NSW Premier Minns doubles down on anti‑protest legislation as Greens label it an extraordinary attack on the judiciary

The New South Wales government, led by Premier Chris Minns, reiterated its commitment to a recently enacted law that expands criminal penalties for certain protest activities, arguing that the measure is essential to maintain public order and safety, even as opposition parties, notably the NSW Greens, publicly condemned the move as an unprecedented assault on the independence of the courts, contending that the legislation effectively pre‑emptively undermines judicial discretion in reviewing protest‑related permits and injunctions.

In response to the Greens' resolution, which characterised the Premier's stance as an "extraordinary attack" on the judiciary, Minns dismissed the criticism as politically motivated, insisting that the rule of law must not be subordinated to activist pressures and that any suggestion of judicial interference overlooks the government's responsibility to protect citizens from disruptive demonstrations that could jeopardise essential services.

Simultaneously, the state's treasury minister warned that a volatile surge in global oil prices presents "big risks" to both inflation and economic growth, underscoring that despite the budget's focus on delivering a substantial savings package, the administration has not yet finalised any decisions regarding proposed reforms to capital gains tax or broader tax policy, a hesitation that further fuels concerns about fiscal coherence and strategic planning.

Adding to the layered critique, the treasurer highlighted that the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) entered the current administration already strained, noting a 22 % growth in costs since taking office and implying that the institution has drifted far from its original purpose, thereby exposing a pattern of governance where ambitious policy initiatives are launched without adequate mechanisms to ensure long‑term sustainability or accountability.

The confluence of these developments—namely a hard‑line approach to civil protest, accusations of meddling in judicial affairs, and a cautious yet ambiguous fiscal outlook—paints a picture of a government grappling with the paradox of trying to project decisive authority while simultaneously confronting systemic shortcomings that threaten both democratic norms and economic stability.

Published: April 20, 2026