Protester confident in fight against new police powers
A state's solicitor-general has defended controversial laws that grant police the power to move protesters on from places of worship if they are deemed to be disruptive.
Michael Sexton SC faced the NSW Supreme Court on Thursday on behalf of the state government amid a challenge to the validity of anti-protest laws implemented in February.
Josh Lees, on behalf of the Palestine Action Group, launched legal action over the new laws which he claims are very broad, undefined, and threaten the right to protest in NSW.
Mr Sexton said the powers were confined to protecting people who were being targeted by disruptive protesters when entering or leaving a place of worship.
He told the court it was "difficult" to imagine a situation in which the laws would be enacted without the provocation of protesters causing harassment, intimidation or fear.
The police powers had an "obvious and legitimate purpose" after being introduced in response to threats and attacks at places of worship around Australia, Mr Sexton said.
Rather than standing alone, he told the court the laws were meant to be read in conjunction with other legislation which would lend context and application tests.
Mr Lees' barrister Craig Lenehan SC accused the state government of attempting to have the judge perform "judicial surgery" because of their unclear construction of the law.
He said the law had not been tailored for purpose and didn't provide any clarity to either police or protesters about the reach of the powers or the definition of nearness.
Mr Lenehan took aim at the "legislative blunderbuss" which he said was "blasting away at an ill-defined mischief" and would likely have a chilling effect on protesting in NSW.
"Because of those vagaries, the upshot is that a person might just stay home," he told the court.
Mr Lees' legal team argued the laws allow police to direct protesters to desist, even in instances where there was no evidence a worshipper had been obstructed, harassed or was in fear.
That meant the laws had stretched police powers beyond their legitimate constitutional bounds, the court was told.
Mr Lenehan contended the laws were discriminatory because they expressly target certain types of political speech in a way that inevitably favoured some viewpoints over others.
Mr Sexton argued the validity of the laws wasn't affected by the fact there were exemptions for union rallies or for people in charge of places of worship to permit protests.
After the hearing, Mr Lees said he was "very confident" in securing a positive court outcome.
"These laws are unconstitutional because of how vaguely and broadly they're worded which threatens the right to protest," he said outside court.
"I think we can say very fairly that the government's legal representatives had no answer to that today."
Justice Anna Mitchelmore has reserved her decision.
The contested laws were introduced by the state Labor government after a spate of anti-Semitic attacks across the nation and amid concerns about rallies going past the Great Synagogue in the Sydney CBD.
Before their passage, Attorney-General Michael Daley said stronger penalties and boosted police powers would ensure people could practise their faith in safety.
"We believe these proposed reforms strike the right balance between protecting people of faith and the community's right to protest," he said.
But a rabbi and other progressive faith leaders at the time warned the extra restrictions would lead to the over-policing of peaceful protests, including those by faith communities.
A state's solicitor-general has defended controversial laws that grant police the power to move protesters on from places of worship if they are deemed to be disruptive.
Michael Sexton SC faced the NSW Supreme Court on Thursday on behalf of the state government amid a challenge to the validity of anti-protest laws implemented in February.
Josh Lees, on behalf of the Palestine Action Group, launched legal action over the new laws which he claims are very broad, undefined, and threaten the right to protest in NSW.
Mr Sexton said the powers were confined to protecting people who were being targeted by disruptive protesters when entering or leaving a place of worship.
He told the court it was "difficult" to imagine a situation in which the laws would be enacted without the provocation of protesters causing harassment, intimidation or fear.
The police powers had an "obvious and legitimate purpose" after being introduced in response to threats and attacks at places of worship around Australia, Mr Sexton said.
Rather than standing alone, he told the court the laws were meant to be read in conjunction with other legislation which would lend context and application tests.
Mr Lees' barrister Craig Lenehan SC accused the state government of attempting to have the judge perform "judicial surgery" because of their unclear construction of the law.
He said the law had not been tailored for purpose and didn't provide any clarity to either police or protesters about the reach of the powers or the definition of nearness.
Mr Lenehan took aim at the "legislative blunderbuss" which he said was "blasting away at an ill-defined mischief" and would likely have a chilling effect on protesting in NSW.
"Because of those vagaries, the upshot is that a person might just stay home," he told the court.
Mr Lees' legal team argued the laws allow police to direct protesters to desist, even in instances where there was no evidence a worshipper had been obstructed, harassed or was in fear.
That meant the laws had stretched police powers beyond their legitimate constitutional bounds, the court was told.
Mr Lenehan contended the laws were discriminatory because they expressly target certain types of political speech in a way that inevitably favoured some viewpoints over others.
