Right to Protest Bill 2025: what it proposes and the debate over a statutory protest right

The short answer

Right to Protest Bill 2025: what it proposes and the debate over a statutory protest right

Greens Senator David Shoebridge introduced the Right to Protest Bill 2025 in the Senate on 13 February 2025. The bill is a private senator's bill — it was not introduced by the government — and remains before the Senate. It has had its first reading, second reading moved, and some second reading debate, but has not been voted on or passed. It is not law. The bill would create, for the first time in Commonwealth legislation, a statutory right to engage in peaceful protest in a public place. It draws on Australia's obligations under articles 19, 21 and 22 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which Australia ratified in 1980. Article 19 protects freedom of opinion and expression, article 21 protects the right of peaceful assembly, and article 22 protects freedom of association. While Australia ratified the ICCPR, it has not incorporated these rights into domestic legislation in the way that, for example, New Zealand's Bill of Rights Act 1990 or the United Kingdom's Human Rights Act 1998 give domestic legal force to ICCPR rights. Australia remains the only Western democracy without a national bill of rights or human rights act. The central mechanism is clause 8: 'A person has the right to engage in peaceful protest in a public place.' Clause 9 establishes that this right may be restricted only to the extent necessary in a democratic society for five specified purposes: national security, public safety, public order, protection of public health, and protection of the rights and freedoms of other persons. These mirror the ICCPR's own limitation clauses. The EM states that restrictions 'only apply insofar as restrictions appropriately are adapted to the goal of addressing an unacceptable risk of harm.' The bill further provides that excessive penalties — 'lengthy prison sentences or excessive fines' — are considered unnecessary restrictions regardless of their stated rationale. This language appears directed at state laws such as Tasmania's anti-protest provisions that introduced mandatory minimum sentences before being repealed, and NSW laws imposing fines of up to $22,000 and 2 years imprisonment for protests disrupting major roads, bridges and tunnels (introduced in 2022). Clause 10 is the bill's most consequential operative provision: it provides that any other law — Commonwealth, state or territory, passed before or after this bill — that is inconsistent with the right to protest would be inoperable to the extent of the inconsistency. This is the provision that would override state and territory laws restricting peaceful protest beyond what the bill permits. The EM singles out laws affecting environmental and social justice movements, arguing 'within a democracy the violent policing of peaceful protest and imposition of excessive criminal penalties for protest action undermines fundamental rights to free expression and assembly.' It further states that Australia's international obligations 'do not permit the restriction of protest purely to protect commercial interest or to protect a government from scrutiny or criticism from an engaged community.' Constitutionally, the bill relies on the external affairs power under paragraph 51(xxix) of the Constitution — the same power the High Court upheld in the Tasmanian Dam Case (1983) as allowing the Commonwealth to legislate to implement international treaty obligations, even in areas of traditional state jurisdiction. The bill includes fallback provisions: if the external affairs basis were insufficient to cover a particular application, the bill would still operate for protests in Commonwealth places and in the territories. It also contains an express safeguard stating it does not apply to the extent it would infringe the implied constitutional freedom of political communication, as recognised by the High Court in Lange v ABC (1997) and McCloy v NSW (2015). The bill binds the Crown in all capacities and extends to every external territory. The bill's statement of compatibility with human rights says it 'positively engages the right to protest and in particular freedom of assembly and freedom of association and freedom of opinion and expression,' and that its impact on state and territory laws is 'reasonable, necessary and proportionate to achieving the implementation of our international obligations.' Several states have strengthened anti-protest laws in recent years. Tasmania's Workplaces (Protection from Protesters) Act 2014 introduced mandatory minimum sentences for certain protest offences, survived initial constitutional challenge before aspects were struck down in Brown v Tasmania (2017), and was largely repealed in 2023. NSW's anti-protest amendments to the Roads Act 1993 and Crimes Act 1900 (2022) introduced heavy penalties for disrupting major roads, bridges and tunnels. Victoria's Strengthening the Protection of Critical Infrastructure Act 2023 increased penalties for protest activities at critical infrastructure. Queensland and WA have strengthened penalties in resource and agricultural contexts, and in 2024 the Queensland government passed laws increasing penalties for protests using 'dangerous attachment devices'. The Shoebridge bill is explicitly framed as a federal response to these state-level trends. As a private senator's bill from the Australian Greens, its prospects of passage are very limited without government support. The government has not indicated a position. To become law it would need to pass the Senate, then the House, and receive Royal Assent. Even if passed, the bill could face constitutional challenge regarding the scope of the external affairs power as applied to protest rights.

