A premier was warned before passing controversial laws restricting public assemblies that heavy-handed policing might alienate communities and dilute compliance, documents reveal.
NSW leader Chris Minns was also advised further hate speech reforms conceived in the aftermath of the December 14 Bondi terror attack risked making the problem worse.
Advice on tackling incitement of violence and hatred using existing legislation was provided to him by NSW Cabinet Office national security executive director Alexandra Caples a little over a week after the mass shooting.
In outlining those options, her briefing note also pointed to the appropriateness of reforms.
But Dr Caples urged Mr Minns to give careful consideration to proportionality, judicial oversight and community engagement.
This was "to avoid unintended consequences, constitutional risks and other issues", according to the memorandum attached to her correspondence, a copy of which has been obtained by AAP.
NSW laws cracking down on gun ownership and public protests passed on Christmas Eve.
As a result, the state's police commissioner was empowered to curb public assemblies in designated areas without judicial oversight in cases of a declared terrorist attack.
The laws were heavily criticised by civil rights groups.
Dr Caples stressed previous consorting and anti-terror laws had been disproportionately applied.
Those impacted included Indigenous communities, ethnic minorities and young people, raising concerns about profiling and discrimination.
"Heavy-handed enforcement may alienate communities, making individuals less likely to co-operate with authorities or report genuine threats," she said.
"Worst case, perceived injustice or targeting can fuel resentment and increase the risk of radicalisation.
"Expanded police powers and/or aggressive enforcement can damage trust between police and communities, undermining broader efforts to counter extremism through partnership and prevention."
Emergency legislation granted police additional powers the day after the warning was received.
Mr Minns' office said it would be inaccurate to describe Dr Caples' advice, which included options to tackle hate speech and warnings about police overreach, as having been ignored because it didn't directly relate to the December 24 laws.
"We stand by our laws to keep the community safe," a NSW government spokesperson told AAP, saying community safety was the priority.
During February's Australian visit by Israeli President Isaac Herzog, NSW Police commissioner Mal Lanyon used his extra powers to ban street protests in certain areas in central Sydney.
Violent clashes between police and protesters followed.
Officers also removed a group of Muslim men during prayers at the protest, sparking outrage from the Islamic community.
The Minns government has steadfastly defended police, maintaining protesters were briefed on what was permitted at the rally and blaming the violence on participants trying to breach enforcement lines.
Australian Lawyers Alliance spokesman Greg Barns said Dr Caples' advice was demonstrably ignored.
"And given the subject matter, dangerously so," he tells AAP.
"Noting that anti-terror laws have been disproportionately applied to groups such as ethnic minorities, the Minns government runs a very high risk that by ignoring advice about heavy-handed enforcement of these laws, it's fuelling social division."
There was a tendency for politicians to ignore professional advice and sacrifice democratic rights in situations in which they believe they should be seen to be taking action, Mr Barns added.
"One of the consequences of these laws and this mindset on the part of the government is what we saw during the Herzog visit," he said.
Extremism expert Michael Zekulin said government overreach exacerbated social grievances, which led to radicalisation and violence.
Rhetoric and action, such as the use of police force against praying Muslims, could confirm people's perceptions that their community was being singled out by police and government, the Australian National University academic said.
That made them more susceptible to extremist messaging and radicalisation.
"What you're probably doing is creating an environment where more people may investigate ideas they were dismissing earlier, as you're adding a kernel of truth to what they believe," Dr Zekulin said.
Mr Lanyon defended the use of force by his officers but privately apologised to members of the Muslim community.
The premier admitted there had been a relationship breakdown between his government and the community, leading to the cancellation of an annual dinner with its leaders.
Australian Federation of Islamic Councils president Rateb Jneid criticised the premier's sustained defence of the police use of force and what he said was a failure to listen to community concerns about anti-hate laws.
Prior to the Herzog protest, Mr Minns was similarly challenged on the harmful impacts of broad-brush hate speech laws as he continued to pursue legislative options in the wake of Bondi.
Among them, were the banning of some slogans.
The Labor premier continues to push for a ban on the phrase "globalise the intifada", mirroring a move already legislated by Queensland's conservative government.
It means "uprising" or "shaking off" in Arabic and pro-Palestine protesters have employed it as a rallying cry for resistance against Israeli oppression.
But Jewish groups say it incites violence and anti-Semitism due to its use during political violence against Israel.
A Labor-controlled state parliamentary committee recommended the slogan be banned.
This was supported by the government but sparked outcry elsewhere, including from Muslim communities who argue the phrase is being politicised.
Prohibiting such expressions amounted to tipping the scales against free speech, Dr Zekulin said.
There are diverse views in any community and they invariably include perspectives that others find unpalatable.
"Are you going to become the thought police?" he asked.
Dr Caples also advised in her email that "legislation doesn't change behaviour" and argued rapid reforms risked driving concerning activity underground, where it was harder to track.
"Broader powers may criminalise speech or association that is controversial or unpopular, which risks suppressing legitimate dissent, debate or minority viewpoints," she wrote.
"Vague or inconsistent definitions of hate speech, advocacy or recklessness can lead to uneven enforcement and uncertainty about what is lawful."
