Today, the High Court has handed down its decision in Ravbar & Anor v Commonwealth of Australia & ORS [2025], otherwise known as the case testing the legality of the CFMEU administration. The High Court found the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Administration) Act 2024 is constitutionally valid. 

The NSW Council for Civil Liberties (NSWCCL) remains seriously concerned about the administration and its implications for all member-based civil society organisations, unions, and registered clubs. Last year, the Commonwealth removed democratic control of the CFMEU by its members on the basis of what were at the time, untested allegations. The findings of the High Court do not negate that the CFMEU was placed into administration without, at the time the legislation was passed, any proven allegations of wrongdoing. The appropriate response from the government should have been to test the allegations against CFMEU officials and delegates in court, and if proven, sought the removal of the officials. This process was circumvented when administration was imposed by parliament, and went against the essential democratic principles of innocence until proven guilty, due process and freedom of association. The administration legislation may now operate as a legal model for the takeover of other unions and other member-based civil society organisations in the future. 

Over the past twelve months there has been a worrying trend of state overreach by the federal Labor Government, which threatens to undermine the rule of law, including through the passing of the Administration Act and the introductions of mandatory minimum sentencing late last year. The NSWCCL maintains that everyone has the right to natural justice and procedural fairness, regardless of the allegations they face. 

The independence of membership-based organisations across Australia must be protected and Australia must uphold its obligations under the International Labour Organisation, namely Articles 3 and 4 of the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948.

Today, the NSW Premier Chris Minns has refused to appear before the NSW Legislative Council’s inquiry into the handling of the Dural Caravan incident. 

It was revealed in a previous hearing with NSW Police that the Premier and the Police Minister were briefed ‘very early on’ that the incident was like a criminal hoax, yet the Premier continued to use language of ‘mass casualty event’ and ‘terrorism’ in media related to the events.

This and other incidents were used as justification to pass a series of repressive laws including the Places of Worship Act, which restricts protest ‘at or near places of worship’ and is having its constitutionality tested before the NSW Supreme Court from Thursday, and the Inciting Racial Hatred Act.

Yesterday the University of Sydney administration announced that it has adopted a policy that represses political speech and activism on campus. This includes the banning  of banners or on campus without receiving prior permission and constraints on staff sending political emails. 

Comments attributable to Timothy Roberts, President NSWCCL 

“The adoption of this policy is a continuation of an alarming trend of political repression and the loss of academic freedom at the University of Sydney. The University’s leadership continues to take regressive stances on speech that should be of grave concern to not only current and former students and staff, but our community. We rely on institutions like USyd having free and open discussions on complex issues. 

Today the NSW Labor Government has announced that they will be reviewing the legal principle of doli incapax. 

Doli incapax is a way the Courts protect our community by ensuring that when prosecuting children, between the age of 10 and 14, the prosecution has to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the child knows and is capable of knowing what they did was wrong.

The use of beyond reasonable doubt is another, even ancient, community protection that ensures a high standard of evidence in criminal matters. This is important given the serious consequences for a person if convicted of a criminal matter, and the priority the community places on not convicting innocent people in our community. 

The NSW Council for Civil Liberties (NSWCCL) welcomed the opportunity to make a submission to the Justice and Communities Committee in regard to the inquiry into Antisemitism in NSW. Our organisation is proudly non-sectarian, but within our managing committee there are Jewish, Muslim, Palestinian and Christian people, along with atheists. Our members share a deep commitment to the elimination of all forms of racism, including antisemitism. We believe that responding to antisemitism in our community must be evidence-based, which means it cannot be responded to in isolation of other forms of discrimination.

The NSWCCL is concerned that antisemitism has been weaponised by politicians and the media particularly over the past year. This is done through the incorrect and harmful conflation of Zionism and Judaism. While Judaism is a religion and an ethnicity, Zionism is a modern political movement to establish a Jewish homeland in Israel. Conflating legitimate criticism of Israel with antisemitism at a time when Israel is justifiably being criticised for failing to meet international human rights standards by
the International Court of Justice is dangerous. This not only stifles legitimate political discourse about foreign affairs but also treats Jewish people as having monolithic political beliefs, a view that is itself antisemitic.

The New South Wales Council for Civil Liberties (NSWCCL) is alarmed at the revelations yesterday at the Select Committee on the Relationship between the Dural Caravan Incident and Parliamentary Debates on Legislation. It is deeply concerning that a NSW Police officer sitting at the top of the investigation into the incident had to sign a non-disclosure agreement (NDA) for the Australian Federal Police to reveal information confirming the incident was part of an opportunistic criminal conspiracy, and not anti-semitic terrorism.

The use of an NDA in this context is extremely unusual, and was clearly not in the public interest: the NSW public was made to believe that a “mass casualty event” or “terror attack” was imminent, and it was in this febrile atmosphere that the hate speech and anti-protest laws were rushed through parliament by Premier Minns on 21 February. 

