New laws mulled in wake of Sydney Harbour Bridge protest
The pro-Palestine movement, boosted by a march across the Sydney Harbour Bridge which made news across the nation and around the world, hopes to build on its momentum.
The march across the bridge and back in pouring rain on Sunday came after opposition from police, and a court's overruling approval that has politicians worrying about the rare occurrence becoming common.
Further protests are planned on August 24 in Sydney, Melbourne, Canberra, Adelaide and Perth with hopes more can be organised in other cities.
Ahead of the state's parliament resuming on Tuesday, New South Wales Premier Chris Minns says his government is examining whether a legal precedent has been set by the Supreme Court judgment that allowed the protest to proceed.
"No one should believe it's open season on the bridge," he told reporters on Monday.
But new laws might be needed to stop future bridge protests.
Mr Minns was "not ruling anything out" but said any legislation could not be rushed.
Federal Opposition Leader Sussan Ley encouraged the premier to look at "what might happen next".
"Because we can't continue to have these protests that shut down such an important area of a major city," she told reporters.
In her determination declining to prohibit the march, Justice Belinda Rigg said the bridge would have been closed to traffic regardless of whether the protest was authorised or not.
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said demonstrations were an important part of democracy and highlighted the peaceful nature of the Sydney march.
"Australians want people to stop killing each other, they want peace and security ... they don't want conflict brought here," he said.
Mr Minns has faced some internal dissent from other Labor MPs over protest legislation.
NSW Greens MP Sue Higginson has also flagged plans to seek the repeal of laws limiting protest, first introduced by the previous coalition government but expanded under Labor.
Palestine Action Group organiser Josh Lees, defendant of the court action NSW Police took in an unsuccessful attempt to have the demonstration ruled unlawful, says nationwide protests are being planned for August 24.
"We want to build on this massive momentum we have now," he told reporters.
Despite concerns of regular marches across the bridge, Mr Lees said the group had no plans for a repeat crossing any time soon and accused the premier of having an anti-protest agenda.
"His stance is pretty clear and he's passed a raft of anti-protest legislation already," Mr Lees said.
"We're going to have to keep fighting for our rights to demonstrate."
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
1News
an hour ago
- 1News
Government forges ahead with foreshore and seabed law
The Government is forging ahead with plans to change the law governing New Zealand's foreshore and seabed, despite a Supreme Court ruling last year that appeared to undercut the rationale for the change. The proposed legislation stems from a clause in National's coalition deal with NZ First, which promised to revisit the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act. That commitment was driven by fears that a 2023 Court of Appeal decision could have made it significantly easier for Māori groups to win recognition of customary rights over parts of the coastline. The Government introduced a bill to Parliament last year to prevent that, but it hit pause in December after the Supreme Court effectively overturned the earlier ruling. At the time, Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith welcomed the development and said ministers would take time to reassess their plans. ADVERTISEMENT On Tuesday, Goldsmith confirmed to RNZ that Cabinet had agreed to press ahead with the law change regardless and to pass it before October. "Everybody in New Zealand has an interest in what goes on in the coastline, and we're trying our best to get that balance right." Goldsmith said he was not convinced that last year's Supreme Court ruling had set a high enough test for judging whether customary rights should be granted. "We've had a couple of cases that have been decided since then - which have shown almost 100% of the coastline and those areas being granted customary marine title - which confirmed to us that the Supreme Court test still didn't achieve the balance that we think the legislation set out to achieve." Asked whether he expected an upswell of protest, Goldsmith said that had been an earlier concern but: "time will tell". "There's been a wide variety of views, some in favour, some against, but we think this is the right thing to do." The legislation was one of the key objections raised by Ngāpuhi leaders last year when they walked out on a meeting with Prime Minister Christopher Luxon in protest. ADVERTISEMENT More than 200 applications for customary marine title are making their way through the courts. Under the amendment bill, any court decisions issued after 25 July 2024, will need to be reconsidered. That would appear to cover seven cases, involving various iwi from around the country. "I understand their frustration over that," Goldsmith said. "But we believe it is very important to get this right, because it affects the whole of New Zealand." Goldsmith said the government had set aside about $15 million to cover the additional legal costs. The Marine and Coastal Area Act was originally passed by the National-led government in 2011, replacing the controversial Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004, which had extinguished Māori customary rights in favour of Crown ownership. The 2004 law, introduced by Helen Clark's Labour government, provoked widespread protest and led to the creation of the Māori Party, now known as Te Pāti Māori. National's 2011 replacement declared that no one owned the foreshore and seabed but allowed Māori groups to seek recognition of their rights - or "Customary Marine Title" - through the courts or in direct negotiations with the Crown. ADVERTISEMENT Customary title recognises exclusive Māori rights to parts of the foreshore and seabed, provided certain legal tests are met, including proving continuous and "exclusive" use of the area since 1840 without substantial interruption. The 2023 Court of Appeal ruling, however, declared that groups only needed to show they had enough control over the area that they could keep others from using it, and that situations where the law itself had prevented them from doing so could be ignored. The Supreme Court subsequently overturned that and said the Court of Appeal had taken an unduly narrow approach in its interpretation.
