rushed anti-protest laws often have an unhappy ending in the courts
In New South Wales, the state's attempt to curtail protest through hastily drafted legislation has met repeated defeat in its own courts, costing taxpayers nearly half a million dollars in a conflict that was, in many ways, foreseeable. The tension between public safety imperatives and constitutionally protected political communication is an old one, and legal scholars have long warned that urgency is rarely a sound foundation for durable law. What unfolded across five courtrooms is less a story of activist triumph than a reminder that democratic rights, when tested, tend to hold — and that the cost of ignoring that lesson falls on the public.
- Courts struck down NSW's emergency protest laws twice in six months, finding them unconstitutional violations of the implied right to political communication — a double rebuke that exposed the fragility of legislation written in haste.
- Nearly $490,000 in taxpayer money was spent defending laws that largely failed, with the government also ordered to pay opponents' legal costs, including over $184,000 to the Palestine Action Group alone.
- Labor MPs raised constitutional red flags inside their own caucus before the laws passed, but Premier Chris Minns pressed ahead, insisting the legislation was sound — a confidence the courts did not share.
- Activist groups are now signaling further appeals, threatening to unravel convictions tied to the laws, while the government faces a choice between rewriting the legislation yet again or accepting the boundaries courts have drawn.
- Legal experts warn the pattern is familiar: rushed anti-protest laws, constitutional vulnerability, courtroom losses — a cycle that serves neither public safety nor democratic legitimacy.
New South Wales has spent nearly half a million dollars defending protest laws in court — and lost almost every case. Freedom of information documents obtained by The Guardian reveal a $490,000 legal bill across cases that ended in defeat, with courts ordering the state to pay the opposing side's costs as well.
The most expensive single loss centred on the so-called Pard laws, rushed through parliament after the Bondi beach terror attack in December 2024. The laws gave the police commissioner power to ban protests in designated areas and were deployed during a February rally against Israeli president Isaac Herzog. In April, the NSW Court of Appeal struck them down as a violation of the implied constitutional right to freedom of political communication, awarding the Palestine Action Group $184,584 in legal fees. Six months earlier, the Supreme Court had already struck down a separate anti-protest law expanding police powers near places of worship, costing the government nearly $96,400 to defend. Across five cases in the state's highest courts, the government and police spent at least $490,000 on losses and $87,099 on wins.
The constitutional risks were flagged early. Labor MPs raised concerns in caucus before the Pard laws passed, with one moving to narrow the bill's scope. Premier Chris Minns dismissed the warnings in March 2025, declaring the laws constitutionally sound. Constitutional law professor Anne Twomey was less confident, noting that anti-protest legislation rushed through parliament has a long and unhappy history in the courts.
The government has defended the spending as necessary for public safety, arguing the laws helped prevent conflict during Herzog's visit. Activist groups have called it a waste of public money spent dismantling democratic rights. With further appeals likely and the question of rewriting the laws still open, the episode stands as a costly lesson in the limits of legislating urgency.
New South Wales has spent nearly half a million dollars defending protest laws in court—and lost almost every case. Documents obtained by The Guardian through freedom of information requests reveal the scale of the legal bill: $490,000 in taxpayer money spent across cases that ended in defeat for the government and police, with courts ordering the state to pay the other side's legal costs as well.
The largest single expense was $117,455 defending the so-called public assembly restriction declaration laws, known as Pard. These rules were rushed through parliament after the Bondi beach terror attack in December 2024, giving the police commissioner power to ban protests in specific areas. The laws were in place during a contentious February rally against Israeli president Isaac Herzog, and they became the subject of immediate legal challenge. In April, the New South Wales Court of Appeal struck them down entirely, finding they violated the implied constitutional right to freedom of political communication. The court awarded costs to the three activist groups that brought the challenge, with the Palestine Action Group alone receiving $184,584 in legal fees paid by the government.
