The expanding architecture of police power and the shrinking space for public dissent

Prior to the Bondi massacre on 14 December 2026, individuals wanting to protest in a public space could seek authorisation from the NSW Police under Part 4 of the Summary Offences Act 1988.

While it is not legally required to obtain this authorisation to hold a protest, since protesting itself is not illegal, organisers who submit a Form 1 Notice to NSW Police at least seven days in advance may gain certain protections for protesters, shielding them from specific criminal charges such as obstruction of traffic. Additionally, it allows police to plan and set any necessary conditions for the event.

However, police can object to a Form 1, based on safety or potential disruption to traffic. For a Form 1 submitted with seven or more days’ notice, the protest is automatically authorised, unless NSW Police apply to the Supreme Court to prohibit it. For a Form 1 submitted with less than seven days’ notice, the protest is not automatically authorised; protesters need to apply to the Supreme Court to authorise it.

In response to the Bondi shootings, the NSW government introduced laws that enabled the police to issue Public Assembly Restriction Declarations (PARDs). By 24 December, these powers were in effect and the central metro, south-west, and north-west Sydney regions were under PARDs. During a PARD, no Form 1 process can be initiated and consequently no protests can be authorised. The geographic coverage of the PARD was reduced on 20 January 2026 so that the Invasion Day march and other rallies could take place on 26 January 2026.

Crucially, a PARD doesn’t ban an assembly; it simply makes it not possible to authorise one.

The distinction is bureaucratic, but the effect is blunt: it denies protest organisers the crucial protections that flow from a Form 1 authorisation under the Summary Offences Act. Without that authorisation, protesters are not protected from certain offences such as obstruction of traffic.

VIEW ALL

Prior to the Bondi massacre, the Palestine Action Group had organised regular marches in the city.

Another was scheduled for 9 February 2026. Their intention was for protesters to march from Town Hall to Parliament House, a route which fell squarely within the PARD area.

NSW Police offered an alternative route, starting at Hyde Park; however, protest organisers denied that request and insisted they would gather at Sydney Town Hall before marching to NSW Parliament, arguing the PARD was excessive, unjustified and unlawful and the government was trying to shut down dissent.

In addition to the PARD restrictions, on 6 February, President Isaac Herzog’s visit was declared a “major event”, triggering the expansive police powers of the Major Events Act. NSW Police had the authority to restrict entry, direct movement, conduct searches, and use “reasonable force” to remove individuals.

Most of the CBD became a controlled zone. Once again, protest was not explicitly banned, but was rendered practically impossible.

Essentially, it was not only the PARD that prevented the protest; the PARD restricted the protest from being authorised, but it was the Major Events Act Declaration that prohibited protesters from entering the Town Hall area.

My experience in police accountability and conducting civil claims against the police arising from previous protests led me to hold real concerns that police would act aggressively and use unreasonable force against protesters.

However, even I was shocked by how ugly the situation became and the disturbing images of police officers using what objectively appeared to be excessive amounts of force.

The combined legislative and judicial developments have produced a new reality: police and ministers can now, through layered declarations, effectively shut down protests.

Whereas previously they would have to apply to the Supreme Court to seek prohibition of a protest (or defend an application for approval) notified through the Form 1 process, now, when either the PARD or major event declarations are in place, they do not need to do anything.

The legal architecture preserves the appearance of a democratic process while draining it of substance.

Further, the Major Events Act includes an immunity clause that insulates NSW Police from civil claims if they overstep their powers in “good faith” and do not cause personal injury.

This immunity may extend only to conduct within the act’s narrow powers.

Any additional force exercised, such as for arrests or takedowns, comes from other statutes like LEPRA, and may not be covered.

This is unknown legal territory and will probably work its way through the higher courts.

What is emerging in NSW is not an explicit prohibition on protest, but a strengthening of executive control in which the practical ability to assemble is weakened.

There is a question around whether the new executive powers are justified in the aftermath of a terrorist incident, as a means of reducing the risk of further violence and minimising community tension.

The constitutional requirement is that laws that restrict political communication be reasonably appropriate and adapted, or proportionate, to serve a legitimate purpose compatible with representative and responsible government.

These are the difficult and important debates and legal tests that must be confronted and determined as the right to protest is weakened through legislative change and the expansion of executive authority.

Sam Lee is an assistant principal solicitor with Redfern Legal Centre.