Labor’s antisemitism laws face internal resistance over ‘draconian’ new police powers

The Minns government is facing internal pushback over new laws aimed at addressing a rise in antisemitism after several MPs raised concerns the bill would give police broad new powers to shut down any protests held near places of worship regardless of their purpose.

Already coming up against opposition to proposed new hate speech legislation, the Minns government is facing internal blowback over fears its laws targeting antisemitism would give police new powers to block peaceful protests.

The Minns government is facing backlash over new protest laws.Credit: Dean Sewell

The government on Tuesday introduced the first tranche of new laws targeting antisemitism, including a ban on protests outside places of worship and harsher sentences for the display of Nazi symbols on synagogues, the Jewish Museum or Jewish schools.

The laws have been introduced after a series of high-profile antisemitic attacks in Sydney, and in a speech to parliament on Tuesday Premier Chris Minns said the government was taking action after what he described as an intolerable “summer of rolling hatred”.

But critics say the new laws would give police the power to break up any demonstration “in or near a place of worship” unless they had prior authorisation from police or were part of an industrial dispute.

In a fiery Labor party room meeting on Tuesday, several MPs raised concern the power was not linked to whether demonstrators were intimidating or harassing worshippers, the aim initially outlined by Minns.

An unauthorised protest in June 2020 in support of refugees outside Sydney Town Hall.Credit: Dean Sewell

One Labor MP said upper house MP and former barrister Stephen Lawrence described the bill in the meeting “as the most draconian protest law in decades”, and questioned how proper government processes could result in such an ill-conceived proposal.

Multiple Labor MPs who spoke to the Herald anonymously to discuss internal party deliberations said many were concerned about the bill’s broader impact on peaceful protest.

Some MPs cited the example of Town Hall, which is next to the St Andrews Cathedral and is routinely used to host small, unofficial and snap demonstrations, raising concerns about the bill giving police power to stifle protests unrelated to religious institutions.

“This has absolutely nothing to do with stopping people being harassed going into a synagogue or church,” one MP said.

The bill was supported by most of the caucus, and the government has moved to allay MPs’ concerns by saying existing restrictions about when police could give “move along” directions, such as obstructing traffic or harassing members of the public, would still apply.

However, the internal pushback was significant enough that Anthony D’Adam, a Labor MP who has consistently clashed with Minns, moved an amendment to the bill in the party room which would have limited the new move-along powers to make them dependent on the offence of harassing or intimidating practitioners.

Despite the government’s assurances, the legislation has been criticised by civil liberties groups as well as victims of child sex abuse because of the limits it places on legitimate protests.

Sarah Schwartz, legal director of the Human Rights Centre, slammed what she labelled “rushed, knee-jerk laws”, criticising the government for criminalising “a vague range of activities”.

“There is no evidence that protests outside places of worship have any connection to the recent spate of serious antisemitic incidents,” she said.

“Governments should be prioritising investigating the nature of these incidents before passing rushed and punitive laws without proper community consultation.”

On the first sitting day of parliament for 2025, both major parties introduced bills which would crack down on protests.

The opposition Coalition tabled a private members’ bill which would give the government the power to force protesters to contribute to the cost of policing demonstrations if they held more than three gatherings in the same year.

The most contentious element of the government’s reforms, which create a new criminal offence for intentionally inciting racial hatred, will not be introduced until next week. The government said it would conduct a short consultation before releasing that bill.

That legislation has proven controversial because it would only apply to racially motivated hate speech, not vilification aimed at protected groups such as the LGBTQ community.

Minns has defended that decision because broader changes would be more difficult to navigate. Some religious groups, including the Catholic and Anglican churches, have opposed criminalising hate speech due to concerns it would impinge on preaching Christian values.

In his speech to parliament, Minns said the new laws were necessary after the chilling outbreak of antisemitic crime in Sydney, and referred to school children being “afraid to wear their uniforms in public” and parents not allowing their kids to catch public transport.

“We will not be a state where someone feels like they have to remove their yarmulke just to walk down the street,” he said.

Start the day with a summary of the day’s most important and interesting stories, analysis and insights. Sign up for our Morning Edition newsletter.