2 hours ago
2
April 23, 2026 — 5:00am
There was some sage advice for the premier within the Court of Appeal’s finding last week that anti-protest laws passed by the Minns government after the Bondi terrorist attack were unconstitutional.
In ruling the government’s Public Assembly Restriction Declaration, or PARD laws, invalid, the court found it was “not a legitimate purpose” for a government to preserve social cohesion.
Sounds shocking, right? Surely, it must fall within the wheelhouse of our elected officials to help us live more or less in harmony with our neighbours, particularly at a time like now, when it increasingly feels as though our shared bonds are fraying. Premier Chris Minns seemed to think so, taking the fairly extraordinary step for a premier of rebuking the state’s top court.
“I think it’s easy for lawyers and the courts to say it’s not the government’s responsibility,” Minns said, “but when things go wrong, and you have a major violent disruption on the streets of Sydney, I can guarantee you, most people are desperate for the NSW Police to be out there to keep us safe.”
But beyond the straw man waving from that response – yes, most people probably would like police to keep us safe in a violent disruption, but preferably within the bounds of the constitution – it’s also a misreading of the court’s decision. The justices had limited themselves to a rebuke of the PARD, a “blunt tool” used to preserve a particular kind of social cohesion as defined by this Labor government. The laws, which had the effect of limiting protests for a three-month period in a defined geographical area following terrorist attacks, were underpinned, they found, by a notion that the community “can and should be protected from political expression ... because it might be upsetting, inflammatory and divisive”.
Under the PARD, that protection extended to people nowhere near the protest gathering because of “the sense of distress or offence that they may feel” about it occurring at all. It was protection from “dissent and disharmony associated with political activity of others”.
If the premier felt chastened – by yet another attempt at limiting protest being struck down by a higher authority – he didn’t show it. Faced with the court’s rebuke, Minns doubled down.
It was the protesters who should take responsibility for the disturbing scenes at a Town Hall protest against Israeli President Isaac Herzog in February, he said on Monday. The rushed and constitutionally invalid anti-protest laws that his government passed on Christmas Eve were “rational and proportional” and it was “utter garbage” to suggest they were the cause of the chaotic, violent clashes with police, Minns said.
It’s worth dwelling on that for a moment. Since the court’s ruling, the government has said the PARD was not used on the night of the anti-Herzog protest. Instead, it says, police were enforcing a separate Major Events Declaration. There is some ambiguity over that, but at least some of the court documents related to arrests made at the rally specifically refer to directions made under the PARD.
The police force clearly thinks the court’s decision is relevant because Commissioner Mal Lanyon has said the charges stemming from the rally are now under review. In any case, the two powers were clearly in operation. Lanyon confirmed to this masthead last week that he told Greens MP Sue Higginson he intended to enforce both the PARD and the Major Events Declaration on the night.
All that’s not even really the point, though. The harrowing, seemingly endless conflict on the other side of the world is not one in which the government needs to pick a side. Sydney’s Jewish population is hurting, just as the Lebanese, Palestinian and Arab communities are. Yet, while rebuking his colleagues for criticisms of Israel, Minns himself has from the beginning made his view on local pro-Palestinian protesters clear. He has repeatedly sought to block their gatherings, criticised their organisers and used new laws to hobble them.
By refusing to take any responsibility for the scenes at Town Hall – and seeking to lay blame solely at the feet of the protesters – Minns is, not for the first time, creating an increasingly unhelpful us-versus-them dynamic. It’s one which threatens to further alienate members of the community, and places police in an invidious position.
Does the government believe it is working? Does anyone? Has Sydney really become a more cohesive place? One more open to the idea that, despite the ongoing bloodshed in the Middle East, as distressing as it is, we are all more or less good people doing the best we can?
Only two months after the Bondi massacre, you might very reasonably have felt it was insensitive, inflammatory or divisive to hold a protest aimed at the president of Israel. People don’t really like protests. They’re loud and inconvenient and often the protesters are annoying. You might even feel sympathy for a government, in those terrible circumstances, seeking a circuit-breaker.
But the inescapable conclusion from the past 2½ years of tough rhetoric about Palestinian protesters is that it’s not helping. The premier should reflect on the court’s findings because he does have a role to play in helping social cohesion.
It’s time to pull a different lever.
Michael McGowan is state political editor.
