The NSW Court of Appeal is hearing a constitutional challenge presented by three protest groups against a recent law enacted by the Minns government, which significantly curtails the ability to protest in Sydney’s Central Business District (CBD). This law was introduced following the Bondi terror attack and is aimed at preventing disruptions in the aftermath of such incidents. However, the groups—comprising the Blak Caucus, Palestine Action Group (PAG), and Jews Against the Occupation ’48—argue that the law contradicts its stated objective of fostering social cohesion by essentially restricting the fundamental right to protest, thereby making the situation worse rather than better.

The lawyers representing the protest groups contend that the law imposes an 'impermissible burden' on the implied constitutional freedom of communication regarding government and political matters. This legal argument points out a potential conflict between the government’s intent to promote harmony through the law and the practical implications that such restrictions could lead to increased dissent and division among the public. The case raises critical questions about the balance between public safety following terrorist threats and the preservation of democratic rights such as the right to assemble and express opinions publicly without fear of retribution.

As the proceedings unfold, the implications of the court’s decision could have significant ramifications for the future of protest laws in New South Wales and potentially set a legal precedent regarding the interpretation of constitutional rights related to freedom of expression and assembly in Australia. The outcome may influence how governments respond to public protests, particularly in the context of national security, and whether future laws will prioritize safety over civil liberties or strike a more equitable balance between the two.