NSW Government Considers Stricter Protest Measures as Public Backs Police Powers
New South Wales Premier Chris Minns is understood to be actively evaluating significant legal modifications aimed at curtailing protest activities within Sydney's central business district. The proposed changes could involve alterations to the Form 1 notification system and the strategic designation of specific areas, such as the Domain, as official protest zones under revised land use policies.
Polling Reveals Strong Public Sentiment for Enhanced Control
Recent opinion research underscores a notable shift in public attitude. A national survey of 1,022 Australians, conducted last week, found that 62% of respondents, both nationally and within NSW, support strengthening police powers to manage protests. Only 17% expressed opposition, with 38% indicating they "strongly support" such measures.
The data reveals a cross-party consensus, with nearly two-thirds of Labor voters and three-quarters of Coalition voters nationally backing stronger powers. Support was markedly lower among Greens voters, at 38%. This polling follows two years of regular, predominantly peaceful demonstrations in the Sydney CBD organised by groups like the Palestine Action Group, which have nonetheless sparked criticism from the premier and some community organisations.
Premier's Focus on Safety and Social Cohesion
Premier Minns has articulated a clear position, emphasising the government's paramount duty to protect citizens. "We're looking to change aspects of the law that we think are just putting an unnecessary burden on safety and security," Minns stated on Wednesday. He acknowledged the importance of public demonstrations in a major city but highlighted the resource strain on police forces, suggesting that thousands of officers are deployed for protest management at the potential expense of investigating other crimes, such as domestic violence offences.
The premier's stance has been partly shaped by recent events, including the Bondi massacre in December, after which parliament passed temporary laws allowing the police commissioner to restrict protests following a declared terrorist event. Minns, however, is seeking more permanent legislative controls.
Potential Legal Pathways and Challenges
The government is reportedly examining several options to achieve its goals without unduly infringing on the constitutional implied right to political communication. One key proposal involves granting NSW Police discretion to refuse Form 1 applications after a certain threshold is reached.
The Form 1 is not a protest permit but a notification system. Organisers who submit it gain protection from prosecution under the Summary Offences Act for minor infractions like impeding traffic, in exchange for sharing details on expected crowd size, march routes, and security plans. Critics warn that stricter rules could deter organisers from using the system, ironically making policing more difficult. They also point out practical challenges, as protest groups are often loosely organised and legally distinct, making numerical limits hard to enforce.
Another avenue under consideration is leveraging planning laws to designate specific areas as suitable for protests while prohibiting them elsewhere. The Domain has been floated as a potential designated protest site. Existing precedents, such as restrictions on demonstrations in the Opera House forecourt under its trust act, show that such designations are possible, though their effectiveness can be limited.
Parallel Inquiry into Protest Slogans
Concurrently, a NSW parliamentary committee is finalising an investigation into whether certain slogans and chants should be banned. The committee, chaired by Labor MP Edmond Atalla, is expected to report by Friday, with legislation potentially being tabled when parliament resumes next week.
Changes already flagged include a potential ban on the phrase "globalise the intifada," along with other expressions reportedly used at pro-Palestine rallies. Jewish community organisations have advocated for new offences targeting what they term "hateful slogans," arguing such phrases incite violence. In contrast, groups including Palestine Action, the Jewish Council of Australia, and the Australian National Imams Council contend that these phrases are not inherently hateful and that bans would curtail constitutional freedoms. Constitutional law experts, like Professor Anne Twomey from the University of Sydney, have also raised concerns about the potential constitutional issues arising from banning specific political chants.
The government's special envoy to combat antisemitism, Jillian Segal, has proposed remodelling existing hate speech laws, suggesting the creation of a new offence for conduct that "promotes, advocates or glorifies violence, destruction or death," including phrases reasonably interpreted as promoting violence.
As these parallel policy streams develop, the Minns government faces the complex task of balancing public safety, social cohesion, and the fundamental right to political expression in one of Australia's largest and most dynamic cities.