This was not an isolated loss. Six months earlier, the NSW Supreme Court had already struck down a different anti-protest law—one that gave police expanded powers to prevent demonstrations near places of worship. The government spent nearly $96,400 defending that law before losing. Police also spent more than $91,600 fighting "form 1" applications to authorize pro-Palestine protests on the Sydney Harbour Bridge and Opera House, losing the first case. A second police challenge to a planned march to the Opera House cost almost $59,500, though police won that one on grounds of extreme safety concerns. Across all five cases heard in the state's highest courts, the government and police spent at least $490,000 on losses and $87,099 on wins.
The Pard laws had been controversial from the start. When the government first introduced them, Labor MPs Anthony D'Adam, Stephen Lawrence, and Cameron Murphy raised concerns during a caucus meeting, warning the wording could be found unconstitutional. D'Adam moved to redraft the bill to limit it to protests at places of worship. Premier Chris Minns dismissed these worries in March 2025, saying the government believed the laws were "constitutionally sound." Constitutional law experts disagreed. Anne Twomey, professor emerita at the University of Sydney, observed that "history tells us that anti-protest laws rushed through parliament often have an unhappy ending in the courts."
Josh Lees, organizer for the Palestine Action Group, called the spending "a huge waste of money" that showed "the desperate lengths Chris Minns has been prepared to go to, in order to rip up our democratic rights." The government's response emphasized public safety. A spokesperson said Labor had "acted to protect the community, maintain social cohesion and ensure people felt safe" after the Bondi attack, and that the laws "played an important role in ensuring there was no conflict on Sydney's streets" during Herzog's visit. The government noted that some challenges to the laws had failed, though it acknowledged others had succeeded. Police, for their part, said their primary concern during the August 2025 protest that did occur was managing crowd crush among the large number of attendees, which they handled "in line with public safety."
The activist groups have signaled they may appeal a separate case the government won—a $27,600 administrative challenge to the use of a major events declaration during Herzog's visit—hoping to overturn convictions against protesters. The pattern is clear: rushed legislation, constitutional vulnerability, courtroom defeats, and mounting costs. The question now is whether the government will attempt to rewrite these laws again, as it did with the place-of-worship restriction, or accept that courts have set boundaries on what protest restrictions the state can impose.
Citações Notáveis
History tells us that anti-protest laws rushed through parliament often have an unhappy ending in the courts.— Anne Twomey, constitutional law professor emerita, University of Sydney
This huge waste of money shows the desperate lengths Chris Minns has been prepared to go to, in order to rip up our democratic rights.— Josh Lees, organizer for the Palestine Action Group
A Conversa do Hearth Outra perspectiva sobre a história
Why did the government spend so much money defending laws it seemed to know were vulnerable?
The documents suggest they genuinely believed the laws were sound—the premier said so publicly. But there's a gap between political confidence and constitutional law. The government was responding to real pressure after Bondi, and it moved fast. Speed and constitutional durability don't always go together.
Did the government have to pay the other side's legal costs?
Yes. When you lose a case like this, courts typically award costs to the winning party. So the government paid not just its own barristers and solicitors—it also paid for the activists' lawyers. That's how the Palestine Action Group ended up receiving $184,000 from the state.
Were there warnings before this happened?
Absolutely. Labor MPs raised concerns in the caucus meeting. Constitutional experts published warnings. The government had the information. But after a terror attack, there's political pressure to act decisively, and sometimes that overrides caution.
What happens now? Will the government try again?
It already did once—it reintroduced the place-of-worship law with amendments after the first court loss. Whether it tries to fix the Pard laws or accepts the court's boundary is still open. But the pattern is becoming expensive and visible.
Is half a million dollars a lot for a government to spend on legal fees?
For a state government, it's not catastrophic. But it's the symbolism that stings—spending that much to lose, then having to pay the other side too. It's money that could have gone elsewhere, and it's a public record of overreach.