NSW seeks to join Queensland’s High Court defence of protest phrase restrictions

New South Wales has sought leave to join Queensland’s defence of laws restricting two protest phrases in a High Court case in Australia, according to reports published on 1 October. The request brings another state into a dispute over political expression, but the available reports do not establish that the court has granted NSW permission to participate or ruled on the challenge.

The case concerns Queensland restrictions on the phrases ‘from the river to the sea’ and ‘globalise the intifada’. Australian Associated Press reported that NSW gave notice to intervene; the Guardian reported that a spokesperson for the NSW attorney-general confirmed the request and that High Court listings showed a filing the previous week. The NSW attorney-general’s department declined to comment on the ongoing matter, AAP said.

What Queensland’s protest phrase laws cover

Queensland enacted the restrictions in March 2026, according to AAP. Its report says the laws apply when the phrases are used to menace or offend. That qualification matters: describing the case as a challenge to a blanket prohibition on every use of either phrase would overstate what the report says the laws do. The dispute before the High Court concerns those restrictions and the plaintiffs’ constitutional objection to them.

The reported effect is already substantial. AAP said more than 30 people had been charged since the laws took effect, including four plaintiffs in the High Court challenge. Three other plaintiffs, including Remah Naji, say the restrictions have otherwise gagged them. The charge count is AAP’s reported figure, while the account of being gagged is the plaintiffs’ position; neither resolves whether the laws are constitutionally valid.

Why the plaintiffs oppose the restrictions

Naji, a spokesperson for the plaintiff group Justice for Palestine Magan-djin, welcomed NSW’s move. ‘They’re playing directly into our hands. This intervention was expected,’ she told AAP. She said the group would use the development to turn the case into ‘a national struggle’. Her response makes clear that the plaintiffs see NSW’s proposed participation as widening the significance of a case that began with Queensland law.

The NSW Greens also criticised the decision. The Guardian quoted the party’s justice spokesperson, Sue Higginson, calling it ‘baffling and reckless’ and saying the laws criminalise political expression in support of the Palestinian cause. Her comments express a political objection to the restrictions; the constitutional question remains for the court.

Why NSW has a stake in the Queensland case

NSW Premier Chris Minns has previously linked his government’s plans for a similar ban to the outcome of the Queensland challenge. AAP reported that he said in April he did not want to pursue legislation that could be struck down. That position followed an earlier vow to ban the slogans ‘soon’, irrespective of the challenge. NSW has not set out its proposed High Court submissions in the available reports, so its precise legal argument cannot yet be stated.

AAP placed Minns’s change in position after the NSW Court of Appeal invalidated separate laws restricting protests following the Bondi terror attack in December 2025. According to AAP, that court ruled that ‘social cohesion’ was not a legitimate constitutional purpose for laws impinging on political communication. That was a ruling on different NSW legislation, not a decision on the Queensland restrictions now being challenged.

Queensland’s government has defended its approach. Deputy Premier Jarrod Bleijie said the restrictions pushed back against ‘venomous, poisonous rhetoric’, AAP reported. The agency also reported support from some Jewish groups, which said the chants fuelled fear and anxiety in the community. Those views form part of the public dispute surrounding the case; they do not settle the meaning of the phrases or the constitutional arguments.

What happens next in the High Court

Queensland had not yet outlined its full case in the reporting available on 1 October, AAP said. It reported that, in a late-September filing, the state asked the High Court to send the charges back to the Magistrates Court and dismiss the rest of the case. The available reports do not identify a hearing date, a date for a decision on NSW’s request, or a timetable for judgment on the challenge.