However, no marks go to DI Chad Gillies. What he has forgotten to tell the retail manager Natalie Young is that the ban notice is a legal instrument described in the Enclosed Lands Act of 1901.

This Act was assented to in a time when society behaved differently to that of today and there were no highly developed and pervasive communication media. The ban notice is meant to forbid persons served with it not to enter the nominated premise ‘without lawful excuse’. It works in a similar manner as an apprehended violence order, but unlike an AVO, it does not need a court’s approval to be applied. With an AVO, both parties are meant to kept their distance and not communicate with each other by any means. With the ban notice, the property owner expects the named person in the notice not to enter on their enclosed land. 

They have failed to factor in four major considerations that may cause issues. The first is the majority of persons who frequent the food court are usually of the lower socio-economic group that contains many persons who present behaviours that Charter Hall and the police hope to remove. Many of these behaviours may be associated with a mental illness, poor education and poverty. I can see retailer tenants in Goulburn Square complaining about loss of turnover and therefore reduced profits.

The second is advertising. Retailers need to use advertising to attract customers or clients, essentially an invitation to attend their business. Advertising is used in an indiscriminate manner, sent out over various communication media many of which are in the possession of persons served with ban notices. As advertising is a form of invitation, a banned person now has a lawful excuse to be at Goulburn Square and there is no legal means that the police and Charter Hall can do about it, unless they can prevent such advertising from reaching banned persons. I cannot see major brands represented in Goulburn Square agreeing to this.

Thirdly, the perceived problem and their money would go elsewhere and may discover inviting establishments so may never return when the time is up. For myself, there are better retailers in wider Auburn Street and Goulburn in general selling similar products at more competitive pricing in a friendlier and more environmentally pleasing shopping atmosphere.

Lastly is the police; an understaffed resource trying to perform a wide variety of tasks and dealing with many community issues. I doubt that they are going to redirect officers from traffic and serious crime to deal with summary offence issues that retailers in Goulburn Square can easily address themselves. The ban notice would only end up being an instrument of abuse as police would not have the time to work out the demeanour of a person exhibiting bad behaviour and thus add to the problems that many of our less fortunate people suffer in Goulburn.

While some media may have compared the Turnbull tirade with the eloquence of Keating, most (including Fairfax) recognise it as a failed attempt by Turnbull to play the politics of envy card, in a panicked attempt to show his own side that he has found his mojo. 

With little thought for the consequences that he has alienated 'billionaires' and philanthropists across the country who support many causes – and remembering that Turnbull revealed last week that he had to make a $1.5 million donation to rescue the Liberal Party from oblivion – the irony is that Australia's richest woman, Gina Rinehart, has abandoned the Liberals to bankroll the new Bernardi party. 

We can all watch to see how long the new 'real Malcolm' can keep up this mini-me Trump facade, and how many of his sidekicks try to do the same. There will be a prize for correctly guessing who will abandon the Turnbull ship and join Bernardi's lifeboat.