A new Queensland bill proposes establishing Designated Business and Community Precincts where police can move people on for “causing anxiety” without any crime having been committed. The policy is pitched as a tool to protect shoppers and workers, but it raises deep questions about civil liberties, policing discretion, and who gets targeted when the threshold for intervention is alarmingly low.
What’s at stake here is not just a legal tweak, but a shift in how public spaces are governed. Personally, I think the idea that police can banish someone from a place for simply making others uncomfortable—without a crime—speaks to a broader instinct: the impulse to sanitize public life of vulnerability. But what’s uncomfortable for me is how quickly such power can drift toward disproportionate impact on already marginalized groups. What makes this particularly fascinating is the tension between immediate public safety gains and longer-term social costs. In my opinion, public order policies work best when they reduce harm without marginalizing the vulnerable.
A closer look at the core idea reveals three interconnected threads. First, the law would carve out zones where move-on powers bypass usual senior-approval checks, enabling rapid responses to “anti-social” behavior. Second, the definitional ambiguity of “causing anxiety” opens space for subjective judgments. Third, the policy’s social optics—framed as crime prevention—could inadvertently prioritize enforcement over addressing root causes like housing insecurity and homelessness.
One thing that immediately stands out is the threshold: “causing anxiety” as a basis for intervention. What many people don’t realize is how easily subjective discomfort translates into official action, particularly in crowded, mixed-use spaces like shopping centres or transit hubs. That subjectivity invites bias, whether intentional or unconscious, and heightens risk that certain populations—youth, Aboriginal people, the homeless—face disproportionate enforcement. From my perspective, laws that depend on fickle perceptions of decency risk turning public spaces into controlled environments for the least controversial, not the most inclusive.
The policy’s proponents argue speed and disruption are essential. Queensland Police Service officials say the aim is to quickly de-escalate and relocate disruptive behavior. If you take a step back and think about it, the underlying assumption is that removing a disruption from a space prevents escalation. But does relocation actually reduce harm or merely relocate it? This raises a deeper question: are we solving the problem of anti-social behavior, or just moving it around? What this really suggests is that “cleaner” public spaces may come at the cost of aspirational inclusivity and the right to occupy public life without fear of arbitrary exclusion.
Opponents, including housing and youth advocates, warn of dangerous precursors to targeted policing. The proof, in part, lies in housing crises and visible disadvantage. A detail I find especially interesting is how the law defines “anti-social behavior” in a way that could justify sweeping moves against people who are already in precarious circumstances. If enforcement becomes the default response to vulnerability, we might see a chilling effect: people avoid certain areas altogether, not because they’re unsafe, but because they fear being removed for existing conditions outside their control.
The broader trend here is part of a global rethink about policing frontiers. Jurisdictions increasingly test tough-on-crime playbooks in spaces like malls, campuses, and transit corridors, arguing that proactive deterrence prevents incidents before they happen. What this means, in practice, is a shift from reactively addressing crime to proactively shaping who has the right to linger in public life. A common misunderstanding is that “preemptive” measures are neutral or universally beneficial; in reality, they carry embedded judgments about who belongs and who doesn’t.
Looking ahead, the key questions are practical and moral. Will move-on powers be exercised transparently, with robust checks and clear, objective criteria? Will there be independent oversight if orders are abused or disproportionately applied? And crucially, will there be parallel investments in social supports—housing, mental health, youth services—that address underlying causes instead of merely relocating “trouble” away from commercial spaces?
In conclusion, this proposed framework embodies a core dilemma of modern policing: the balance between safeguarding public spaces and safeguarding civil liberties. My take is that public safety is amplified when it is paired with concrete commitments to equity and support for the most vulnerable. If policymakers insist on move-on powers, they must couple them with strong guardrails, precise definitions, and a real plan to address the conditions that spawn anti-social behavior in the first place. Otherwise, we risk trading inclusion for the illusion of control, and public spaces become less about shared life and more about policing boundaries. Ultimately, the question we should ask is not just whether these zones prevent incidents, but whether they cultivate a society where everyone can move freely without fear of sudden exclusion.
