Minns government undermined own goal with NSW protest restrictions, constitutional challenge hears

The Guardian World

by Jordyn Beazley

February 26, 2026

AI-Generated Deep Dive Summary

The New South Wales (NSW) government’s anti-protest law, passed after the Bondi terror attack, has come under legal challenge in the NSW Court of Appeal. Lawyers for three protest groups argue that the law, which effectively bans public marches in Sydney’s CBD, contradicts its stated aim of enhancing social cohesion. They contend that preventing all protests makes achieving unity and harmony “worse” rather than better. The law was introduced following the 2019 Bondi attack, which targeted a peaceful anti-terror rally. It broadly prohibits public gatherings, including political demonstrations, in certain CBD areas. Protesters claim the restrictions are overly broad and infringe on their right to freedom of expression. During the hearing, they emphasized that the state must demonstrate how banning all protests is “rationally necessary” to achieve social cohesion. The court heard expert testimony suggesting that outright bans on public speech can deepen divisions rather than reduce them. Activists argue that restricting free expression alienates communities and undermines trust in institutions, ultimately eroding social unity—a key goal of the law itself. They highlight how such measures often disproportionately target marginalized groups, further marginalizing their voices. The case raises broader questions about the balance between public safety and individual rights. It challenges governments to prove when restrictions on freedom of speech are truly justified and whether they align with their stated objectives. The outcome could set a precedent for similar laws globally, influencing how authorities handle protest activity in the name of security.

Verticals

worldpolitics

Originally published on The Guardian World on 2/26/2026