This is a federal system guide. State constitutions, parliaments and local-government laws can allocate comparable functions differently.

The useful question is not only “what is the rule?” but also “who administers it, which document controls it, and when might it change?” That distinction prevents an accurate general explanation from becoming wrong advice in a particular election, chamber or policy setting.

Evidence review

What the bill proposes

The Right to Protest Bill 2025, introduced by Greens Senator David Shoebridge on 13 February 2025, proposes to recognise the right to engage in peaceful protest in a public place. The bill is structured as a rights declaration rather than a regulatory framework: it does not create new criminal offences or regulatory powers but instead establishes a statutory recognition that peaceful protest is a lawful activity deserving of protection.

The bill is a response to what its sponsors describe as a wave of anti-protest legislation passed by state and territory governments in recent years. Since 2020, several Australian jurisdictions have enacted laws increasing penalties for protest-related conduct, expanding police powers to disrupt protests, and creating new offences for activities such as attaching oneself to infrastructure, obstructing major roads, or using lock-on devices. The bill's supporters argue these laws have a disproportionate impact on the right to peaceful assembly.

The bill would operate at the Commonwealth level, applying to Commonwealth laws and within Commonwealth jurisdiction. Its central mechanism is the recognition of a right to peaceful protest, which would serve as a interpretive principle for Commonwealth legislation and a statutory basis for challenging laws or government actions that unduly restrict peaceful assembly. The bill is explicitly limited to peaceful protest and does not protect conduct involving violence, property damage or serious disruption.

Evidence review

How the right would work

Clause 8 of the bill states simply: 'A person has the right to engage in peaceful protest in a public place.' The right may be restricted only to the extent 'necessary in a democratic society' for one or more of five purposes: national security, public safety, public order, protection of public health, or protection of the rights and freedoms of other persons. These are not blanket restrictions — they apply only insofar as they address an unacceptable risk of harm. The bill further provides that excessive penalties, including lengthy prison sentences or excessive fines, are considered unnecessary restrictions regardless of their rationale.

Evidence review

Overriding state and territory laws

The bill's most consequential provision is clause 10, which states that any law — Commonwealth, state or territory, past or future — that is inconsistent with the bill's provisions would be inoperable to the extent of the inconsistency. If passed, this would override state and territory anti-protest laws that restrict peaceful protest beyond what the bill permits. The explanatory memorandum specifically identifies laws targeting environmental and social justice movements, arguing that Australia's international obligations 'do not permit the restriction of protest purely to protect commercial interest or to protect a government from scrutiny or criticism'.

Evidence review

Constitutional basis

The bill relies on the Commonwealth's external affairs power under paragraph 51(xxix) of the Constitution, which the High Court has upheld as supporting legislation implementing international treaty obligations even in areas of traditional state jurisdiction. As a fallback, the bill would also operate in relation to protests in Commonwealth places and in the territories. It includes an express safeguard stating it does not apply to the extent it would infringe the implied constitutional freedom of political communication. The bill binds the Crown in all its capacities and extends to every external territory.

Evidence review

The broader context of anti-protest laws

This bill arrives amid what civil liberties organisations describe as a significant expansion of anti-protest laws across Australia. New South Wales passed laws in 2022 creating offences for disrupting major roads and infrastructure, with maximum penalties of two years' imprisonment and fines of up to $22,000. Tasmania enacted the Police Offences Amendment Act 2023, which increased penalties for trespass and introduced aggravated protest offences. Victoria's 2023 anti-protest laws targeted the use of lock-on devices and created offences for obstructing access to premises.

At the Commonwealth level, the federal government has supported state anti-protest legislation as a matter of public safety. However, human rights organisations including the Australian Human Rights Commission, Amnesty International Australia, and the Law Council of Australia have raised concerns that the cumulative effect of these laws significantly restricts the right to peaceful assembly — a right recognised under international law through Article 21 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which Australia is a signatory. The bill should be understood as part of this ongoing national conversation about the balance between public order and civil liberties.

Evidence review

The bill's legislative status

The Right to Protest Bill 2025 was introduced in the Senate on 13 February 2025. The second reading was moved on the same day and the second reading debate was adjourned. As of July 2026, the bill remains before the Senate. No vote has been held on the second reading and no date has been set for the debate to resume.

As a private senator's bill, the bill's progress depends on the government allocating Senate time for private senators' business and on the government's disposition toward the bill. The government had not stated a formal position on the bill as of July 2026. For the bill to pass both houses and become law, it would need to secure majority support in the Senate and the House of Representatives.

Common questions

Before you rely on the answer