NSW Premier Stands Firm on Anti-Protest Legislation After Court Overturns It
New South Wales Premier Chris Minns has defiantly defended his government's anti-protest laws, which were recently struck down by the state's highest court as unconstitutional. In his first public comments since the ruling, Minns described the legislation as "rational and proportionate," despite the court's finding that it violated constitutional principles.
Court of Appeal Delivers Landmark Ruling Against Protest Restrictions
The New South Wales Court of Appeal ruled last Thursday in favour of the Palestine Action Group and Blak Caucus, declaring that laws giving police power to restrict marches were unconstitutional. These laws were introduced following the Bondi beach terror attack last year, which resulted in 15 fatalities. The full bench of the court determined that restricting all protests to protect social cohesion did not serve a "constitutionally legitimate purpose." Legal experts suggest this judgment could have significant implications, potentially limiting future government attempts to control speech and protests based on social cohesion grounds.
Greens and Legal Advocates Criticise Premier's Stance
Greens justice spokesperson Sue Higginson condemned Minns' remarks as an "extraordinary attack on our independent judiciary," urging him to acknowledge that the government "got it wrong." Majed Kheir, representing several of the 26 protesters charged under the now-defunct laws, emphasised that the court "vehemently disagreed" with Minns' claims of rationality and proportionality. Kheir highlighted the importance of judicial independence, stating that the court's qualified judges found the laws unreasonable and unconstitutional.
Police Review Charges Amid Legal Uncertainty
NSW Police Commissioner Mal Lanyon announced that officers are reviewing charges against anti-Herzog protesters, with calls to drop them following the court's decision. Previously, police indicated plans to charge 30 more individuals. The invalidated law, known as the Public Assembly Restriction Declaration (PARD), prevented protesters from using the Form 1 system in designated areas for up to three months after a terrorist attack, effectively banning marches without arrest risk. Minns argued that charges might still stand under a major events declaration, but Kheir noted that police facts sheets consistently reference PARD, not the major events declaration.
Background and Broader Implications
The anti-protest laws were enacted after the Bondi beach terror attack, with Minns citing "violent confrontations" and "hateful rhetoric" in Sydney over the preceding two years as justification. However, the court's ruling challenges this basis, potentially setting a precedent against using social cohesion as a rationale for limiting protests. As the government studies the judgment, the case underscores ongoing tensions between state authority and civil liberties in New South Wales.