Mr Sexton argued the validity of the laws wasn't affected by the fact there were exemptions for union rallies or for people in charge of places of worship to permit protests.
After the hearing, Mr Lees said he was "very confident" in securing a positive court outcome.
"These laws are unconstitutional because of how vaguely and broadly they're worded which threatens the right to protest," he said outside court.
"I think we can say very fairly that the government's legal representatives had no answer to that today."
Justice Anna Mitchelmore has reserved her decision.
The contested laws were introduced by the state Labor government after a spate of anti-Semitic attacks across the nation and amid concerns about rallies going past the Great Synagogue in the Sydney CBD.
Before their passage, Attorney-General Michael Daley said stronger penalties and boosted police powers would ensure people could practise their faith in safety.
"We believe these proposed reforms strike the right balance between protecting people of faith and the community's right to protest," he said.
But a rabbi and other progressive faith leaders at the time warned the extra restrictions would lead to the over-policing of peaceful protests, including those by faith communities.
A state's solicitor-general has defended controversial laws that grant police the power to move protesters on from places of worship if they are deemed to be disruptive.
Michael Sexton SC faced the NSW Supreme Court on Thursday on behalf of the state government amid a challenge to the validity of anti-protest laws implemented in February.
Josh Lees, on behalf of the Palestine Action Group, launched legal action over the new laws which he claims are very broad, undefined, and threaten the right to protest in NSW.
Mr Sexton said the powers were confined to protecting people who were being targeted by disruptive protesters when entering or leaving a place of worship.
He told the court it was "difficult" to imagine a situation in which the laws would be enacted without the provocation of protesters causing harassment, intimidation or fear.
The police powers had an "obvious and legitimate purpose" after being introduced in response to threats and attacks at places of worship around Australia, Mr Sexton said.
Rather than standing alone, he told the court the laws were meant to be read in conjunction with other legislation which would lend context and application tests.
Mr Lees' barrister Craig Lenehan SC accused the state government of attempting to have the judge perform "judicial surgery" because of their unclear construction of the law.
He said the law had not been tailored for purpose and didn't provide any clarity to either police or protesters about the reach of the powers or the definition of nearness.
Mr Lenehan took aim at the "legislative blunderbuss" which he said was "blasting away at an ill-defined mischief" and would likely have a chilling effect on protesting in NSW.
"Because of those vagaries, the upshot is that a person might just stay home," he told the court.
Mr Lees' legal team argued the laws allow police to direct protesters to desist, even in instances where there was no evidence a worshipper had been obstructed, harassed or was in fear.
That meant the laws had stretched police powers beyond their legitimate constitutional bounds, the court was told.
Mr Lenehan contended the laws were discriminatory because they expressly target certain types of political speech in a way that inevitably favoured some viewpoints over others.
Mr Sexton argued the validity of the laws wasn't affected by the fact there were exemptions for union rallies or for people in charge of places of worship to permit protests.
After the hearing, Mr Lees said he was "very confident" in securing a positive court outcome.
"These laws are unconstitutional because of how vaguely and broadly they're worded which threatens the right to protest," he said outside court.
"I think we can say very fairly that the government's legal representatives had no answer to that today."
Justice Anna Mitchelmore has reserved her decision.
The contested laws were introduced by the state Labor government after a spate of anti-Semitic attacks across the nation and amid concerns about rallies going past the Great Synagogue in the Sydney CBD.
Before their passage, Attorney-General Michael Daley said stronger penalties and boosted police powers would ensure people could practise their faith in safety.
"We believe these proposed reforms strike the right balance between protecting people of faith and the community's right to protest," he said.
But a rabbi and other progressive faith leaders at the time warned the extra restrictions would lead to the over-policing of peaceful protests, including those by faith communities.
A state's solicitor-general has defended controversial laws that grant police the power to move protesters on from places of worship if they are deemed to be disruptive.
Michael Sexton SC faced the NSW Supreme Court on Thursday on behalf of the state government amid a challenge to the validity of anti-protest laws implemented in February.
Josh Lees, on behalf of the Palestine Action Group, launched legal action over the new laws which he claims are very broad, undefined, and threaten the right to protest in NSW.
Mr Sexton said the powers were confined to protecting people who were being targeted by disruptive protesters when entering or leaving a place of worship.
He told the court it was "difficult" to imagine a situation in which the laws would be enacted without the provocation of protesters causing harassment, intimidation or fear.
The police powers had an "obvious and legitimate purpose" after being introduced in response to threats and attacks at places of worship around Australia, Mr Sexton said.
Rather than standing alone, he told the court the laws were meant to be read in conjunction with other legislation which would lend context and application tests.
