (such as using or moving freely in public spaces).

So, is human rights policing, then, practical or realistic?

NSW policymakers should examine how policing practice has changed in jurisdictions that have enacted human rights legislation (notably the United Kingdom, ACT, Victoria and Queensland).

These laws delineate when and how people’s rights to engage in peaceful public protest should be protected, and when and how far they can be restricted on public safety grounds.

The NSW government should also prioritise a reconsideration of the Human Rights Bill introduced to parliament late last year.

And learning lessons from the policing of major events in Queensland a decade ago would help move towards a more robust model of human rights policing and prevent a repeat of Monday’s violent disorder.

Professor Simon Bronitt was a member of the independent review team that reported on the operation and effectiveness of Ch19A of the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 (Qld) used during the 2018 Commonwealth Games. The report, tabled in the Queensland Parliament, was commissioned by the Queensland Police Service in 2018, funded by a contract with the University of Queensland. The author did not receive any salary or financial benefits from his membership of the review team.

– ref. Was the violent Sydney protest avoidable, and what can police and demonstrators learn? – https://theconversation.com/was-the-violent-sydney-protest-avoidable-and-what-can-police-and-demonstrators-learn-275542

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/02/10/was-the-violent-sydney-protest-avoidable-and-what-can-police-and-demonstrators-learn-275542/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra

The federal Opposition is in dire straits. Sunday’s disastrous Newspoll had the Liberals on 15% primary vote, with the Nationals at 3% – well below One Nation on 27%.

Despite the Coalition reuniting over the weekend, it’s yet to provide any answers about how it will win back key groups of voters, from Gen Z and Millennials, to urban voters in general.

Sussan Ley’s leadership appears terminal, with Angus Taylor readying for an imminent challenge.

But as Tony Barry explains on today’s podcast, a new leader alone won’t solve the Liberals’ problems, which run much deeper and mostly predate Ley’s leadership.

Barry is a former senior Liberal staffer and now director of the consultancy firm Redbridge, which does extensive polling and other political research.

On what focus groups are saying about the Liberal Party, Barry says “they just kind of laugh”.

There is substantive brand damage and they don’t take the party seriously. And the reason for that, of course, is because at the moment the Coalition is full of very unserious people.

On Taylor’s expected leadership challenge, Barry says just a change in personality at the top won’t be enough to lift the party’s “almost rock bottom” position.

The problem for the Liberal Party and the Coalition generally […] is they need to get their primary vote into the 40s. Now, in real terms, you’re talking about 3.4–3.5 million voters, give or take a couple of 100,000, extra […] Now, that is a phenomenal amount out of an electoral roll of around 18 million. So will one personality be able to win those three and a half million votes? Unlikely.

[…] If there is a change of leadership, it’s only going to be a success in the medium term if they can shape an economic narrative, perhaps put out some economic reform. And give people some hope that the Coalition does have an economic plan.

On what the Coalition should do to improve its situation, Barry says taking risks and a bold economic agenda are the only options.

I saw an interview with [former prime minister] John Howard […] where he encouraged some bold policy development. And one suggestion he had was to increase the GST rate, but offset that revenue gain with significant income tax cuts.

Because if the Coalition is to appeal to that Gen Z and millennial cohort – which they need to […] they’re polling catastrophically in that group – then having a policy prescription which lets them keep more of their income […] I think is an opportunity for the Coalition to increase their primary vote.

Barry says fewer than one in five (19%) of Australians now nominate the Coalition as the best party to manage the economy – traditionally one of the Coalition’s strong suits.

You go back to the Howard and Costello government and they had a very strong equity lead on that question. And the foundation of all their success was actually on economic management. Because […] in most years, there were income tax cuts. There was significant wage growth. And these were the things that Howard and Costello leveraged to keep on getting re-elected.

On the rising One Nation vote, Barry says there’s been a “hostile takeover” from One Nation poaching Coalition votes, based on a deep frustration with the status quo. He says many voters “want to empower One Nation to shake things up”.

