The New South Wales government's legal battles over protest laws have been a costly affair, with taxpayers footing the bill for hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees. The latest figures reveal a staggering expenditure of over $305,500 on cases against pro-Palestine groups in NSW's highest courts, with an additional $87,099.29 spent on successful contests. This comes as no surprise, given the government's history of rushing through controversial legislation in the wake of the Bondi terror attack. The Pard laws, in particular, were enacted to give the police commissioner the power to ban protesting in a particular area after a suspected terrorist attack, despite concerns raised by legal experts and civil liberties groups. The state's court of appeal struck down the laws in April, finding them to be unconstitutional and burdening the implied constitutional right to freedom of political communication. This is not the first time the government has faced legal setbacks. In October, the NSW Supreme Court ruled an older law that gave police expanded powers to prevent protests near places of worship unconstitutional, resulting in a $96,400 legal bill. The government's attempts to limit protests to places of worship were also met with resistance from within its own ranks. Upper house Labor MP Anthony D'Adam moved a motion to redraft the bill, warning that the current wording could be found unconstitutional. Despite these warnings, the premier, Chris Minns, claimed the laws were 'constitutionally sound'. The government's legal troubles extend beyond the courts. The NSW Police spent over $91,600 on external barristers and solicitors to fight a 'form 1' application to authorise a pro-Palestine protest on the Sydney Harbour Bridge, which they ultimately lost. The police also spent almost $59,500 on legal fees to oppose a planned pro-Palestine march to the Sydney Opera House, which was prohibited by the court due to 'extreme' safety concerns. These legal battles highlight the government's struggle to balance public safety and democratic rights. While the government argues that these laws are necessary to protect the community and maintain social cohesion, critics argue that they infringe upon fundamental freedoms. The high cost of these legal battles raises questions about the government's priorities and the effectiveness of its legislative approach. As the government continues to defend its protest laws, the financial burden on taxpayers remains a pressing concern. The outcome of these legal battles will have significant implications for the future of protest laws in NSW and the balance of power between the government and its citizens.