The New South Wales Council for Civil Liberties (NSWCCL) applauds the NSW Legislative Council for initiating an inquiry into whether Premier Chris Minns and Minister Catley misled Parliament and the public to secure the passage of the Places of Worship Bill, Racial and Religious Hatred Bill and the Inciting Racial Hatred Bill.

NSWCCL's persistent advocacy has successfully secured the inquiry, which aims to uncover whether the government knowingly used fabricated threats of terrorism and a mass casualty event to justify the swift passage of repressive legislation that risks criminalising legitimate speech and protest.

The NSWCCL supports the legal challenge to the anti-democratic laws by the Palestine Action Group (PAG) in the Supreme Court of NSW today.  These laws granted NSW Police improper powers in dealing with protestors and activists at rallies. They included additional move-on orders that would cause serious damage to our right to assemble and communicate with each other, and therefore damage our democracy. They should be tested. 

Today the NSWCCL has written to State MPs calling on their support for a NSW Legislative Council inquiry into whether Premier Chris Minns and Minister Catley misled the Parliament and public in order to pass the Places of Worship Bill, Racial and Religious Hatred Bill and the Inciting Racial Hatred Bill. 

The information available on the public record indicates the Premier may have been aware that the caravan incident was a criminal hoax, not a credible threat to lives, as early as 29 January 2025. Despite this he warned the public that it was “terrorism” and the “discovery of a potential mass casualty event”. Deputy Commissioner Barrett has said that investigators knew “almost immediately” that the plot was a fabrication. The New South Wales public should have clarity regarding what the Premier knew, when he knew it and the circumstances of the legislation he then rushed through parliament as a consequence. 

In February NSW Premier Chris Minns passed controversial hate speech and places of worship laws. These laws criminalise racist remarks and give police broad powers to restrict protests near places of worship, carrying penalties of up to two years in jail. 

This legislation was introduced during a rise of antisemitic incidence, with a key event during this time being a police discovery of an explosives-laden caravan in Sydney’s outskirts which was labeled as a terrorism event by Minns. However, federal and NSW police have since revealed that the caravan plot was orchestrated by organised crime, not motivated by antisemitism. This has brought into question the actions of Premier Chris Minns and Police Minister Yasmin Catley in their use of fear-driven rhetoric based on this event to justify the rapid passage of these laws. 

NSWCCL is calling for a NSW Legislative Council inquiry into whether  Premier Chris Minns and Minister Catley misled the Parliament and public in order to pass the Places of Worship Bill and the Inciting Racial Hatred Bill. 

Throughout the public debate on these Bills, NSWCCL along with many democracy and legal experts reiterated that the government was weaponising fear to push a draconian agenda that criminalises legitimate speech and protest. 

Comments attributable to Timothy Roberts, President NSWCCL 

“The Minns Labor Government has played right into the hands of those who concocted the caravan plot in using it to drive a repressive and fear-based legislative agenda that has further divided the community. 

“NSWCCL is deeply concerned by reports that the Premier was aware the plot was a fabrication, not a real threat to lives, when citing it as a potential ‘mass casualty’ event which justified pushing through repressive laws that have eroded our democratic freedoms. 

The New South Wales Council for Civil Liberties wrote to the chair of Universities Australia to express their concerns regarding the new definition of antisemitism adopted by Universities Australia. The new definition conflates legitimate criticism of the State of Israel with antisemitism, posing serious risks to freedom of expression and academic freedom.

You can read the letter here or find our media release here

NSWCCL has been speaking out against Labor's proposed new protest laws and recently with the Australian Democracy Network, organised a rally with over 200 attendees at Town Hall Square in Sydney City.

These laws aim to ban protests near places of worship regardless of what a protest is about and whether it is even directed at a religious institution. Many different groups including leaders from 12 faith communities have expressed concern regarding these laws, with many worried about the future of protest in Sydney and NSW as the abundance of religious buildings accross the city may make any protest much more difficult to hold.

Today the New South Wales Council for Civil Liberties (NSWCCL) has written to the chair of Universities Australia to express their concerns regarding the new definition of antisemitism adopted by Universities Australia. The new definition conflates legitimate criticism of the State of Israel with antisemitism, posing serious risks to freedom of expression and academic freedom.

Comments attributable to Timothy Roberts, President NSWCCL 

“Universities should not be in the business of censoring legitimate views on geopolitics. Many academics advocate for a one-state solution in Israel-Palestine, many advocate for two states, it is not the role of university management to pick one and ban the other.”