We asked voters “Which of the following statements best represents your view about the political system? Minor change, major change, it doesn’t need any change, or “burn it all down?” 15% of voters said “burn it down”.

45% of voters said a more moderate […] “the system requires major change”. So that gives you a mindset of where a lot of the voters are at […]

Amongst One Nation voters, which we had at 27% [of the total], 83% of those who said they were intending to vote for One Nation said “burn it all down”.

[…] That sort of frustration is manifesting itself in Pauline Hanson and Barnaby Joyce, who [voters] see as vehicles to really shake it all up, instead of this sort of almost sort of paper shuffling […] policy offerings that they’re getting from the major parties at the moment.

So as a veteran observer of federal politics, does Barry believe the next Liberal prime minister is in the Parliament today?

I think it’s quite possible. But it’s going to require an internal mindset change, not just from the Liberal Party but the Coalition as a whole, where they do make the internal trade-offs that are necessary to make themselves competitive again.

At the moment, we’re just seeing too many individuals who are […] trying to find points for internal difference, rather than [finding] that common ground […] I think it’s less about the personality and more about the focus of the party as a whole.

Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Politics with Michelle Grattan: Tony Barry on why a new Liberal leader isn’t a quick fix – https://theconversation.com/politics-with-michelle-grattan-tony-barry-on-why-a-new-liberal-leader-isnt-a-quick-fix-275547

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/02/10/politics-with-michelle-grattan-tony-barry-on-why-a-new-liberal-leader-isnt-a-quick-fix-275547/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Consuelo Martinez Reyes, Senior Lecturer in Spanish and Latin American Studies, Macquarie University

Puerto Rican singer Bad Bunny (Benito Antonio Martínez Ocasio) made history this weekend as the first Superbowl halftime headliner to sing only in Spanish – that too at a moment when the United States is facing a hostile anti-immigration climate.

The show’s message of love and togetherness has reverberated across countries and cultures. It is also chock-full of symbolism and messaging that represents an alternative America to the one taking shape under Donald Trump.

A fiesta celebrating Puerto Rican culture

The performance took place in a noticeably Puerto Rican setting. Fresh coconuts and piragua (snow cone) carts led the way to domino players and boxers (Puerto Rico is the world’s largest contributor of boxing champions per capita).

Bad Bunny opened with the viral hit Tití me preguntó (Tití asked me). He walks through a crew wearing costumes typical of Puerto Rican peasants, with traditional straw pava hats and humble string ropes for belts.

This sugarcane field set is a nod to an important aspect of Caribbean history, wherein sugarcane plantations represent a shared history of slavery. At the same time, sugarcanes signify an immediate link to land, hard work, national identity, and Puerto Rico’s agricultural roots.

The nation’s sugarcane industry was aggressively changed under Operation Bootstrap, a series of economic projects pushed by the US federal government from around 1947. This encouraged the establishment of factories, and private and foreign investment, to the detriment of the island’s economy and infrastructure. It provoked mass unemployment and migration to the US and, by the 1950s, had forever changed Puerto Ricans’ way of life.

While some audiences criticised the choice to sing the songs Tití me preguntó and Yo perreo sola (I twerk alone), due to their sexual lyrics, others lauded their inclusion as a form of LGBTQIA+ inclusivity. These were followed by the party-pleasers Safaera, Eoo, Party and Voy a llevarte pa PR.

Lady Gaga made a surprise appearance, singing a salsa-style version of her hit song Die with a Smile, atop a stage replica of the famous El Morro fortress in San Juan.

Gaga wore a light blue dress of the same shade that once featured in Puerto Rico’s original flag. This flag, however, was banned in 1948 under an American gag law (which ended in 1957) that tried to stifle the island’s independence movement.

During Gaga’s song, the scene of a live wedding (yes, the couple actually got married) cements Benito’s message of togetherness.

A show loaded with symbolism

Apart from matching the wedding theme, the prominence of white clothing in the show reflects a reality of Caribbean daily life, wherein white was often worn to combat the harsh heat.

