The New South Wales government has passed controversial laws to crack down on hate speech and protests with the threat of hefty fines and jail time.
The laws – which passed on Thursday night – are part of a suite of reforms aimed at curbing antisemitism amid a spate of arson attacks and vandalism.
Some have praised the swift action taken by the Minns government, while others have criticised the broad nature of the laws. The criticism has also come internally from Labor MPs, with one reportedly saying in a meeting the protest-related laws were the most “draconian” in decades.
Here’s what you need to know.
What are the protest laws?
The laws cover a number of measures, including displaying a Nazi symbol on or near a synagogue, and create an aggravated offence for graffiti on a place of worship.
But the most controversial changes have been the government’s move to criminalise people making racist remarks in public and restrict protests near places of worship. Both carry a maximum penalty of two years in prison.
The government has made it an offence to hinder someone from leaving or entering a place of worship.
Controversially, police will also now have full application of their move on powers “in or near” places of worship, regardless of what a protest is about and whether it is even directed at a religious institution.
This means that if someone is obstructing someone “in or near” a place of worship, police can issue a move on order. Generally, this police power is restricted to only when there is risk of serious harm, given protests tend to obstruct people.
This will not apply to protests that have obtained approval from the police via a Form 1 application, which can take police several days to process.
What has been the reaction to the protest laws?
A number of legal experts and Labor’s own MPs have called out the broad nature of the laws.
One particular issue is that how “near” a person must be to a place of worship before police can issue a move on order is difficult to say, and is at the discretion of police. If someone ignores a police officer’s move on order and is charged, it would then be up to the courts to determine.
“This is why the law is so bad because it is not precise,” said David Mejia-Canales, a senior human rights lawyer at the Human Rights Law Centre.
“It’s very difficult for a person on the street, or the cops for that matter, to know with certainty whether anyone is breaking the law or not.”
A number of major protest sites are near places of worship. This includes Hyde Park, where weekly pro-Palestine rallies are held, Sydney’s Town Hall and the supreme court.
Criticism was also raised in Labor ranks during a fiery caucus meeting last week. One MP attempted to amend the law so that it was specific to protest targeting places of worship. However, this was voted down.
On Thursday, Minns was asked for a response to another Labor MP saying the laws were the most draconian anti-protest measures in decades. That was “hyperbole”, the premier said.
“There are protests, they take place almost on a weekly basis … However, we have to balance the right to protest with people’s rights to be free from vilification,” Minns said.
Minns has also said he does not believe the broad nature of the laws has left them open to misuse.
“We do put a lot of trust in NSW police, and I believe that they exercise it judiciously.”
The NSW Bar Association has agreed with the government that the laws strike the right balance between the right to freedom of religion and the right to freedom of expression.
What are the hate speech laws?
The government has also passed a bill that makes it a criminal offence to intentionally and publicly incite hatred towards another person, or group of people, on the grounds of race.
After backlash that the scope of the laws is limited to race, the government will also undertake a six-month review to determine if the laws should be expanded to include other vulnerable groups, such as the LGBTQ+ community.
“They will make a difference,” Minns told reporters on Thursday ahead of the laws passing. “We believe they’re essential in sending that clear and unambiguous message that we won’t tolerate racism.”
What has been the reaction to the hate speech laws?
The Executive Council of Australian Jewry has supported the laws as an important step in stemming violence, but argued the scope of the laws should be widened to cover incidents that do not occur in public.
However, the Human Rights Law Centre has questioned whether the laws will make a difference.
“There is no evidence that the law will address the recent spate of antisemitic incidents in NSW or the disturbing rise of neo-Nazi and far-right extremist activity,” said the senior lawyer Arif Hussein.
“Governments should be prioritising investigating the nature of these incidents, before passing rushed and punitive laws, without proper community consultation.”
The Racial Justice Centre agreed, stating: “These laws do not appropriately respond to the growing threat of racial hatred in Australia.”
The NSW Bar Association has also opposed the laws. It said it agreed with a November review by the Law Reform Commission that consulted widely with faith and legal groups and recommended not broadening the laws or introducing other offences to curb public incitement of hatred.
“The association shares the concerns expressed by the NSW Law Reform Commission in its recent review of serious racial and religious vilification, that terms such as ‘hatred’ introduce imprecision and subjectivity into the criminal law,” its president, Ruth Higgins, said.
