#Environmental#activists claim success after partial overturn of state laws that criminalised protest actions near major hubs
Lisa Cox
Wed 13 Dec 2023 03.23 EST
“The New South Wales supreme court has found that parts of anti-protest laws introduced by the former Perrottet government are unconstitutional because they infringe on the implied freedom of political communication.
“The laws were introduced in 2022 in response to a series of climate protests that disrupted Port Botany.
“The laws, which passed with the support of the then Labor opposition, added a new section to the state’s Crimes Act to target protest activities at major facilities such as railways, ports, transport facilities or infrastructure.
“The new offences, which carried maximum penalties of two years imprisonment and $22,000 in fines, applied in circumstances where protest activities caused damage to the facility, seriously disrupted or obstructed people attempting to use the facility, closed or partially closed the facility, or caused people trying to use the facility to be redirected.
“Two 'knitting nannas' – Helen Kvelde and Dominique Jacobs – took legal action to defend the right to protest, arguing that the new laws fundamentally undermined their right to political communication.
Their legal representative, the Environmental Defenders Office, argued that criminalising certain protest activities was unconstitutional because it impermissibly burdened the implied freedom of political communication.
“In a judgment on Wednesday afternoon, the court found the new section of the Crimes Act did 'effectively burden the implied freedom in its terms, operation, and effect … the law is, therefore, constitutionally invalid unless justified'.
“The court found the burden was unjustified where the protest activity caused people to be redirected or caused a facility to be partially closed. Those parts of the laws were therefore invalid.
“Kvelde said she was happy the court had given 'some acknowledgement to the democratic right to protest'.
“’But these laws to me feel like a distraction. As if both Labor and the Liberal party are trying to get the population angry with protesters instead of angry against politicians for failing to protect us from #ClimateEmergency,' she said.
“’I’m not sure what we can do next, but it doesn’t feel right to just let this go. We need to fight for our democratic right to protest peacefully. I wish people would understand that ultimately these laws could affect anyone – anyone the government of the day does not like.'
“A spokesperson for the Minns government said it was 'carefully considering the judgment and seeking advice on appeal options or options for legislative reform to ensure that protest activity is appropriately regulated and balances the rights and freedoms of the people of NSW'.
“The NSW #Greens spokesperson for climate change and the environment, Sue Higginson, called on Labor to consider the judgment in full. 'While the court upheld parts of the law targeting the actions of protestors it found parts to be unconstitutional. Clearly, the former Coalition government enacted harsh and draconian laws, it was an overreach,' she said.
“‘The Minns Labor government should now repeal all of the Coalition’s anti-protest laws as they have now been shown to be bad laws and, as civil society has maintained since they were first introduced, they are entirely unnecessary.'
“The knitting nannas also asked the court to find amendments to regulations that altered the definition of 'major bridge, tunnel or road' to be beyond the government’s regulation-making power and therefore invalid. But the court found those amendments were valid.”