The Legal Light Justin Stack The law and our "implied" right to protest It's not every day that the highest court in NSW rules legislation passed by NSW parliament banning street protests was invalid because it breached a constitutional right to protest, especially when there is no such right to protest contained in the Australian constitution. Three Supreme Court judges of the NSW Court of Appeal declared that sections amending the NSW Terrorism (Police Powers) Act and Summary Offences Act banning protests after the Bondi terror attack "impermissibly burdened the implied constitutional freedom of communication on government and political matters" and were therefore invalid. Geoff Baldwin, senior lawyer at Stacks Law Firm, says the important word there is "implied". He explains the judgment against the NSW laws banning protests rests on this word, because there is no clearly stated protection of protest rights or free speech in the Australian constitution. "Search the constitution for terms such as 'right to protest' and 'freedom of speech' and you won't find them," Mr Baldwin said. "The constitution is, in effect, an operations manual, given over mostly to setting out the way in which the Australian government is elected; the way in which its parliament, the executive and the judiciary operate, and its relationship to the states. "The 'implied' right to protest lies in decisions made by the High Court of Australia over years, that the constitution protects freedom of political communication because it creates our democratic system of government, and the freedom to discuss political and government matters is indispensable to democracy and the electoral process. "This implied freedom is not a personal human right, like it is in the United States constitution. Rather, it is a limit on laws and government decisions that unreasonably restrict political discussion and debate, and that can include peaceful protest." The court noted the NSW laws banning protests after the Bondi terror attack were aimed at protecting social cohesion, but the judges ruled they were too broad and would capture any protest, including those that supported social cohesion. The court said that "quelling one particular form of political communication in the interests of protecting another part of the community from a sense of unease or threat (not associated with any proximate physical threat) is not a constitutionally legitimate purpose". The judges declared Australia's system of government "entails acceptance of the potential for disharmony, incivility and disruption that is part and parcel of democratic intercourse". It was not the first time NSW laws were invalidated by the courts. Last October the Supreme Court invalidated police powers to move on protesters who were near places of worship. STACKS LAW FIRM Madaline Shepherd Licensed Conveyancer 02 6592 6592 taree.stacklaw.com.au Partners in life The Legal Light Justin Stack The law and our " implied " right to protest It's not every day that the highest court in NSW rules legislation passed by NSW parliament banning street protests was invalid because it breached a constitutional right to protest , especially when there is no such right to protest contained in the Australian constitution . Three Supreme Court judges of the NSW Court of Appeal declared that sections amending the NSW Terrorism ( Police Powers ) Act and Summary Offences Act banning protests after the Bondi terror attack " impermissibly burdened the implied constitutional freedom of communication on government and political matters " and were therefore invalid . Geoff Baldwin , senior lawyer at Stacks Law Firm , says the important word there is " implied " . He explains the judgment against the NSW laws banning protests rests on this word , because there is no clearly stated protection of protest rights or free speech in the Australian constitution . " Search the constitution for terms such as ' right to protest ' and ' freedom of speech ' and you won't find them , " Mr Baldwin said . " The constitution is , in effect , an operations manual , given over mostly to setting out the way in which the Australian government is elected ; the way in which its parliament , the executive and the judiciary operate , and its relationship to the states . " The ' implied ' right to protest lies in decisions made by the High Court of Australia over years , that the constitution protects freedom of political communication because it creates our democratic system of government , and the freedom to discuss political and government matters is indispensable to democracy and the electoral process . " This implied freedom is not a personal human right , like it is in the United States constitution . Rather , it is a limit on laws and government decisions that unreasonably restrict political discussion and debate , and that can include peaceful protest . " The court noted the NSW laws banning protests after the Bondi terror attack were aimed at protecting social cohesion , but the judges ruled they were too broad and would capture any protest , including those that supported social cohesion . The court said that " quelling one particular form of political communication in the interests of protecting another part of the community from a sense of unease or threat ( not associated with any proximate physical threat ) is not a constitutionally legitimate purpose " . The judges declared Australia's system of government " entails acceptance of the potential for disharmony , incivility and disruption that is part and parcel of democratic intercourse " . It was not the first time NSW laws were invalidated by the courts . Last October the Supreme Court invalidated police powers to move on protesters who were near places of worship . STACKS LAW FIRM Madaline Shepherd Licensed Conveyancer 02 6592 6592 taree.stacklaw.com.au Partners in life