Australia: Authorities continue to criminalise protests, police with impunity and increase restrictive legislation and policies

Australia’s civic space remains rated as ‘narrowed’ by the CIVICUS Monitor in its report published in December 2024. Concerns highlighted previously include the continued prosecution of whistle-blowers, the passage of anti-protest laws which are at odds with Australia’s international obligations, and the arrest of climate and pro-Palestinian protesters.

These concerns were also echoed by Amnesty International in its annual report published in April 2025, which highlighted the use of anti-protest laws used against climate activists and those protesting against the war in Gaza.

In May 2025, ruling centre-left Labor leader Anthony Albanese became the first Australian prime minister to win a second consecutive three-year term in two decades. The Labor party won 93 of the 150 House of Representatives seats. The opposition Coalition won 43 seats, the Greens one, and all others 11, with two seats remaining undecided.

In recent months, climate protesters have been arrested and charged for protests in the Port of Newcastle and near parliament, while a study reveals that Australia leads the world in arresting climate and environment protesters. There has been a lack of scrutiny of police tactics and violence against protesters at an arms expo in September 2024. Civil society groups have raised concerns about repressive anti-protest and surveillance policies by the University of Melbourne while the NSW government rushed to pass a bill through Parliament that could curtail the fundamental rights to freedom of assembly. Australian universities adopted an extremely contested definition of anti-Semitism, the appeal case begins for war crimes whistleblower David McBride, while civil society has made a submission on the need for reform of wide-ranging surveillance laws.

Peaceful Assembly

Climate protesters arrested in the Port of Newcastle

On 24th November 2024, police charged 170 people including 14 children who attended a climate protest in the Port of Newcastle, after the large group on on kayaks and small water craft allegedly disrupted the movement of vessels. The demonstration, organised by activism group Rising Tide, was held at the city’s harbour.

Protesters formed a “blockade” in the port, calling on the federal government to rule out new coal and gas mines and for a 78 percent tax on coal and gas exports. Ships temporarily stopped travelling through the area as a result of the protest, the port authority said.

According to police, the individuals were charged with disruption of a major facility, and for not complying with directions by authorised officers relating to safety. Organisers say police charged 130 of the activists under anti-protest laws, which carry a maximum of two years in jail or a AUD 22,000 (USD 14,326) fine. Police also stated there were numerous traffic infringements issued that were unrelated to the activities on the water, and five people were charged.

Rising Tide organiser Alexa Stuart said: “Despite the government’s attempts to shut down our peaceful blockade, today we have successfully blockaded the world’s largest coal port.”

The Human Rights Law Centre called for the abolition of the Form 1 “protest permit” system. In the weeks leading up to the protest, NSW Police successfully opposed Rising Tide’s Form 1 application, thereby opening up the protesters to potential criminal liability for their peaceful demonstration. The Minns Government also tried to impose an exclusion zone over the Port of Newcastle to prevent protests in that area altogether, but this was struck down by the Supreme Court. The Centre raised concerns that “NSW Police appear to be using the system to stifle dissent by creating legal and procedural barriers that disproportionately target some voices over others.”

Rising Tide protesters arrested near parliament

More than 20 Rising Tide protesters were arrested for blocking a road to federal Parliament House after they took their protest from Newcastle to Canberra on 27th November 2024.

Hundreds of people joined a rally organised by Rising Tide on the lawns of Parliament House. About 100 protesters moved to block the road while about 50 others occupied the Parliament House foyer. 22 people were arrested for blocking the road after they refused to follow police orders to move on. They were charged with ‘unreasonable obstruction’.

The protesters are calling on the Albanese government to immediately cancel all new fossil fuel projects and end all coal exports from Newcastle by 2030. It is also calling on the government to introduce a 78% tax on coal export profits to fund the transition to renewable energy and support fossil fuel workers.

Study reveals Australia leads world in arresting climate and environment protesters

A study released in December 2024, showed Australian police were world leaders at arresting climate and environmental protesters. According to the study, more than 20 per cent of all climate and environment protests in Australia involve arrests, which is more than three times the global average (6.3 per cent). Australia's arrest rate was the highest of 14 countries in the global study.

The research by the University of Bristol in the United Kingdom makes it clear that Australia's political leaders have joined the "rapid escalation" of efforts to criminalise and repress climate and environmental protest, while sovereign states globally fail to meet their international agreements and emissions targets

Lack of scrutiny of police tactics and violence against protesters at arms expo

There continues to be serious concerns about the lack of scrutiny around excessive force by the police during the Land Forces Exposition on 11th September 2024, at the Melbourne Convention and Exhibition Centre (MCEC), which was previously documented. The expo was promoted to be the largest defence industry event ever held in Australia. More than a thousand activists attended the protest organised by Disrupt Land Forces (DLF), calling for an end to funding “states engaged in genocide and militarised repression,” including Israel.

In November 2024, a Police Accountability Project spokesperson said they remained concerned about the allegedly disproportionate police response to protesters at the expo, which they argued was reflected in the number of charges that had since been withdrawn.

The Policing of the DLF Protests, a comprehensive report issued by Melbourne Activist Legal Support (MALS) in January 2025, detailed disturbing patterns of police misconduct, misuse of special powers, and media misinformation.

MALS said that “from the moment that the expo was announced to be held, negative and sensationalist responses from the Victorian government, Victoria Police, and media paved a stigmatising platform to justify extraordinary levels of force to be used by police against protesters. This preemptive response included invoking special weapons and anti-terrorism legislation to equip police with broad powers.” It added that “there has been minimal scrutiny or focus on the use of force and violence by police, including coordinated tactical manoeuvres, and the disproportionate levels or forms of violence facilitated by an arsenal of weaponry, with state and media sanctioning.”