Mr Lees' barrister Craig Lenehan SC accused the state government of attempting to have the judge perform "judicial surgery" because of their unclear construction of the law.
He said the law had not been tailored for purpose and didn't provide any clarity to either police or protesters about the reach of the powers or the definition of nearness.
Mr Lenehan took aim at the "legislative blunderbuss" which he said was "blasting away at an ill-defined mischief" and would likely have a chilling effect on protesting in NSW.
"Because of those vagaries, the upshot is that a person might just stay home," he told the court.
Mr Lees' legal team argued the laws allow police to direct protesters to desist, even in instances where there was no evidence a worshipper had been obstructed, harassed or was in fear.
That meant the laws had stretched police powers beyond their legitimate constitutional bounds, the court was told.
Mr Lenehan contended the laws were discriminatory because they expressly target certain types of political speech in a way that inevitably favoured some viewpoints over others.
Mr Sexton argued the validity of the laws wasn't affected by the fact there were exemptions for union rallies or for people in charge of places of worship to permit protests.
After the hearing, Mr Lees said he was "very confident" in securing a positive court outcome.
"These laws are unconstitutional because of how vaguely and broadly they're worded which threatens the right to protest," he said outside court.
"I think we can say very fairly that the government's legal representatives had no answer to that today."
Justice Anna Mitchelmore has reserved her decision.
The contested laws were introduced by the state Labor government after a spate of anti-Semitic attacks across the nation and amid concerns about rallies going past the Great Synagogue in the Sydney CBD.
Before their passage, Attorney-General Michael Daley said stronger penalties and boosted police powers would ensure people could practise their faith in safety.
"We believe these proposed reforms strike the right balance between protecting people of faith and the community's right to protest," he said.
But a rabbi and other progressive faith leaders at the time warned the extra restrictions would lead to the over-policing of peaceful protests, including those by faith communities.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Sky News AU
an hour ago
- Sky News AU
Treasurer Jim Chalmers 'pouring cold water on investment' with Labor's proposed unrealised gains tax, Geoff Wilson warns
Treasurer Jim Chalmers is 'pouring cold water on investment' and 'penalising' Australians taking on financial risk through Labor's proposed changes to superannuation accounts above $3m, a leading fund manager has warned. Mr Chalmers on Wednesday vowed a boost to Australia's productivity and deliver major tax reform in a speech to the National Press Club. His promise drew criticism from Wilson Asset Management founder Geoff Wilson, who lambasted Labor's plans to alter how large superannuation funds are taxed - which includes targeting unrealised capital gains. "You can't say the economy lacks dynamism and innovation, then introduce a tax that penalises long-term investment and risk-taking,' Mr Wilson told 'Taxing unrealised gains in superannuation does the opposite of what's needed — it punishes prudence, discourages capital formation and undermines confidence in the rules of the game. 'The Treasurer admits we need more innovation — while taxing the very gains that fund it. 'You can't light a fire under the economy by pouring cold water on investment." A common criticism of the plan to tax unrealised gains on assets – including properties and shares – above the threshold in super funds is the impact it will have on small businesses. Many small business owners put assets in their self-managed super funds (SMSF), but under Labor's plan those above the threshold would be forced to pay tax on paper gains. Similarly, some investors use their SMSF as a low tax investment vehicle for startup businesses. Wilson Asset Management sent a note to shareholders warning if the tax were applied to a company like US$40b design platform Canva, which achieved its massive valuation after 18 funding rounds, the company would have failed. 'Under taxing of unrealised gains every funding round would require tax to be paid on a hypothetical valuation,' the report reads. 'Most startups operate with negative cashflow and when capital is raised it is to fund growth, not to provide liquidity to investors. 'Therefore, there is no liquidity to pay tax on an unrealised gain.' Labor's changes to super accounts $3m will also not be indexed and capture more and more Australians over time. AMP's chief economist Shane Oliver said the lack of indexing across the tax system, including under Labor's proposed super tax changes, was something the government needed to change. 'We should be looking at removing areas where, as far as possible, we're not indexing,' Mr Oliver told 'The ideal should be indexing things, not leaving more parts of the tax system unindexed and at the behest of what future governments might do.' The government insists its super change affects only the top 0.5 per cent of accounts, however, modelling from AMP deputy chief economist Diana Mousina suggests otherwise. 'An average 22-year-old today, who's earning average full-time earnings, will hit the cap when they get to about 62 years old on my analysis,' Ms Mousina told Sky News. 'So that's before they actually reach retirement.' She warned the government's failure to index the $3 million cap means growing numbers of Australians will eventually be drawn into the tax net. 'My estimates were actually, I think, understating the amount of people that will hit the cap because I used quite low return assumptions,' Ms Mousina said. She also flagged broader economic distortions that may result from the policy as people try to find a way around the taxes. 'If people know that their super is going to be hit, then inheritances will go elsewhere,' she said. 'More people will probably go to purchase a home, which has implications for home prices in the future. 'So people will find a way around this system to try and reduce their taxable income as much as possible.'
