Key facts
- The NSW government has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on legal fees to defend protest laws that were struck down by courts.
- One challenge to public assembly restriction laws cost taxpayers $117,455.50.
- These laws were enacted after the Bondi terror attack and were in place during a rally against the Israeli president.
- The court of appeal found the laws impermissibly burdened the implied constitutional right to freedom of political communication.
- NSW police also spent significant amounts on legal fees opposing pro-Palestine protests.
- In total, the NSW government and police have spent at least $305,500 on cases against pro-Palestine groups.
The New South Wales government has incurred significant legal costs, totaling at least $305,500, in its unsuccessful attempts to defend controversial protest laws. These laws, enacted following the Bondi terror attack and during a protest against Israeli President Isaac Herzog, were found by the court of appeal to impermissibly burden the constitutional right to freedom of political communication.
The state's court of appeal struck down the public assembly restriction declaration (Pard) laws in April, awarding costs to the plaintiffs. This marks the second time in six months that an anti-protest law passed by the Minns government has been deemed unconstitutional. Previously, the NSW supreme court struck down an older law granting police expanded powers to prevent protests near places of worship, costing the government nearly $96,400 in legal fees.
Documents obtained by Guardian Australia reveal that NSW police also spent over $91,600 on external legal representation in one case where they opposed an application to authorise a pro-Palestine protest on the Sydney Harbour Bridge. In another instance, police spent almost $59,500 opposing a planned pro-Palestine march to the Sydney Opera House, a case which police won due to safety concerns.
Activist groups, such as the Palestine Action Group, have criticized the government's spending, calling it a "huge waste of money" that undermines democratic rights. Legal experts, like Professor Anne Twomey, had warned that laws rushed through parliament often face legal challenges. A government spokesperson stated that the laws were enacted to protect the community and maintain social cohesion, and that while some challenges were successful, others were not.