University of Melbourne urged to drop repressive anti-protest and surveillance policies

The Human Rights Law Centre, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International wrote to the University of Melbourne’s Vice Chancellor in April 2025 citing serious concerns with the ill-defined restrictions on all protests at the University, including a ban on indoor protests, and amendments to its Wireless Terms of Use policy which permits the surveillance of all users without any suspicion of wrongdoing or misuse of the network.

According to the groups, that means staff and students who engage in peaceful sit-ins or protests viewed as ‘disruptive’, such as those calling on the University to drop its relationships with weapons manufacturers or fossil fuel companies, now risk severe disciplinary action including having their enrolment terminated. The University can now also use its wifi networks to track and locate staff and students, and monitor their activities, even when there is no suspicion of wrongdoing.

Sarah Schwartz, Legal Director, Human Rights Law Centre said: “Students should be commended, not punished, for peacefully standing up for human rights. The right to protest is fundamental to our democracy, and throughout history students and staff at universities have been at the forefront of driving positive social change. These repressive and draconian policies by the University of Melbourne will have a chilling effect on campus life.”

NSW government rams through kneejerk law that could curtail rights

In February 2024, the New South Wales (NSW) state government hurriedly passed a bill through Parliament that could curtail the fundamental rights to freedom of assembly.

The Crimes Amendment (Places of Worship) Bill removes limitations to NSW Police “move-on” powers, making it easier to issue these orders to protesters near places of worship. Sydney’s CBD is home to 30 places of worship—these laws could restrict students from protesting climate inaction at Town Hall or prevent survivors of child sex abuse from demonstrating outside St Mary’s Cathedral.

This Bill also provides heavy penalties—up to AUD 22,000 (USD 14,290) in fines or two years in prison—for conduct near places of worship deemed as “harassment.” It is unclear if “harassment” could cover activities like chanting or holding a placard—core expressions of the right to peaceful protest.

Legal Director at the Human Rights Law Centre, Sarah Schwartz said: “These laws are a thinly veiled attempt to curtail our right to peaceful assembly under the misleading banner of addressing racism – while doing nothing to address the root causes of recent racist attacks. They would also give police the power to shut down a snap anti-war protest or rally calling for climate action, if the place of gathering was near a place of worship.”

Expression

Australian universities adopt an extremely contested definition of anti-Semitism

Amnesty International reported in February 2025 a decision by 39 Australian universities to adopt an extremely contested definition of anti-Semitism. The group said it was a direct attack on fundamental freedoms, stifling freedom of speech, expression, assembly, academic debate, and protest.

This definition, that has been strongly opposed by groups such as the Jewish Council of Australia, will be adopted by campuses across Australia. It dangerously conflates legitimate criticism of Israel and Zionism with anti-Semitism, weaponising accusations of racism to silence and repress student rights to protest and freedom of expression, rights that are protected under Articles 19 and 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. It does nothing to uphold safety or combat discrimination and serves only to suppress student activism and restrict political expression.

Mohamed Duar from Amnesty International Australia said: “Policing freedom of speech, academic debate and protest is not a solution to student safety - it is an outrageous and blatant act of repression where freedom of thought and academia should flourish. This dangerous definition will be used to silence students and staff alike, suppress protest, and shut down criticism of Israel’s genocide against Palestinians in Gaza, the unlawful brutal and unlawful military occupation as well as apartheid that we determined to be a crime against humanity.”

Appeal begins for war crimes whistleblower David McBride

In March 2025, the appeal around the sentence for whistleblower David McBride began.

As previously documented, former Australian Army lawyer David McBride was sentenced to five years and eight months in May 2024 for revealing information about alleged Australian war crimes in Afghanistan. McBride leaked documents to the ABC that formed the basis for the broadcaster’s landmark Afghan Files reporting, which showed credible evidence of war crimes committed by Australian forces in Afghanistan. The reporting was subsequently confirmed by the Brereton Inquiry that found evidence that Australian forces had unlawfully killed 39 Afghans during the war.

Civil society groups have condemned the ongoing imprisonment of David McBride and called for urgent whistleblower protection reform. They have also expressed ongoing concern about the chilling effect McBride’s imprisonment is having on future whistleblowers speaking out to expose wrongdoing. McBride is presently detained at the Alexander Maconochie Centre in Canberra. He was handed a non-parole period of two years and three months in prison.

Kieran Pender, Associate Legal Director at the Human Rights Law Centre, said: “Right now, one whistleblower is behind bars and another is facing trial because of Australia’s broken whistleblowing laws. The Albanese Government needs to fix our laws and establish a whistleblower protection authority, to ensure that whistleblowers are protected, not punished and prosecuted.”

Wide-ranging surveillance laws

In February 2025, the Human Rights Law Centre called for stronger safeguards for the right to privacy in evidence being given to the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor.

The Independent National Security Legislation Monitor is reviewing the Surveillance Legislation Amendment (Identify and Disrupt) laws, which gave the Australian Federal Police (AFP) and the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission (ACIC) unprecedented and invasive powers to monitor online activity, access data, and take over a person’s online account.

The Human Rights Law Centre has warned that these powers enable the AFP and ACIC to undertake significant invasions of privacy, encroach on the right to privacy, and threaten to have a chilling effect on the work of journalists and their sources.

In a submission the Human Rights Law centre has called for the establishment of an independent advocate, a public interest monitor, to review warrant applications; significant narrowing of the offences for which the warrants can be issued; and safeguards that limit the use of intrusive powers after all other avenues to achieve the same results have been exhausted.