New South Wales Premier Chris Minns defends an anti-protest law deemed unconstitutional by the state's highest court, labeling it as 'rational and proportionate.' The court ruled that restricting protests for social cohesion is not a legitimate constitutional purpose.
Key points
New South Wales Premier Chris Minns defends anti-protest law
Court ruled the law unconstitutional
Law aimed to restrict protests for social cohesion
Introduced after Bondi beach terror attack
Judgment may limit future government control over protests
Mentioned in this story
Chris MinnsPalestine Action GroupBlak CaucusNew South Wales
The New South Wales premier has doubled down on an anti-protest law struck down in the state’s highest court last week, defending the legislation introduced by his government as “rational and proportionate”.
But advocates for protesters charged at demonstrations restricted under the laws have criticised Chris Minns’ comments, calling them a “extraordinary attack” on the judiciary.
On Thursday, the New South Wales court of appeal ruled in favour of the Palestine Action Group and Blak Caucus, finding an anti-protest law that gave police the power to restrict marches was unconstitutional. The law was introduced after the Bondi beach terror attack last year, in which 15 people were killed.
On Monday, in his first public statement about the court striking down the law, Minns said the government was “studying the judgment”.
Asked about the finding that social cohesion did not justify the law, Minns took aim at the Greens for supporting protesters charged after February’s anti-Herzog protest at Sydney’s town hall, when the law was in force. The rally is now subject of a police watchdog investigation into allegations of police misconduct and brutality.
Minns claimed there had been “violent confrontations” and “violent rhetoric and hateful, hateful phrases via loudspeakers on Sydney streets” in the two years leading up to the anti-Herzog protest.
“The idea that the police and the government’s rational and proportionate changes to the law that we pursued after that Bondi terrorist attack somehow spurred these people into a violent confrontation is utter garbage,” he said.
The premier did not respond to a follow-up question by Guardian Australia about whether he rejected the court’s findings. His office referred Guardian Australian to his comments made during the press conference.
Q&A
What did the New South Wales court rule about the anti-protest law?
The New South Wales court of appeal ruled that the anti-protest law was unconstitutional, stating that restricting protests to protect social cohesion is not a legitimate constitutional purpose.
Why did Chris Minns defend the anti-protest law after the court ruling?
Chris Minns defended the anti-protest law as 'rational and proportionate,' despite the court's ruling against it.
What are the implications of the court's decision on future protest laws in New South Wales?
Legal experts suggest that the court's landmark judgment could limit future government attempts to control speech and protests under the guise of social cohesion.
What event prompted the introduction of the controversial anti-protest law in New South Wales?
The anti-protest law was introduced following the Bondi beach terror attack last year, which resulted in the deaths of 15 people.
Home Office could face hundreds of claims over asylum families in single rooms
The Home Office may face legal claims from asylum-seeking families living in single hotel rooms, criticized by a judge for being 'extraordinarily stressful.' Families have been stuck in these conditions for over three years, raising concerns about their living standards.
See every story in News — including breaking news and analysis.
He also did not respond to a question about which allegedly violent confrontations or rhetoric he was referring to. His office pointed towards comments he made in December after the Bondi attack, where he criticised the alleged use of Hezbollah flags, images of former supreme leader of Iran Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and protest signs comparing Zionism to neo-nazism.
The Greens justice spokesperson, Sue Higginson, released a statement after Minns’ comments, saying the premier had “launched an extraordinary attack on our independent judiciary”.
Majed Kheir, who is representing several of the 26 protesters who have been charged in the wake of the rally, said the court “vehemently disagreed” with the premier’s claims that the laws were “rational and proportionate”.
“Thankfully, the separation of powers is protected, and the decision as to whether those laws were rational, reasonable or proportionate was a question for our judiciary,” he said.
“Whatever personal views the premier has, in accordance with the interpretation of our most qualified and most experienced judges, they were not reasonable, they were not proportionate, and they were unconstitutional.”
Police reviewing charges
During the same press conference, the NSW police commissioner, Mal Lanyon, said officers were reviewing the charges against the anti-Herzog protesters amid calls for them to be dropped in the wake of Thursday’s finding. Before the court ruling, police had indicated to Nick Hanna, another lawyer representing several of the protesters, that the police planned to charge 30 more people.
The now defunct law, known as the public assembly restriction declaration, or Pard, meant protesters could not use the form 1 system in areas designated by police for up to three months after a terrorist attack, effectively meaning protesters could not march without the risk of arrest.
Minns has argued that because the anti-Herzog protest was also covered by a major events declaration, charges would still stand for those who did not comply with police directions. The major events declaration gave police similar move-on powers to the Pard laws.
Kheir said in all the police facts sheets – which outline police’s allegations against a person charged with a crime – he had seen, there were references to the area the protest was in being the subject of a Pard.
“It appears to be a pro forma reference that’s made in all of the facts sheets that I’ve seen,” he said.
In one facts sheet, seen by Guardian Australia, there is a specific reference to the arrested protester being before the courts for contravening the law, which now does not exist.
“Police, clearly identifiable by uniform, issued the group a move-on direction pursuant to their contravention of the PARD. This move-on direction was repeated over loudhailer and broadcast into the group,” the facts sheet says.
The facts sheet makes no reference to the major events declaration.
Higginson called on the premier and Lanyon “to accept that they got it wrong and stop these bad prosecutions against the community”.
“The actions by the premier and the police caused serious harm and the police relied on powers that were unlawful. For the premier and the police commissioner to double down in the face of this failure and say ‘Oh well we had the major event declaration as backup’ likely won’t cut it in the courts.”
