The Supreme Court of New South Wales has struck down the state’s draconian anti-protest laws, ruling they impose an “impermissible burden” on political communication and are invalid.

In a landmark decision yesterday, the court declared key provisions of the anti-protest laws introduced after the Bondi terrorist attack unconstitutional, finding they gave police sweeping powers to shut down protests across large parts of Sydney without sufficient justification.

“The impugned provisions infringe the implied freedom of political communication,” the court found.

The court held that the laws were “not compatible with the maintenance of the constitutionally prescribed system of representative and responsible government.”

Not constitutionally legitimate
“It is not a constitutionally legitimate purpose to seek to discourage all forms of public assembly across a nominated geographical area to preserve social cohesion, on the grounds that the very act of holding public assemblies is apt to cause tension and division in the community,” the court found.

The challenge centred on a suite of laws rushed through on Christmas Eve under the Terrorism and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2025 (NSW), in the aftermath of the Bondi attack that killed 15 people.

The laws allowed the NSW police commissioner to issue sweeping “public assembly restriction” declarations across broad areas.

Once in force, those declarations effectively shut down protests by preventing them from being authorised under the Summary Offences Act 1988 (NSW), cancelling existing approvals and enabling police to disperse gatherings using expanded powers under the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002 (NSW).

In its reasoning, the court stated:

“peaceful protest is indispensable to the exercise of political sovereignty by the people of the Commonwealth”

and the laws imposed “substantial burden” to this right.

It rejected the government’s argument that the measures were necessary to preserve “social cohesion”, finding the scheme was disproportionate.

The system of government “does not permit the state … to impose such a sweeping and indiscriminate restriction on all public assemblies,” the court said.

The constitutional challenge was brought on behalf of Blak Caucus, Palestine Action Group and Jews Against the Occupation ’48.

‘A big win for everyone’
Josh Lees, a spokesperson for Palestine Action Group Sydney, said the ruling was “a big win for everyone who cares about the right to protest”.

“These laws were terrible. They were so wide-ranging, and that is what the court has found today, that they unfairly and disproportionately burdened our rights to political communication,” he said.

Lees said the laws had been used by NSW Premier Chris Minns to violently suppress protests against Israel’s genocide in Gaza and called for Minns to “take accountability” and resign.

The challenge came against the backdrop of heavily policed protests in early 2026, including the violent crackdown on the Sydney Town Hall protest against the visit of Israeli President Isaac Herzog.

Enabled police violence
Nick Hanna, solicitor for the plaintiffs, said the laws had enabled “the most violent crackdown … against protesters in decades”.

“Today’s decision makes clear that, in my view, it is inevitable that prosecutions of every single person who attended that protest will be unsuccessful, and they will be found not guilty if they proceed to hearing,” he said.

“The maintenance of these prosecutions is untenable, and it’s time for police to do the right thing and discontinue them.”

Hanna is currently representing a number of protesters who were arrested during the Herzog protest.

Chris Minns responsible
NSW Greens MP Sue Higginson said the ruling raised serious questions about police conduct during those protests.

“What we saw … was police brutality on a scale we have not seen for decades in this state,” she said.

“I hold Chris Minns responsible for that violence because it was his unconstitutional laws upon which the police acted.”

Higginson said the state could now face “tens of millions of dollars in civil liability claims” arising from the policing of protests under the invalid laws.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

The global civil society alliance Civicus has called on eight Pacific governments to do more to respect civic freedoms and strengthen institutions to protect these rights.

It is especially concerned over the threats to press freedom, the use of laws to criminalise online expression, and failure to establish national human rights institutions or ratify the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).

But it also says that the Pacific status is generally positive.

Nauru, Papua New Guinea, Samoa and Solomon Islands have been singled out for criticism over press freedom concerns, but the brief published by the Civicus Monitor also examines the civic spce in Fiji, Kiribati, Tonga and Vanuatu.

“There have been incidents of harassment, intimidation and dismissal of journalists in retaliation for their work,” the report said.

“Cases of censorship have also been reported, along with denial of access, exclusion of journalists from government events and refusal of visas to foreign journalists.”

