The NSW government’s anti-protest laws will be challenged in the supreme court, with two climate change protesters arguing that tougher measures introduced earlier this year fundamentally undermine their right of political communication.
The Environmental Defenders Office filed the legal challenge on behalf of Dominique and Helen, two mothers who live in fire- and flood-affected parts of the NSW far north coast.
David Morris, the chief executive of the EDO, said the women were members of the Knitting Nannas, an environmental activist group with grave concerns about the laws introduced in March that allow fines of $22,000 and two years in prison to punish non-violent protesters.
“Protest is an integral part of our democracy and Australia has a long and proud history of protest, and we have to guard these parts of our democracy with zealousness.
“When it comes to protest rights … it can be a death by a thousand cuts. We have to fight to preserve that right.”
Morris said it would be argued that the new laws, which expanded previous provisions to ban peaceful protests on major roads and new tunnels, and made it an offence to even be “near” a major prescribed facility, unlawfully impinged on the freedom of protest.
He said the laws were not fit-for purpose, and it appeared they had been passed as a “kneejerk reaction” to protest activity earlier this year.
The bill was introduced in response to a series of climate protests that disrupted Port Botany earlier this year.
The laws were also then used to crack down on Blockade Australia protesters who had targeted Sydney with a week of action in June.
The Tasmanian and Victorian state governments have also passed similar laws this year.
While Morris said it was concerning that an increase in the harshness of anti-protest laws was occurring at the exact time more people felt the need to be heard about climate and environmental crisis in Australia, he said the legal challenge sought to protect all those who wished to protest, regardless of their cause.
He said protests over the right to vote, safety at work, and the rights of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people were historical examples of peaceful protest creating meaningful change.
“We can see that history has shown that peaceful protest contributes to better outcomes,” he said.
“The important thing is that governments foster rather than stifle people wanting to have a voice in a healthy and robust democracy.”
The legal challenge comes as the union movement begins its own push to force NSW Labor to commit to reversing the laws if elected at the March state poll.
A motion put forward by the Australian Services Union before Labor’s state conference on the weekend calls for the party to repeal the bill and “never support any legislation” restricting peaceful protest in the state.
The motion, which the Guardian understands will be supported by a number of other Labor-affiliated unions at the conference, is likely to place internal pressure on the party as it gears up for the March election.
It comes after Labor controversially backed the legislation when it was hastily pushed through the parliament in April.
At the time the party’s leader, Chris Minns, attacked the climate protesters for what he called “guerrilla activity” and “causing anarchy”.
Minns announced the decision to support the bill before it was taken to a party room meeting, a move that angered some backbenchers and unions. Instead, the party moved a series of amendments to the bill, which one senior MP described as “weak”.
In an article written in Challenge magazine, a publication produced by the party’s left faction, the secretary of the ASU, Angus McFarland, who drafted the motion, said the laws were “so broad and vague that almost all protest activity without prior approval now risks criminal sanction”.
He criticised the fact the bill was “rushed through parliament” and that “unlike most controversial legislation” was not subject to any parliamentary inquiry or consultation process.
