Designating the Domain a protest site? The changes Minns is considering to avoid ‘unnecessary burden’ from demonstrations | New South Wales

NSW premier Chris Minns is understood to be considering changes to the form 1 system and land use policies to reduce protests in the Sydney CBD.

A poll of 1,022 Australians conducted between Tuesday and Friday last week found that 62% of respondents nationally and the same proportion in NSW supported strengthening police powers to disrupt protests, with just 17% opposed; 38 percent said they “strongly support” it.

The strong forces were supported by nearly two-thirds of Labor voters nationally and three-quarters of Coalition voters. Only Green voters showed less enthusiasm, giving 38% support.

The poll results follow two years of regular protests in the Sydney CBD organized by the Palestine Action Group over Israel’s war in Gaza. Although peaceful by nature, they faced harsh criticism from prominent figures and some Jewish groups.

Anti-immigration groups have also held protests in the Sydney CBD recently, while in November a police-authorised rally by neo-Nazi group the National Socialist Network was held outside the NSW parliament.

The Prime Minister made clear that he believed the protests should be stopped to preserve social cohesion, especially after the Bondi massacre on December 14.

_{Sign up: AÜ Breaking News email}

Following the terrorist attack, the NSW parliament passed strict new gun laws and gave the police commissioner permission to restrict protests in two-week intervals for up to three months after the terrorist incident was declared.

But the prime minister wants more permanent controls, particularly over regular protests in the city.

“We are seeking to change aspects of the law that we feel place an undue burden on safety and security,” the Prime Minister said on Wednesday.

“I understand, I accept, and I think it is important to hold public demonstrations in a major city like Sydney. I have never said otherwise, but it must be understood that the highest and most important obligation of a government is to protect its citizens…

“There are literally thousands of NSW police officers who must be deployed to investigate domestic violence crimes or regulate or protect public gatherings at the expense of keeping the rest of the community safe,” he said.

Passing legislation without unduly burdening the constitutionally implied freedom of political expression is a challenge, but sources said the NSW government was considering a range of options to achieve its aim.

One option on the table is to give NSW police discretion to reject Form 1 applications for protests after a certain number of applications.

Form 1 does not constitute a permit to protest, but protest organizers are encouraged to submit a form as it allows organizers and police to share information about expected numbers, march routes and safety issues. In return for submitting the form, protesters are protected from prosecution under the Summary Offenses Act, such as obstructing traffic or obstructing pedestrians.

Critics of more restrictive rules warn protest organizers will be less inclined to fill out form 1, making the police’s job even more difficult. Numerical restrictions on application numbers will also be difficult to manage, as protest groups often lack legal personality and groups may have similar issues but be legally unrelated.

Another option being considered is to use planning laws and land use criteria to identify areas suitable for protest and prohibit others from doing so.

Opera House Trust Act There are already restrictions in the statute of “demonstrations” posting signs and using public address systems in their buildings, but these do not appear to have stopped the forecourt protests.

One idea floated was to designate the Area as a protest site under land use rules.

A NSW parliamentary committee investigating whether slogans and chants should be banned is expected to report back by Friday.

Changes already flagged include banning the phrase “globalizing the intifada” and possibly other phrases reportedly used in pro-Palestinian protests.

This phrase, which means uprising or “liberation from the meeting” in Arabic, is used by pro-Palestinian supporters to refer to the uprisings against Israel in 1987 and 2000. Members of the Jewish community said this was a call to violence against them.

The inquiry will meet this week to finalize its recommendations to the government, allowing legislation to be tabled once the state parliament restarts next week.

Before the inquiry received all submissions, committee chairman Labor MP Edmond Atalla told Guardian Australia he would recommend the phrase be banned in its draft report being considered by the Labor majority committee.

Atalla could not comment on the model he recommended. Both the NSW Jewish Board of Deputies and the Executive Council of Australian Jews have proposed creating a new offense for what they call “hateful slogans” such as “globalising the intifada” and “from river to sea”.

Jillian Segal, the special envoy to combat antisemitism, has called for existing hate speech laws to be reformed in line with Western Australian law, which includes lighter penalties where intent cannot be proven. The office also called for the creation of a new offense banning conduct that “encourages, advocates or glorifies violence, destruction or death,” including statements that “could reasonably be interpreted as encouraging violence.”

Constitutional law experts, including Prof Anne Twomey of the University of Sydney, said the proposal to ban certain political chants raised potential constitutional issues, while groups such as the Palestine Movement, the Jewish Council of Australia and the National Council of Imams of Australia rejected the idea that phrases such as “globalising the intifada” were inherently hateful or anti-Semitic and said the ban would curtail constitutional freedoms.