NSW Premier Defends Anti-Protest Law After Court Rules It Unconstitutional

Lead

New South Wales Premier Chris Minns has doubled down on an anti-protest law struck down last week by the state’s highest court, describing the legislation his government introduced as “rational and proportionate.” The New South Wales Court of Appeal ruled on Thursday in favour of the Palestine Action Group and Blak Caucus, finding that the law, which gave police power to restrict marches, was unconstitutional. According to multiple reports, including from ABC Australia and The Guardian, the full bench held that the measure impermissibly burdened the implied constitutional right to freedom of political communication. The law was enacted after the Bondi beach terror attack in which 15 people were killed. Advocates for protesters charged under the restrictions have criticised Minns’ comments, with the Greens justice spokesperson calling them an extraordinary attack on the judiciary.

Coverage Comparison

Reporting across ABC Australia and several Guardian accounts converges on the core facts of the Court of Appeal decision and the origins of the law. ABC Australia emphasised the courtroom reaction among supporters and detailed how police used the powers during the period of restrictions, quoting protesters and their lawyers. Guardian coverage similarly centred the constitutional finding and the law’s application to the anti-Herzog rally in February, while also examining the premier’s subsequent defence and expert commentary on possible effects for other speech measures. One Guardian report focused more heavily on Minns’ Monday remarks and the Greens’ response; another highlighted constitutional expert Anne Twomey’s assessment of the judgment’s reach. All accounts attribute the ruling to the full bench, including Chief Justice Andrew Bell and Justices Julie Ward and Stephen Free, and note that the legislation followed the Bondi attack and an emergency parliamentary sitting. Differences appear mainly in emphasis: ABC Australia gave more space to on-the-ground protest perspectives and the sequence of police declarations, while Guardian pieces developed the government’s post-ruling stance and potential consequences for related bans. No source presented the ruling as anything other than a clear finding against the law’s constitutional validity.

Key Claims

• The NSW Court of Appeal struck down an anti-protest law introduced after the Bondi beach terror attack; the law had given police power to restrict marches, a finding reported across ABC Australia and The Guardian.
• The court found the law impermissibly burdened the implied constitutional right to freedom of political communication, holding that restricting all protests to protect social cohesion was not a constitutionally legitimate purpose, according to multiple sources citing the judgment.
• The decision may affect charges against protesters arrested during the anti-Herzog rally in February, a point carried by Guardian reporting and not yet independently confirmed in detail across all outlets.
• Premier Chris Minns has indicated he still plans to outlaw the phrase “globalise the intifada,” depending on the outcome of Queensland’s ban on the phrase, as confirmed by his office and reported by The Guardian.
• Constitutional expert Anne Twomey said the judgment may make it easier to challenge Queensland’s ban on certain phrases and advised caution on new slogan bans, according to The Guardian.
• NSW Police Commissioner Mal Lanyon is reviewing charges against anti-Herzog protesters in light of the ruling, per Guardian reporting.
• Greens justice spokesperson Sue Higginson criticised Minns’ comments as an “extraordinary attack” on the judiciary, a quote carried by The Guardian.

Perspectives

From the government’s side, Premier Chris Minns maintained that the changes pursued after the Bondi terrorist attack were rational and proportionate. In his first public comments after the ruling, reported by The Guardian, he said the government was studying the judgment. He rejected any suggestion that the law had spurred violence at protests, pointing to what he described as violent confrontations and hateful rhetoric in the two years leading up to the anti-Herzog demonstration at Sydney Town Hall. Minns directed criticism at the Greens for supporting protesters charged in connection with that rally, which remains the subject of a police watchdog investigation into allegations of misconduct. The premier framed the legislation as a response to genuine public-order concerns rather than an attempt to suppress political expression.

Protest groups and their supporters viewed the judgment as a significant affirmation of constitutional protections. ABC Australia reported hushed cheers and celebrations inside Banco Court among those watching the decision. The plaintiffs—Elizabeth Jarrett of the Blak Caucus, Joshua Lees of the Palestine Action Group, and Michelle Berkon of Jews Against the Occupation ’48—had argued that the provisions created a chilling effect on authorised public assemblies. Lawyers and advocates for those charged under the restrictions condemned Minns’ defence of the law. Sue Higginson, the Greens justice spokesperson, characterised the premier’s remarks as an extraordinary attack on the judiciary, according to The Guardian. Legal observers noted that this was the second time in six months an anti-protest law passed by the Minns government had been found unconstitutional.

Constitutional and civil-liberties perspectives, drawn particularly from Guardian reporting, stressed the judgment’s broader implications. Anne Twomey of the University of Sydney cautioned that, having read the decision, she would be very reluctant to proceed with legislation banning certain slogans. She observed that the ruling could facilitate challenges to Queensland’s existing ban on phrases including “globalise the intifada.” The Court of Appeal itself stated that suppressing public debate of certain kinds may be a means to a legitimate end but cannot be a legitimate end in itself, and that protecting the community from political expression merely because it might be upsetting, inflammatory or divisive is not a constitutionally legitimate purpose. A NSW parliamentary inquiry had earlier recommended banning “globalise the intifada” only when used to incite hatred, harassment, intimidation or violence, stopping short of an unqualified ban.

Operational details of the law’s use form another strand of the record. According to ABC Australia and The Guardian, the public assembly restriction declaration, or Pard, prevented protesters from relying on the form 1 authorisation system in police-designated areas for up to three months after a terrorist attack. Within hours of the provisions entering force on Christmas Eve, the police commissioner issued a declaration covering Greater Sydney. The restriction was extended multiple times, later narrowed to the eastern suburbs and CBD with a carve-out for Hyde Park, and remained in place during Israeli President Isaac Herzog’s February visit. Police Commissioner Mal Lanyon ended the restriction after Herzog left the country and is now reviewing related charges. The same powers were used to prevent a planned march against Indigenous deaths in custody organised by Blak Caucus member Paul Silva.

The episode sits against a backdrop of heightened tension over protest rights, counter-terror measures and political speech in Australia. While the court has invalidated the specific restriction mechanism, the Minns government has signalled continued interest in regulating particular phrases, contingent on developments in Queensland. Police continue to assess individual charges arising from the restricted period. Further legal and legislative responses remain under consideration as the government studies the full judgment.