NSW on the Brink: New Hate-Speech Measures Push the State Toward Australia’s Most Repressive Protest Regime

New South Wales is once again tightening its protest and public-order laws — this time in response to a small neo-Nazi rally in Sydney — and civil-liberties advocates warn that the state is rapidly transforming into Australia’s most repressive jurisdiction for public dissent.

Premier Chris Minns has signalled that his government will introduce new changes to hate-speech and protest laws to Parliament this week. The announcement comes after a handful of members of the National Socialist Network gathered near a Jewish community centre, shouting extremist slogans and calling for the “abolition of the Jewish lobby.” The protest, while disturbing, was small and swiftly condemned. Yet its political fallout may reshape the civil-liberties landscape for millions of NSW residents.

A Familiar Pattern: Isolated Extremism, Sweeping Legislation

The Minns Government insists the aim is public safety. Proposed changes include:

• Expanded “move-on powers” for police near places of worship

• Clearer prohibitions on Nazi symbols, gestures, and chants

• Stronger criminal penalties for speech that authorities deem hate-based or intimidating

These reforms follow an earlier suite of anti-protest laws passed in 2022, which introduced some of the harshest penalties in the country for obstructing roads or infrastructure. People participating in peaceful climate protests have already faced criminal convictions and the threat of jail.

Legal experts say the trend is unmistakable: NSW governments — both Coalition and Labor — have embraced a law-and-order arms race that chips away at the right to protest under the banner of public safety.

In fact, NSW’s own Supreme Court has already struck down parts of a previous anti-protest law for breaching the implied freedom of political communication in the Australian Constitution. Despite this judicial warning, the government is preparing to try again.

Civil Liberties at Risk

Human-rights groups argue the new proposals risk granting police extraordinarily broad discretionary power — the power to decide which groups are allowed to assemble, where they may stand, and what they may say.

These concerns are not academic. Recent history shows NSW Police have used public-order laws:

• To arrest climate protesters for slow-marching

• To disperse Indigenous rights rallies

• To threaten fines for peaceful vigils

• To surveil organisers and political activists well before events occur

Adding expanded hate-speech and move-on powers to this framework could entrench a system in which any protest deemed “disruptive,” “uncomfortable,” or “controversial” can be shut down on the spot.

The danger, experts say, is that legislation designed to target neo-Nazis will inevitably be used against far broader groups, including union activists, environmentalists, religious dissenters, and multicultural communities.

A State Becoming a Test Case for Restrictive Policing

NSW is already regarded by academics as having:

• The broadest definition of “public-order offence”

• The highest penalties for protest-related disruption

• One of the most expansive regimes for police discretionary powers

• A long record of applying anti-association laws far beyond their intended targets

With the Premier’s new proposals, the state edges closer to becoming a national test case for how far a government can push its control over political expression.

The Paradox of Protection

The irony is stark: extremist fringe groups may be the least affected by such laws. They thrive on attention, operate online, and often welcome confrontation with police.

It is ordinary people — community members who want to march, gather, or speak out — who will face the greatest chill. When laws are ambiguous, harshly penalised, and enforced through on-the-spot police judgment, the safest choice for many is simply not to protest at all.

And that, civil-liberties groups warn, is how democracies lose their culture of dissent — not overnight, but through incremental restrictions introduced in the name of safety, until the very act of peaceful assembly becomes treated as a threat.

A Turning Point for NSW

As Parliament prepares to debate the new legislation, NSW stands at a crossroads. It can respond to extremist provocation with measured, constitutionally sound policy — or it can continue down the path of broad, reactionary laws that cast a long shadow over democratic freedoms.

What is clear is that the latest proposals could further cement NSW’s reputation as Australia’s most repressive state for protest rights, a title that no democracy should aspire to hold.

By Charlie Armstrong Adams