The New South Wales Police Commissioner, Mal Lanyon, has extended controversial protest restrictions in Sydney for a further 14 days, citing ongoing public safety concerns in the aftermath of the Bondi Beach terror attack. The move — enabled by new post-attack legislation — has drawn sharp criticism from civil liberties groups and activist organisations, one of which has vowed to file a legal challenge in the NSW Supreme Court this week over what they describe as an infringement on fundamental democratic rights.
What the Extension Means: Public Assemblies Remain Restricted
Under the Public Assembly Restriction Declaration (PARD) — introduced on 24 December 2025 — police have the power to limit authorised protests in designated Sydney metropolitan areas for an initial 14-day period follwing a declared terrorist incident. The recent extension keeps these restrictions in place until at least 20 January 2026 in the South West Metropolitan, North West Metropolitan and Central Metropolitan policing areas.
While static gatherings such as vigils or quiet reflection are technically permitted, no formal protest authorisations (so-called Form 1 approvals) will be accepted during this period. Without authorisation, protesters lose legal protections against offences such as obstructing pedestrians or traffic, and police can issue move-on directions or take enforcement action.
Commissioner Lanyon explicitly said the extension is “not about stopping free speech” but framed it as necessary to ensure the community can “feel safe” and minimise fear or tension in the city. He emphasised that peaceful behaviour remains lawful but warned that unauthorised assemblies could attract penalties.
Legislative Background: Law Changes After Bondi Attack
The restrictions stem from controversial laws passed by the NSW Parliament on 24 December 2025 in response to the deadly Bondi Beach terror attack that killed 15 people in mid-December. The legislation — part of a broader package that also includes tightened gun controls and hate speech reforms — grants the police commissioner the authority to prohibit or restrict public assemblies in specified areas for up to three months after a declared terrorist incident, with oversight through fortnightly reviews.
According to the NSW Government, the intent is to prevent intimidation, harassment or fear in the community, and allow police to manage resources effectively during periods of heightened sensitivity. However, civil liberties advocates argue the scope of the powers is broad and open to misuse, especially as no formal protest applications can be lodged while the declaration is active.
Activist Group Plans Legal Challenge This Week
In response to the announcement, the Palestine Action Group — one of several activist organisations critical of the restrictions — has confirmed it will file a constitutional challenge in the NSW Supreme Court this week. The group argues that the law unlawfully curtails the implied freedom of political communication and the democratic right to protest.
Legal experts aligned with the group contend the powers exceed what is reasonably necessary for public safety and could be interpreted as an unconstitutional suppression of dissent, particularly because they allow blanket denial of protest authorisation without clear timelines or robust parliamentary oversight.
Other advocacy bodies, including the NSW Council for Civil Liberties, have warned that extended restrictions — if allowed to continue beyond the current fortnight — risk turning emergency powers into a normalised tool to stifle public expression.
Criticism from Rights Groups and Politicians
Civil liberties activists and opposition politicians have been vocal in their opposition. Critics argue that while public safety is important, the current framework lacks proportionality and allows police to effectively block most protest activity without sufficient checks and balances.
Timothy Roberts, president of the NSW Council for Civil Liberties, warned that the law could undermine trust in democratic institutions if it is used to suppress peaceful protest. He emphasised that authorisation processes provide important legal safeguards, which are now being sidelined.
Political opponents also point out that protests unrelated to terrorism — including recent demonstrations against international events, such as the U.S. capture of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro — have already been affected. Despite the restrictions, activists defied the ban at a protest in central Sydney that drew more than 250 participants, resulting in a handful of arrests before participants were released without charge.
Government and Police Perspective: Safety and Calm
In defending the extension, Police Minister Yasmin Catley and other government officials reiterated that the measures are intended to protect the community and reduce tension in the wake of the shock Bondi attack. They argue that the state remains in a delicate phase of recovery where inflamed demonstrations could inadvertently spark conflict or fear.
Supporters of the restrictions also highlight that the powers explicitly do not ban all gatherings — rather, they control and manage higher-risk assemblies that might block major thoroughfares or escalate into disorder.
Commissioner Lanyon has repeatedly stated that the focus is on ensuring peaceful activities can proceed without fear of intimidation or harassment, and that the extended declaration has a review point after another 14 days.
Impact on Upcoming Events and Public Life
The extension of the protest restrictions carries potential implications for other public events scheduled in Sydney, including Australia Day and Invasion Day rallies on 26 January, which historically attract large crowds and marches. While static vigils or quiet gatherings may still be permissible, full-scale street marches and demonstrations could fall foul of the current restriction unless the laws are amended or the declaration is lifted.
The uncertainty surrounding restrictions has already generated debate among community groups and local councils about the scope of allowable activities and how authorities balance safety with democratic freedoms as civic life returns to normal.
Broader Debate: Rights, Safety and Democracy
The extension of Sydney’s protest restrictions encapsulates a broader national conversation about how governments respond to terrorism, public order and civil liberties in times of heightened tension. Proponents of strong security measures argue that extraordinary circumstances require extraordinary powers, while civil liberties advocates see the current framework as a potential precedent for overreach that could outlast the immediate crisis.
As the legal challenge unfolds in the NSW Supreme Court and public debate continues, the case is likely to test the boundaries of emergency powers and how they intersect with constitutional principles of freedom of expression and assembly in a modern democracy.
7 years in the field, from local radio to digital newsrooms. Loves chasing the stories that matter to everyday Aussies – whether it’s climate, cost of living or the next big thing in tech.