Recently the NSW Government has proposed a new set of laws which include: 

• Up to 2 years in jail for intentionally inciting racial hatred.
• Increased penalties for nazi symbols near synagogues
• Up to 2 years in prison for blocking/harassing at places of worship
• Expanded Hate Crime Definitions

While some believe these updates address the recent wave of antisemitic attacks in Sydney, others have criticised it as a kneejerk reaction which does not address the root issues.

Today the NSW Government has announced that it will amend the Crimes Act 1900 to criminalise the incitement of racial hatred. The offence would carry a maximum penalty for an individual of two years’ imprisonment, fines of up to $11,000, or both, while corporations can face fines of $55,000.

The incitement of violence on the basis of race, religious beliefs, sexual orientation, gender identity, intersex status and HIV status is already illegal, and rightly so. These laws protect our community while not unreasonably burdening free speech. The proposed changes expand these laws to criminalise only the incitement of racial hatred and will have the effect of expanding existing divisions in our community.

By way of example, there is a dispute between members of the Indian diaspora in NSW regarding the formation of Khalistan, a Sikh nation. This is a movement that is often opposed by Hindu groups. If these communities were to vilify each other, the definition of ‘race’ in our criminal law is such that the new laws would have the effect of only leading to the prosecution of the Hindu groups because of the ethno-religious or national elements of the Sikh community that does not apply to the Hindu religion. 

These perverse outcomes, and also the likely overrepresentation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders, marginalised communities, people with a disability, children and young people in prosecutions, were all foreseen in the findings of the review into section 93Z of the Crimes Act that was handed to the government late last year. 

The review into s93Z outlined that provisions like those suggested by the Minns’ Government are imprecise and subjective. Further, the review made clear they go against the advice of the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination which warned that restrictions on freedom of speech should not be “broad or vague”. 

The NSW Government has not consulted with legal and human rights experts or broader civil society groups on these proposed new laws and they should abandon these laws until they do. 

The NSW Government’s Crimes Amendment (Places of Worship) Bill 2025 creates an offence with a potential two years imprisonment and/or a $22,000 fine for blocking, impeding or hindering access to places of worship. It grants NSW Police the extraordinary powers to arrest and move on people in or near a place of worship for any reason. 

Concerningly, these offences could be used to charge members of the faith protesting their own organisation, sexual abuse survivors demanding justice and any snap rally or assembly that happens within a vicinity of a place of worship, such as Town Hall.

The NSW Government has not consulted with legal, civil liberties and human rights organisations on the legislation. The Australian Constitution creates an implied freedom of political communication. These laws are clearly unconstitutional and will be subject to challenge.

Last week the NSW Labor Government announced a number of new laws that will repress people’s right to protest. Including, a new criminal offence to prevent protest in or near a place of worship where those people blocking access to a religious institution could face up to two years in jail. The government has said police will be given increased power to move protestors on and arrest them. 

It is unclear what further powers the police will be granted as the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002 already gives NSW Police officers extraordinary powers to move people on including for obstructing another person or traffic; harassing or intimidating another person or persons; or causing or likely causing fear to another person.  

The measures risk impacting a wide cross-section of our community, including survivors of church sexual abuse, students, teachers, healthcare workers, anti-war protestors, LGBTIQA+ people and their allies and First Nations people or any NSW resident who directly or indirectly obstructs access to a place of worship in order to campaign for their rights. 

These laws seek to protect religious institutions, who exercise large amounts of political power in Australia and the world, at the expense of individual democratic freedoms. This unfairly shields them from public opposition.  

Today the NSW Government has announced a raft of new laws that will unduly restrict freedom of speech and the right to protest. 

The proposed laws go against the findings of the review into section 93Z of the Crimes Act that was handed to the government late last year. The review into s93Z outlined that provisions like those suggested by the Minns’ Government are imprecise and subjective. Further, the review made clear they go against the advice of the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination which warned that restrictions on freedom of speech should not be “broad or vague”. 

The NSW Council for Civil Liberties echoes the concerns raised by many submissions that the proposed vilification offences could disproportionately impact disadvantaged groups, including Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, people with disability and young people. 

The NSW Government has not consulted with legal and human rights experts or broader civil society groups on these proposed new laws and they should abandon these laws until they do. 

Council for Civil Liberties says Minns government is at risk of making ‘reactionary’ legislation as pressure mounts to stem further attacks

NSW Premier Chris Minns has come under criticism as he has continued to call for the limiting of protest rights in NSW. Recently Amnesty International Australia have criticised his calls to ban Palestine protests outside places of worship.

This call first came from Jillian Segal, the Antisemitism special envoy appointed by Prime Minister Anthony Albanese who described the Palestine rallies as "intimidatory".

After the Adass Israel synagogue was firebombed, Anthony Albanese said he “cannot conceive of any reason, apart from creating division in our community, of why someone would want to hold a demonstration outside a place of worship”.

In response to this a variety of individuals and groups have criticised this statement, such as survivors of clergy abuse.