By making protests conditional on state approval, governments are eroding our democracy
- Written by: Weekend Times
In July, a group in Bathurst, New South Wales wanted to hold a small rally in a local park against culling wild horses, known as brumbies.
When an organiser notified the
council, they were told they would need $20 million in public liability insurance.
Organisers for the same cause reported facing similar barriers in councils across Australia, including Bendigo, Newcastle, Queanbeyan, Yarragon and Adelaide.
This wasn’t a stadium event. It was people wanting to stand in a public space and object to something the government was doing.
These examples are just some of many. Before they can protest, people across the country increasingly need permission. If they don’t get it, they risk heavy fines, jail time and violent dispersal. The NSW police watchdog is currently investigating the use of force at a rally in Sydney.
Our new research, released today by the Australian Democracy Network and Deakin University’s Centre for Law as Protection, maps how protest permit systems work in every state and territory. The result is a tangle of laws, council by-laws and public place rules so complex that people struggle to find out, in advance, whether they may even turn up.
Notify or authorise?
Part of the problem is confusion between notification and authorisation systems.
A notification system asks organisers to give police a heads-up so a protest can run safely.
An authorisation system does the opposite: the protest can’t lawfully go ahead, or loses its legal protection, unless the state approves it.
The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which Australia has signed, allows the first, not the second. United Nations guidance is instructive: having to apply for permission undermines protest’s status as a basic right.
Australia has already learnt this. In the 1970s and ‘80s, protests against the Vietnam war, the Bjelke-Petersen government and anti-queer discrimination were violently dispersed in South Australia, Queensland and NSW.
To avoid a repeat of this violence, governments responded with notification systems to facilitate protest and shield it from offences like obstruction.
Now those systems are being turned against protesters.
Crackdowns in NSW
In NSW, the Supreme Court has ruled people can be arrested for contempt of court for attending a protest a court has “prohibited” under the permit system.
Protesters who tried to march on February 9 2026, when the usual permit system was suspended, were met with blows and pepper spray.
In NSW, police have been accused of using force against protesters in the CBD because a gathering lacks an appropriate permit, even though attending an un-notified protest in that area is in fact legal.
Advocacy group Legal Observers NSW has recorded instances of police dispersing protests for giving less than seven days’ notice, though the law sets no minimum.
When people are policed harshly for not holding a permit, trust breaks down and confrontation becomes more likely — the opposite of what these schemes intended.
Read more: What are police allowed to do at protests and who keeps them in check?
Seeking ermission to protest is now the default
Protest is unlawful without permission from a council or other authority across much of Australia – in Tasmania, the Northern Territory, most major councils, and at key sites in Sydney and Melbourne’s city parks.
Even the “voluntary” schemes in NSW, Queensland and South Australia work like permits, because of the penalties protesters otherwise face.
In NSW, obstructing a road, station or light rail, which is broad enough to catch someone on a footpath, can bring a $22,000 fine and two years in prison; in SA, obstructing a public place can attract a $50,000 fine.
The burden falls unevenly and is hardest on those least able to navigate the forms, insurance and deadlines, such as small volunteer campaigns and migrant and First Nations communities.
In January 2024, the First Nations group Uprising of the People was charged an $8,000 “traffic control” fee five days before an Invasion Day rally in Darwin, and had to crowdfund to pay it.
In Alice Springs, community members wanting to protest have to pay $109 just to apply for a permit, with no guarantee it’ll be approved.
Do permit systems even work?
The usual justification is that permits reduce disruption and save police resources. We couldn’t find evidence of this.
Sydney, with its scheme, has had about as many large protests as Melbourne, which doesn’t have a permit scheme for CBD streets.
NSW Police has gone to court at least three times since 2023 to stop protests and spent more than $300,000 without preventing one. City of Melbourne data show no clear sign that protests drive away foot traffic.
Some laws, such as those introduced in NSW, can also be found by the courts to be unconstitutional for disproportionately undermining Australian’s implied freedom of political communication.
Most comparable jurisdictions have not adopted protest authorisation systems. The United Kingdom, United States, Canada, New Zealand and South Africa do not generally require permission to protest in public streets, and their courts have struck down attempts to do so.
Australia is quietly moving the other way.
Read more: With more restrictive laws across the country, how can we protect the right to protest?
A workable solution
None of this means organisers shouldn’t talk to authorities. Advance notice helps plan road closures and keep everyone safer.
The fix is to make our systems do what they were built to do — replace de facto permission with clear, proportionate notification.
Protest shouldn’t be unlawful because no one asked first. Spontaneous gatherings should be accommodated. Restrictions should be necessary, proportionate and reviewable, and police should facilitate and meet all protests, notified or not, with communication and de-escalation, not force.
The solution is clear and workable. Protest is a right, not a licence. Our laws should start treating it that way again.
The author would like to acknowledge Anastasia Radievska from the Australian Democracy Network for her work on the report that underpins this article.
Maria O'Sullivan contributed research to the Australian Democracy Network report referred to in this article on a pro-bono basis.