It also recalls various attire customarily worn in local music genres such as bomba and plena, as well as in Afro-Cuban religious traditions such as santería.

Benito’s own white shirt is emblazoned with the name “Ocasio” and the number 64. This is an homage to his late-uncle, who was born in 1964. The tribute offers a tender lesson on Spanish naming customs, as well as the cultural importance of family.

At one point, we see Benito hand his recently-won Grammy trophy (his album Debí Tirar Más Fotos was the first-ever Spanish-language album to win Album of The Year) to kid actor Lincoln Fox. Viewers were quick to point out Fox’s resemblance to Liam Conejos, the five-year-old boy whose detention by ICE agents last month caused national outrage.

Ricky Martin sang the heavily political track Lo que le pasó a Hawaii (What happened to Hawaii). This song pleads for Puerto Rico to not share a similar fate to Hawaii – the last state to join the union, at the cost of significant cultural loss, land, language and tradition.

Martin is framed by sparks coming from electrical poles in the background. They symbolise Puerto Rico’s poor electrical infrastructure, which was worsened in the aftermath of hurricanes María and Irma in 2017, and the electrical grid’s privatisation in 2021.

The show closes on a lighter note, with songs that highlight Puerto Ricanness. The track Café con Ron (Coffee with rum) takes the audience back to island customs, and the opening cañaveral (sugarcane fields).

Meanwhile, DtMF/Debí tirar más fotos (I should have taken more photos) evokes nostalgia for the past, and serves as a reminder of intercontinental unity.

Behind the crowd of pleneros (Puerto Rican drum players), a background screen reads: “The only thing more powerful than hate is love” – a direct challenge to the the anti-immigration policies currently permeating the US.

Benito track list also pays tribute to iconic reggaeton predecessors, with the inclusion of tracks by Tego Calderón, and Daddy Yankee’s 2004 hit Gasolina, among others.

Freedom in the face of oppression

President Donald Trump described the event as “one of the worst, EVER!” and a “slap in the face” to the US. I never thought I would agree with Trump, but a slap in the face it was – one that reminded us all of the fabric of what constitutes American culture.

Bad Bunny’s performance not only provided visibility to the significant Latinx/Latine population that holds the US together. It also served as evidence that accommodating to Anglo culture is no longer a requirement to fit in – especially not for the younger generations.

As Bad Bunny pronounced the famous line “God Bless America” – going on to list multiple countries and territories, including Puerto Rico – he imparts a lesson all Spanish-speakers have been given at least once in our lives. For us, “America” is not limited to the land that lies between Canada and Mexico, but rather extends across continents.

Benito’s geography lesson closes with Seguimos aquí (We are still here) which, due to the Spanish language’s use of the present tense as future, can also be translated into “we will continue to be here”. A powerful message indeed.

Consuelo Martinez Reyes does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Unpacking Bad Bunny’s Superbowl show – an alternative joyful vision for America – https://theconversation.com/unpacking-bad-bunnys-superbowl-show-an-alternative-joyful-vision-for-america-275545

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/02/10/unpacking-bad-bunnys-superbowl-show-an-alternative-joyful-vision-for-america-275545/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Margarita Vladimirova, Sessional Academic, Faculty of Law, Monash University

A seemingly minor decision handed down last week by the Administrative Review Tribunal may open the door to widespread use of facial recognition technology in shops and other privately owned spaces in Australia.

The decision held that Bunnings was entitled to an exception to some rules around the use of facial recognition technology. In particular, it said the hardware giant did not need to seek the consent of customers before using the technology on them.

The tribunal’s decision may yet be appealed to the Federal Court – but if it stands, it raises worrying questions about the future of privacy, biometric data, surveillance and consent in Australia.

What the Bunnings case is about

Between January 2019 and November 2021, Bunnings conducted a trial of facial recognition technology across at least 62 stores in Victoria and New South Wales, following an initial two-month pilot in November 2018.

