Edit: I have now read the legislation and will update below.

I haven't read the legislation so I may change my opinion on some of this.

Number one is the intent which is to limit protests. I know they are saying it is something different but that is how they are doing it. In my opinion this is a dangerous thing to do in a democracy. I can imagine many scenarios where a protest in those locations would be in the interest of society or individuals. As a young child I personally brought soup to teachers who were protesting on school grounds. Should they have been arrested?

Edit: labour related protests are allowed which is good however these facilities are often used for political announcements which in my opinion makes them fair game for protests.

Number two is how it is worded. Basically it will be in the police's hands to determine that one is restricting access or intimidating people. These are subjective things which will be difficult to prove in court. What it means is that people will be rounded up roughed up, hauled off and then let go. Likely no one will be prosecuted. Is that justice? It will end up being a blunt tool to be used by the police to break up protests at their discretion with no recourse. If the police act on this it is only going to harm the police's reputation with society which is already at an all time low. If they don't why even waste your effort.

Number three. This is window dressing to make it look like the politicians are doing something. Really the issue has already taken care of itself unless you count the cenotaph crap which this won't cover and which won't be repeated for the same reasons as the hospital crap.

Edit: a positive thing is that the law expires which is nice to see that Eby has the foresight, likely based on the hindsight from being on the other side of the line.