NSW Faces Mounting Criticism Over Expanding Protest Laws Following Neo-Nazi Rally
NSW Premier Chris Minns’ swift response to a recent demonstration by approximately 60 neo-Nazis outside Parliament House – a pledge to bolster police powers and introduce further restrictions on protests – has ignited a fierce debate over civil liberties and the erosion of democratic freedoms. The incident, which occurred last week, prompted the Premier to announce plans for new legislation, echoing a long-standing pattern of successive NSW governments tightening protest laws in response to contentious events.
The rally, attended by members of the National Socialist Network, proceeded despite prior warnings from ASIO director-general Mike Burgess regarding the group’s “hateful, divisive rhetoric and increasingly violent propaganda.” Both Premier Minns and NSW Police Commissioner Mal Lanyon stated they were unaware of the planned demonstration, attributing the lapse to a communication breakdown within the police force.
The government’s reaction has been swift. Deliberately inciting racial hatred was already criminalized in August following an expansion of Section 93ZA of the Crimes Act, prompted by the Dural caravan hoax – an incident initially feared to be a terrorist plot but later revealed as a fabrication by organized criminals. Despite the new legislation, it wasn’t utilized during the neo-Nazi rally, and police are currently reviewing whether any offenses occurred. Legal counsel advised that attempting to block the rally would likely be unsuccessful in court.
However, critics argue the focus on expanding police powers is a disproportionate response that threatens fundamental rights. NSW Council of Civil Liberties president Timothy Roberts questioned the police’s handling of the situation, stating, “They completely waved it through, so not only do I believe that they could have challenged it, they were aware of the illegality of the protest. Why did neo-Nazis get special treatment here?”
Erosion of Protest Rights in NSW
According to the Human Rights Law Centre’s senior lawyer David Mejia-Canales, NSW already possesses some of the “most restrictive anti-protest laws” in the country. Over the past decade, successive governments have steadily increased police powers and criminal penalties. In 2016, the Baird government introduced move-on powers near mining sites following protests against coal seam gas projects. The Perrottet government, in 2022, criminalized blocking major roads and access to key facilities in response to blockades at Port Botany, including one incident where an activist suspended themselves from a freight bridge.
This year, the Minns government attempted to implement move-on powers near places of worship, but the Supreme Court deemed these powers unconstitutional. The intention to reintroduce an amended version of the bill has drawn further criticism. “Minns is proposing, not only overly zealous laws that are eroding our civil liberties, ones that have already been proven to be constitutionally invalid,” Roberts asserted. “You don’t solve the Nazi problem with laws that erode our civil liberties. You don’t get us closer to social cohesion by arresting people.”
NSW Attorney-General Michael Daley defended the government’s actions, stating that the proposed amendments would “balance community protections with the freedom of political expression.” The Premier indicated the government is considering expanding hate speech laws to include Nazi behavior and speech, alongside Nazi symbols, “to ensure that there’s no ambiguity” regarding such conduct in NSW. He also announced plans for legislation allowing police to disperse groups “harassing, blocking, intimidating people from entering a place of worship.”
However, concerns remain regarding the broad discretion afforded to police by these powers. Luke McNamara from the Faculty of Law and Justice at UNSW highlighted a history of move-on powers being disproportionately used against marginalized groups. “There’s a long history of move-on powers being used against young people, against Aboriginal people in ways that are problematic, and some research has shown that that is uneven in its impacts,” he explained.
The debate extends beyond the government benches. NSW Shadow Attorney-General Alister Henskens argued the Minns government isn’t going far enough, suggesting a need for more guidance on considerations for courts and police commissioners when authorizing protests. “We think that our law enforcement and court process should be given some more tools to promote social harmony rather than just allowing hatred to be flourishing in our streets in the guise of exercising freedom of speech,” Henskens stated.
Professor McNamara pointed to the original intent of the Form 1 system – also known as Part 4 of the Summary Offences Act – established in 1979, which was designed to facilitate the right to protest, not restrict it. He argued that successive governments have made incremental changes “in haste,” ultimately undermining this original purpose. “They’ve been made under pressure cooker environment circumstances. They are not good conditions for making criminal laws or police powers laws.”
The impact of these laws is already being felt by protesters. Former Greens candidate Hannah Thomas shared her experience after allegedly being struck in the eye by a police officer during a pro-Palestinian protest in June. Police initially charged her, relying on rarely used emergency powers stemming from the 2005 Cronulla riots, but later dropped the charges, admitting they were unsure of the powers’ limitations. “I would say they didn’t know what powers they were relying on,” Thomas said. “I think they were generally indifferent to the limitations of their powers.”
The ongoing debate underscores a critical tension between security concerns and the preservation of democratic freedoms. As the NSW government moves forward with its proposed legislation, the question remains whether these measures will effectively address hate speech and maintain public order, or further erode the right to dissent – a cornerstone of a healthy democracy.