The Age
2 hours ago
- The Age
People are leaving Australia in the highest numbers since the pandemic
People are leaving Australia in the highest numbers since the pandemic, easing population growth and signalling the end of a two-year migrant boom overseen by the Albanese government despite its pledges to curb immigration. International student numbers have also started stabilising after years of concern over surging arrivals, which will relieve Labor ministers who last year tried to limit overseas enrolments but were blocked by the Coalition and Greens in parliament. But the green shoots for Labor will be countered by new challenges in other parts of the immigration system, such as a growing cohort of people on bridging visas and skilled graduates seeking longer stays. The government on Thursday welcomed fresh figures from the Australian Bureau of Statistics that showed 70,000 people left the country in the December quarter of last year – the highest departure figures since the March 2020, when 88,500 people left Australia as the pandemic struck. It follows departure numbers of 65,000 in September 2024 and 63,000 in June 2024, which were already the highest since the end of 2020. Until then, departure rates lagged, leading to record surges in the population. About 50,000 people left Australia each quarter in 2022-23, while more than triple that number arrived, hindering the Albanese government's efforts to keep a lid on population growth and exposing Labor to political attack for losing control of the immigration system. Former immigration department deputy secretary Abul Rizvi said the recent uptick in departure rates was good news for the government, albeit inevitable given how many people had arrived. 'The peak has passed [and] policy has to some degree done what it's supposed to do,' he said. Further relief has come from a relative stall in student numbers. There were about 673,000 student visa holders in Australia in March this year, compared with 671,000 in March 2024, 583,000 in March 2023, and 336,844 in March 2022.
Perth Now
3 hours ago
- Perth Now
Budget billions helps cashed-up state lead debt battle
The nation's wealthiest state is on track to remain an outlier on debt compared to other jurisdictions as it unveils another massive surplus. Western Australian Treasurer Rita Saffioti's second state budget on Thursday delivered a $2.5 billion windfall for the current financial year, with a further $2.4 billion surplus projected for 2025-26. It's the state's seventh consecutive operating surplus, which the Cook government says will help the resource-rich state diversify and set its economy up for the future. "This budget is about fortifying Western Australia from these global shocks," she told reporters at the budget lockup. "We've focused on strong economic management and strong finances. "We could blow all the money and then leave unsustainable debt for our future generations, but we're not going to do that." Net debt is expected to grow to $33.6 billion at the end of the current financial year, $1.1 billion more than forecast in December, and expand to $42.4 billion over the forward estimates. The treasurer said debt was more than $10 billion lower than projected when WA Labor came to office in 2017. At 7.5 per cent of Gross State Product, the state's debt levels are the lowest in the nation, with net debt to GSP forecast to remain well below 10 per cent of GSP over the next four years. By contrast, NSW, Victoria, Queensland and South Australia all have net debt to GSP ratios growing to an average of more than 20 per cent or more over the next four years. WA had gone from having the highest ratio of net debt as a percentage of GSP in the country at 13.8 per cent under the previous Liberal-National government to having the lowest under WA Labor, Ms Saffioti said. WA's relatively lower debt position can be linked to its controversial GST deal, consulting firm Adept Economics said. Debt is climbing rapidly in all states except WA over the next four years, according to the firm's analysis. Victoria has the worst debt outlook, while NSW, SA and Queensland are competing for the second-worst position, it said By 2027-28, gross state debt per capita will be $35,000 in Victoria, $30,000 in SA, $29,000 in Queensland and $28,000 in NSW. Western Australia had the most favourable debt outlook at about $18,000. Ms Saffioti said WA was the most resilient state in the nation and with manageable debt levels. The market for WA's key commodity, iron ore, also remained strong, along with domestic consumption and the jobs market, but global impacts on international trading partners could be significant in the future, she said. The treasurer said WA's controversial GST share was fundamental to the state's ability to fund new industrial projects that sent much of their revenue to federal coffers. WEST AUSTRALIAN LABOR GOVERNMENT BUDGET FOR 2025/26 * Surplus: $2.4 billion * Revenue: $50.2 billion * Expenditure: $ 47.8 billion * Net debt: $38.9 billion * GST revenue: $7.8 billion * Employment growth: 1.75 per cent * Economic growth: 2.5 per cent
