The New South Wales government has spent at least $305,500 in taxpayer funds to unsuccessfully defend legal challenges against protest laws in the state’s supreme and appeal courts. Documents obtained via freedom of information legislation reveal that these costs were incurred while opposing various activist groups, including the Palestine Action Group, in cases where courts found the government’s legislative measures infringed upon constitutional rights.
Public Assembly Laws and Constitutional Challenges
The most significant expenditure identified in the documents is $117,455.50 spent on a single legal challenge regarding the public assembly restriction declaration (Pard) laws. These laws were introduced following the Bondi beach terror attack and were active during a protest against Israeli president Isaac Herzog in February. In April, the state’s court of appeal struck down the laws, ruling they placed an impermissible burden on the implied constitutional right to freedom of political communication.
This ruling marked the second time in six months that an anti-protest law enacted by the Minns government was deemed unconstitutional. Previously, the NSW supreme court invalidated a law that granted police expanded powers to restrict protests near places of worship. The government spent approximately $96,400 on legal fees in that matter. During the legislative process, Labor MPs Anthony D’Adam, Stephen Lawrence, and Cameron Murphy raised concerns that the bill’s language might be found unconstitutional, though Premier Chris Minns later maintained the laws were “constitutionally sound.”
The NSW government has spent an additional $87,099.29 on legal cases against protest groups that they successfully contested, including an administrative challenge regarding a major events declaration during the Herzog visit.
Police Expenditure on Protest Litigation
Beyond the government’s legal fees, NSW Police incurred significant costs opposing “form 1” applications for pro-Palestine protests at the Sydney Harbour Bridge and the Opera House. The force spent over $91,600 on external legal counsel in a case they lost, while a further $59,500 was spent in October on a case where the court of appeal sided with police, citing “extreme” safety concerns. These figures do not account for the cost of employing in-house police legal staff.
A spokesperson for NSW police stated that their primary concern during these operations was the prevention of crowd crushes and the maintenance of public safety. The government has defended its actions, with a spokesperson stating the laws were intended to protect the community and ensure social cohesion following the Bondi attack.
The repeated intersection of protest legislation and constitutional scrutiny highlights a significant friction point between executive efforts to manage public order and the judicial protection of political expression. As Professor Emerita Anne Twomey of the University of Sydney noted, laws rushed through parliament often face challenging outcomes in the courts, suggesting a potential for ongoing legal volatility if future legislative responses to public safety continue to prioritize broad restrictions over narrower, targeted powers.
Future Legal and Legislative Outlook
The total bill to the taxpayer is expected to rise as costs for the recently struck-down Pard laws are finalized. Activist groups, including the Palestine Action Group, have indicated they may pursue further legal avenues, including potential appeals regarding administrative decisions, to challenge charges brought against protesters.
Frequently Asked Questions
What was the primary reason the Pard laws were struck down?
The NSW court of appeal found that the laws impermissibly burdened the implied constitutional right to freedom of political communication.
How much has the NSW government spent on legal fees for these cases?
The government and police have spent at least $305,500 on cases they lost against pro-Palestine groups, and an additional $87,099.29 on cases they successfully contested.
What is the status of the legal challenges brought by activist groups?
While some challenges have been successful, others have not. Activist groups have indicated they intend to appeal against certain administrative decisions if necessary to see charges against protesters dropped.
How should the state balance the requirements of public safety with the protection of political expression?