Scoop
3 hours ago
- Scoop
Government Forges Ahead With Foreshore And Seabed Law
The government is forging ahead with plans to change the law governing New Zealand's foreshore and seabed, despite a Supreme Court ruling last year that appeared to undercut the rationale for the change. The proposed legislation stems from a clause in National's coalition deal with NZ First, which promised to revisit the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act. That commitment was driven by fears that a 2023 Court of Appeal decision could have made it significantly easier for Māori groups to win recognition of customary rights over parts of the coastline. The government introduced a bill to Parliament last year to prevent that, but it hit pause in December after the Supreme Court effectively overturned the earlier ruling. At the time, Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith welcomed the development and said ministers would take time to reassess their plans. On Tuesday, Goldsmith confirmed to RNZ that Cabinet had agreed to press ahead with the law change regardless and to pass it before October. "Everybody in New Zealand has an interest in what goes on in the coastline, and we're trying our best to get that balance right." Goldsmith said he was not convinced that last year's Supreme Court ruling had set a high enough test for judging whether customary rights should be granted. "We've had a couple of cases that have been decided since then - which have shown almost 100 percent of the coastline and those areas being granted customary marine title - which confirmed to us that the Supreme Court test still didn't achieve the balance that we think the legislation set out to achieve." Asked whether he expected an upswell of protest, Goldsmith said that had been an earlier concern but: "time will tell". "There's been a wide variety of views, some in favour, some against, but we think this is the right thing to do." The legislation was one of the key objections raised by Ngāpuhi leaders last year when they walked out on a meeting with Prime Minister Christopher Luxon in protest. More than 200 applications for customary marine title are making their way through the courts. Under the amendment bill, any court decisions issued after 25 July 2024, will need to be reconsidered. That would appear to cover seven cases, involving various iwi from around the country. "I understand their frustration over that," Goldsmith said. "But we believe it is very important to get this right, because it affects the whole of New Zealand." Goldsmith said the government had set aside about $15 million to cover the additional legal costs. The Marine and Coastal Area Act was originally passed by the National-led government in 2011, replacing the controversial Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004, which had extinguished Māori customary rights in favour of Crown ownership. The 2004 law - introduced by Helen Clark's Labour government - provoked widespread protest and led to the creation of the Māori Party, now known as Te Pāti Māori. National's 2011 replacement declared that no one owned the foreshore and seabed but allowed Māori groups to seek recognition of their rights - or "Customary Marine Title" - through the courts or in direct negotiations with the Crown. Customary title recognises exclusive Māori rights to parts of the foreshore and seabed, provided certain legal tests are met, including proving continuous and "exclusive" use of the area since 1840 without substantial interruption. The 2023 Court of Appeal ruling, however, declared that groups only needed to show they had enough control over the area that they could keep others from using it, and that situations where the law itself had prevented them from doing so could be ignored. The Supreme Court subsequently overturned that and said the Court of Appeal had taken an unduly narrow approach in its interpretation.
Newsroom
3 hours ago
- Newsroom
Government forges ahead with foreshore and seabed law
This story first appeared on RNZ and is republished with permission The government is forging ahead with plans to change the law governing New Zealand's foreshore and seabed, despite a Supreme Court ruling last year that appeared to undercut the rationale for the change. The proposed legislation stems from a clause in National's coalition deal with NZ First, which promised to revisit the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act. That commitment was driven by fears that a 2023 Court of Appeal decision could have made it significantly easier for Māori groups to win recognition of customary rights over parts of the coastline. The government introduced a bill to Parliament last year to prevent that, but it hit pause in December after the Supreme Court effectively overturned the earlier ruling. At the time, Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith welcomed the development and said ministers would take time to reassess their plans. On Tuesday, Goldsmith confirmed to RNZ that Cabinet had agreed to press ahead with the law change regardless and to pass it before October. 'Everybody in New Zealand has an interest in what goes on in the coastline, and we're trying our best to get that balance right.' Goldsmith said he was not convinced that last year's Supreme Court ruling had set a high enough test for judging whether customary rights should be granted. 'We've had a couple of cases that have been decided since then – which have shown almost 100 percent of the coastline and those areas being granted customary marine title – which confirmed to us that the Supreme Court test still didn't achieve the balance that we think the legislation set out to achieve.' Asked whether he expected an upswell of protest, Goldsmith said that had been an earlier concern but: 'time will tell'. 'There's been a wide variety of views, some in favour, some against, but we think this is the right thing to do.' The legislation was one of the key objections raised by Ngāpuhi leaders last year when they walked out on a meeting with Prime Minister Christopher Luxon in protest. More than 200 applications for customary marine title are making their way through the courts. Under the amendment bill, any court decisions issued after 25 July 2024, will need to be reconsidered. That would appear to cover seven cases, involving various iwi from around the country. 'I understand their frustration over that,' Goldsmith said. 'But we believe it is very important to get this right, because it affects the whole of New Zealand.' Goldsmith said the government had set aside about $15 million to cover the additional legal costs. The Marine and Coastal Area Act was originally passed by the National-led government in 2011, replacing the controversial Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004, which had extinguished Māori customary rights in favour of Crown ownership. The 2004 law – introduced by Helen Clark's Labour government – provoked widespread protest and led to the creation of the Māori Party, now known as Te Pāti Māori. National's 2011 replacement declared that no one owned the foreshore and seabed but allowed Māori groups to seek recognition of their rights – or 'Customary Marine Title' – through the courts or in direct negotiations with the Crown. Customary title recognises exclusive Māori rights to parts of the foreshore and seabed, provided certain legal tests are met, including proving continuous and 'exclusive' use of the area since 1840 without substantial interruption. The 2023 Court of Appeal ruling, however, declared that groups only needed to show they had enough control over the area that they could keep others from using it, and that situations where the law itself had prevented them from doing so could be ignored. The Supreme Court subsequently overturned that and said the Court of Appeal had taken an unduly narrow approach in its interpretation.
