NSW Government Faces Court Challenge Over Protest Powers During Israeli President's Visit
Lawyers representing the Palestine Action Group have launched an urgent Supreme Court challenge against the New South Wales government's use of sweeping police powers during Israeli President Isaac Herzog's visit to Australia. The group alleges the Minns administration has improperly invoked legislation designed for major sporting events as a "backdoor way" of suppressing legitimate political protest.
Broad Powers Grant Police Unprecedented Authority
The controversial "major event" declaration grants police extraordinary powers until Thursday across significant sections of Sydney's CBD and eastern suburbs. Under these provisions, officers can:
- Move people on from specific locations
- Close designated areas entirely
- Issue orders to prevent disruption or public safety risks
- Search anyone within the declared zone or as a condition of entry
Non-compliance with police directions could result in substantial penalties, including fines reaching up to $5,500. The Palestine Action Group argues these powers are so extensive that any person within the designated areas could be subjected to searches, even when President Herzog is located in Canberra or Melbourne rather than Sydney.
Legal Arguments Highlight Divergent Interpretations
During Monday's urgent hearing before Justice Robertson Wright, barrister Felicity Graham, acting alongside Peter Lange SC for the Palestine Action Group, contended the government had "improperly used the act to curtail protests." She pointed to government statements made on Saturday when announcing the declaration, which specifically mentioned preventing "mourners, visitors and protesters" from being brought into close proximity to avoid potential conflict, violence, or public disorder.
Graham highlighted comments from Sports Minister Steve Kamper, who suggested confrontation between protesters and officials could make world news and damage the state's and Australia's reputation. "One might say the quiet part has been said out loud," Graham told the court. "This is about stopping legitimate political expression in the public square against a controversial visiting head of state, from a country that is before the international court of justice on a charge of genocide."
Government Defends Powers as Necessary Security Measure
Brendan Lim SC, representing the NSW government, rejected suggestions that the powers were improperly invoked. He argued the legislation's definition of an "event" should be given a broad interpretation and that the declaration was essential for maintaining security during a period of heightened tensions.
"It is the maintenance of security and safety of the president, dignitaries and the community generally, in light of the national terrorism threat and heightened community tensions, and the need to safely manage potential large crowds," Lim stated. "That is not a purpose of suppressing protest, it is a purpose of securing safety."
The government's barrister noted that police had specifically carved out Hyde Park from the declaration, suggesting this demonstrated that suppressing protests wasn't the primary objective. However, Graham countered this argument, describing it as a "distraction" from the broader implications of the powers.
Broader Protest Restrictions Compound Legal Challenge
The court challenge comes alongside additional protest restrictions that further complicate the situation. Police have extended a public assembly restriction declaration that prevents the authorisation of protests under the Form 1 system. This effectively bans marches in designated areas without risking arrest, with the current restricted zone encompassing Town Hall and taking in the northern CBD and eastern suburbs, though notably excluding Hyde Park.
Justice Wright questioned whether the government's motivation was actually to keep opposing groups separated following security concerns raised by the Bondi terror attack, during which 15 people were murdered at a Hanukah celebration. However, Graham maintained that "the breadth of the major event declaration" didn't align with President Herzog's actual movements and schedule.
The Palestine Action Group had planned a protest march from Town Hall to state parliament for Monday evening, coinciding with the court hearing. Justice Wright was expected to deliver his decision on whether the government appropriately used its powers under the state's major events legislation by 4pm, with the protest scheduled to begin at 5.30pm.