The technology was integrated into in-store security cameras and captured the facial images of all individuals entering the premises. These images were then analysed to generate a searchable database of facial identifiers.

In November 2024 the Privacy Commissioner ruled that Bunnings breached the privacy of “likely hundreds of thousands” of Australians through its use of facial recognition technology.

There were five key points in the finding:

1. customers did not consent to the collection of their facial information

2. customers did not know their biometrics were being collected, due to signage that was unclear and sometimes missing

3. Bunnings lacked relevant staff training on using facial recognition technology

4. Bunnings lacked clear policy describing how they managed collected personal information, and

5. the use of the technology was more than the “minimum, reasonably required to mitigate” organised retail crime and threatening situations.

Overall, the use of facial recognition technology on thousands of people to prevent retail crime was declared to be unproportionate. However, the commissioner acknowledged the technology’s potential to reduce violence and theft.

The tribunal decision on exception

In its review of the Privacy Commisioner’s determination, the Administrative Review Tribunal supported all the Privacy Commissioner’s findings but one: the one related to consent.

The tribunal set aside the Privacy Commissioner’s finding that Bunnings violated one of the privacy principles by collecting facial information from customers without consent, arguing that Bunnings’ actions fall under an exception to the requirement for consent.

What is the exception?

Australia’s privacy act protects personal sensitive information, including facial information. It states that such information can be collected only with consent of an individual.

However, there is a list of exceptions provided in section 16 (A).

The exception the tribunal considers applies to Bunnings is:

the entity reasonably believes that the collection, use or disclosure is necessary to lessen or prevent a serious threat to the life, health or safety of any individual, or to public health or safety.

The tribunal collected personal testimonies from Bunnings workers. It found the workers reasonably believed the technology is necessary to combat retail crime and protect staff and customers from violence, abuse and intimidation within their stores. These sometimes involved weapons, acts of physical violence or aggression, death threats or other threats of violence.

The future of biometrics and consent

This decision has consequences well beyond Bunnings. It may be crucial to the control of individuals’ biometric information in Australia.

If the decision is not appealed to the Federal Court, we may see a future in which retailers and other organisations can use biometric technologies on members of the public without consent. All they will need to justify their actions is a risk-management narrative based on personal statements.

This shift would make consent an optional constraint. It could be displaced whenever biometric surveillance is framed as efficient, preventative or protective.

The Bunnings case risks eroding the basic structure of privacy law.

Biometric data is unique, permanent and non-revocable. Yet the decision treats biometric data collection as dependent on the needs and beliefs of the entity collecting it. The choice of the individuals affected does not come into it.

Privacy law and surveillance

The circumstances of the Bunnings case seem different from what was envisioned in 1988 when the privacy laws were drafted. For example, the OAIC Guidelines of the Privacy Act 1988 focused on more severe cases:

a potentially harmful threat […] such as a threatened outbreak of infectious disease. This allows […] preventative action to stop a serious threat from escalating before it materialises.

[…] if time permits, attempts could be made to seek the consent from the relevant individuals for the collection, use or disclosure, before relying on this permitted general situation.

These guidelines considered consent to be a cornerstone of biometric collection, and not easily waived.

However, if facial recognition becomes normalised, privacy protection becomes more difficult. Data management protocols may need to be tightened, and laws may need to be changed.

The ruling lowers the threshold for more surveillance. If non-consensual biometric processing is accepted in retail, the same logic can apply to workplaces, schools and other public but privately owned spaces. Each expansion can be justified using the same language of safety, deterrence or necessity.

Most importantly, the decision reshapes the meaning of consent itself. Consent risks becoming symbolic rather than operative. It may be formally recognised in law, but practically irrelevant.

Margarita Vladimirova used to work for the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner.

– ref. Bunnings decision may open door to facial recognition surveillance free-for-all – https://theconversation.com/bunnings-decision-may-open-door-to-facial-recognition-surveillance-free-for-all-275392

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/02/10/bunnings-decision-may-open-door-to-facial-recognition-surveillance-free-for-all-275392/