When governments panic, taxpayers usually end up with the bill. Right now in New South Wales, that bill is arriving in the form of massive legal fees for constitutional court battles the state was warned it would lose.
Freedom of information documents show that the NSW government has poured hundreds of thousands of dollars into defending controversial anti-protest laws. These laws, pushed through parliament in rapid-fire responses to public anxiety, keep crashing against the Australian Constitution.
If you think passing laws to secure the streets sounds reasonable, you need to look at what's actually happening in the courts. The state is losing, the laws are crumbling, and your money is funding both sides of the fight.
The True Cost of Public Assembly Restriction Declarations
The latest hit to the public purse comes from the failed defence of the Public Assembly Restriction Declaration (PARD) laws. Rushed through Parliament late last year following the tragic Bondi Beach terror attack, the PARD scheme gave the police commissioner the power to basically ban protests in designated areas for up to 14 days at a time.
It didn't work out.
The NSW Court of Appeal struck down the PARD framework in April 2026, ruling that it impermissibly burdened the implied constitutional right to freedom of political communication.
The price for that single legal mistake? Documents reveal the government spent $117,455.50 on external legal fees just to defend that one challenge.
But that's just the tip of the iceberg. Because the state lost the case, the court awarded costs to the plaintiffs—three activist groups including the Palestine Action Group. When those final bills are tallied, the taxpayer expense will skyrocket.
A Pattern of Legal Failures
This isn't an isolated incident. It's the second time in six months that the Minns government's anti-protest legislation has been declared unconstitutional.
Before the PARD failure, the NSW Supreme Court struck down an earlier law that granted police expanded powers to halt protests near places of worship. The government spent nearly $96,400 on barristers and solicitors trying to protect that piece of legislation.
Add in the money NSW Police spent opposing pro-Palestine march applications—such as the $91,600 spent fighting a successful protest application on the Sydney Harbour Bridge—and the total cash burn is staggering. In total, the state has dropped well over $300,000 on high court battles fighting activist groups, and that doesn't even factor in the cost of employing internal government lawyers.
Why Rushed Legislation Always Fails the Constitutional Test
Legal experts aren't surprised by these losses. In fact, they saw them coming from a mile away.
Australia doesn't have an explicit bill of rights in its federal constitution, but it does have a well-established implied freedom of political communication. This isn't a minor detail; it’s a foundational pillar of how representative government functions.
When the government creates a blunt instrument like the PARD scheme, it fails a basic legal test. The Court of Appeal pointed out that the PARD system lacked the flexibility to assess the actual risk or nature of individual protests. Instead of targeting actual threats, it simply imposed sweeping, blanket bans across entire geographic zones.
As constitutional law expert Anne Twomey warned before the laws fell: anti-protest laws rushed through parliament almost always face an unhappy ending when they get to court.
Inside the Labor party itself, MPs like Stephen Lawrence and Cameron Murphy warned their colleagues that the wording of these aggressive bills would fail constitutional scrutiny. The warning signs were ignored for the sake of quick political points.
What This Means for Your Rights and Your Wallet
The consequences of this legislative overreach extend far beyond the courtroom walls.
- Massive Civil Liability: Because police were enforcing laws that have now been ruled completely invalid, any directions given or arrests made under those specific powers are legally compromised. Legal analysts suggest civil liability claims for unlawful obstruction or wrongful arrest could eventually hit the state hard.
- Wasted Police Resources: While police are tasked with managing public safety, tracking and enforcing invalid laws pulls front-line resources away from actual community policing.
- Chilled Democratic Space: Passing laws that get struck down months later still creates a temporary chilling effect, scaring everyday citizens away from peaceful assembly out of fear of arrest.
The government argues that some of its legal efforts have been successful, noting they won a $27,600 administrative challenge regarding a major events declaration earlier this year. But winning minor administrative skirmishes doesn't fix the reality that the core legislative strategy is fundamentally broken.
Where New South Wales Goes From Here
If NSW wants to stop burning cash in the courts, the government needs to change how it approaches public demonstrations.
First, stop the midnight emergency sessions. Passing major changes to criminal law and public space regulation in the early hours of morning without rigorous constitutional vetting is a guarantee of future legal failure.
Second, look at frameworks that actually work. States like Victoria, Queensland, and the ACT operate with formal Human Rights Acts that give lawmakers a clear blueprint for balancing public safety with civil liberties. NSW lacks this baseline protection, leaving its laws uniquely vulnerable to messy, expensive constitutional challenges.
The state's political leaders need to accept a basic truth of democratic life, one explicitly noted by the Court of Appeal: a free society entails an acceptance of the potential for noise, disruption, and disharmony. Trying to legislate that reality away using unconstitutional shortcut laws doesn't make the state safer. It just makes the taxpayer poorer.