The Civicus report focuses on respect for and limitations to the freedoms of association, expression and peaceful assembly, which are fundamental to the exercise of civic rights.

Freedoms guaranteed
“These freedoms are guaranteed in the national constitutions of all eight countries as well as in the ICCPR.

“In several countries — including Fiji, Kiribati, Nauru, PNG and Samoa — the absence of freedom of information laws makes it extremely difficult for journalists and the public to access official information,” the report said.

Countries such as Samoa, Tonga and Vanuatu, continued to enforce criminal defamation laws, creating a “chilling environment for the media, human rights defenders and anyone seeking to express themselves or criticise governments”.

In recent years, Fiji, PNG and Samoa had also used cybercrime laws to criminalise online expression.

“Governments in the Pacific must do more to protect press freedom and ensure that journalists can work freely and without fear of retribution for expressing critical opinions or covering topics the government may find sensitive,” said Josef Benedict, Civicus Asia Pacific researcher.

“They must also pass freedom of information legislation and remove criminal defamation provisions in law so that they are not used to criminalise expression both off and online.”

Civicus is concerned that at least four countries – Kiribati, Nauru, Solomon Islands and Tonga – have yet to ratify the ICCPR, which imposes obligations on states to respect and protect civic freedoms.

Lacking human rights bodies
Also, four countries — Kiribati, Nauru, Solomon Islands and Vanuatu — lack national human rights institutions (NHRI).

Fiji was criticised over restricting the right to peaceful assembly over protests about genocide and human rights violations in Palestine and West Papua.

In May 2024, “a truckload of police officers, including two patrol cars, turned up at a protest at the premises of the Fiji Women’s Crisis Centre against human rights violations in Gaza and West Papua, in an apparent effort to intimidate protesters”.

Gatherings and vigils had been organised regularly each Thursday.

In PNG and Tonga, the Office of the Ombudsman plays monitor and responds to human rights issues, but calls remain for establishing an independent body in line with the Paris Principles, which set international standards for national human rights institutions.

“It is time all Pacific countries ratify the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and ensure its laws are consistent with it,” said Benedict.

“Governments must also to establish national human rights institutions to ensure effective monitoring and reporting on human rights issues. This will also allow for better accountability for violations of civic freedoms.”

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

New Zealand’s Deputy Prime Minister Grant Robertson has warned that although people have a right to protest when “they threaten, harass and disrupt people and a whole city they lose that right”.

In a post on Facebook, Robertson — who is also Finance Minister and MP for Central Wellington where the five-day-old Parliament protest is happening — said he was contacted by many constituents this week who were distressed at what was happening in the city.

“School pupils spat at and harassed for wearing a mask, roads blocked delaying public transport and emergency services and businesses shut down,” he said.

Robertson said there had also been threats of violence against politicians and the media.

The protester threats came as New Zealand had a record 454 community cases today — up on yesterday’s previous record — as omicron cases begin to surge.

“Looking down on a protest that wants to hang me as a politician, a sign that compares the Prime Minister to the March 15th terrorist, calls for arrest and execution of me and other leaders you might understand why I believe the police need to move them on.”

Robertson acknowledged that protest was an important part of democracy, but said that “like all freedoms it comes with responsibilities”.

He said in the past he had led protests onto Parliament grounds and discussed with those involved that if they crossed certain lines they would be arrested.

‘Threatening a whole city’
“I was always of the view that the cause or the issue was what mattered most, and we would strive to make our point, and then move on to live to fight another day,” he said.

Robertson said people lose the right to protest when “they threaten, harass and disrupt people and a whole city”.

He said the protesters at Parliament had been trespassed and needed to leave.

Robertson thanked police for doing a difficult job in trying conditions and said it was up to them how they enforced the law.

He said as Wellington Central’s local MP he had been in regular contact with police and the city council to support the rights of those in the capital “to go about their lives free from harassment and severe disruption”.

“I am confident that this will happen, though it will no doubt take some time,” he said.

Robertson said the high vaccination rates reassured him that the protesters only represented a small minority.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz