Co-authored by Oliver Price and John Curtin Law Clinic
Australia has a long history of protest and dissent. Considered a laboratory for social change, key protest movements including the formation of trade unions, progression of universal suffrage, the Eureka Stockade, and Vietnam War protests have imbued the right to peaceful assembly into the identity of the nation.
However, the right for Australians to participate in protests is under increasing strain. A rise in terrorist attacks in Australia, including the 2025 Bondi Beach shooting and attempted attack on a Perth Invasion Day rally, has provoked a swift legislative response from State and Federal Governments.
One target of these reforms has been the right to assembly. Many jurisdictions have sought to increase police powers to regulate and restrict protests that are perceived as undermining social cohesion. This approach has been adopted by the WA Labor Government, which introduced the Public Order Legislation Amendment Bill 2026 (WA) on 18 February 2026.
The introduction of this Bill has sparked conversations in the state about the trade-off between protest rights and social cohesion, and the role this right to peaceful assembly has in a healthy democratic system. This article will consider the underlying tensions of the proposed Bill, analysing the need for protest protections in Western Australia.
The right to peaceful assembly refers to the fundamental human right for individuals to express themselves collectively and participate in shaping their societies. Article 21 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which Australia is a signatory, states that right of peaceful assembly must be recognised by member states, which should not place restrictions on the exercise of this right outside of those necessary for national security and public safety.
Despite this, protest rights are not comprehensively protected under Australian law, with only Queensland, Victoria and the ACT incorporating this right in state-level Human Rights Charters. While protections do exist at common law, Parliaments can override this right through anti-protest legislation.
The importance of the right to assembly was demonstrated through the wave of so-called ‘Gen Z protests’ that have occurred throughout the 2020s. From Bangladesh and Nepal to Morocco and Kenya, these predominantly student and youth-led protests challenged rising authoritarianism and corruption across the globe. While Australia has not reached the point of democratic backsliding experienced by many liberal democracies, the restriction of protest rights for the sake of social cohesion may be a short-sighted surrender of this fundamental bulwark against authoritarianism.
As discussed by Graham Droppert SC, the WA Director of Australian Lawyers Alliance, the proposed Bill provides “very wide power which be used by future governments to silence peaceful protest and dissent”, sparking fears that the legislation is “weighted too heavily on the side of protest restriction”.
Broadly, the Public Order Legislation Amendment Bill 2026 (WA) proposes five key changes to the regulation of protests in Western Australia:
- expanding the existing prohibition on Nazi symbols and gestures to apply to juveniles;
- extending this ban to encompass other prohibited symbols, such as those associated with terrorist groups;
- introducing a ban on face coverings in public places where they may objectively intimidate others, with exemptions for the reasonable use for political, medical, artistic and other reasons;
- increasing the information required for protest permits to ensure protest organisers can be readily identified and contacted, with penalties existing for knowingly providing false information and police retaining the right to amend or revoke permits where new information becomes available; and
- making ‘maintaining public safety’ the paramount consideration of the Police Commissioner, or authorised officer, in granting protest permits.
The WA Labor Government has expressed that these measures strike the correct balance between safeguarding the ability to protest peacefully, while also protecting the community from conduct that crosses the line into hate, harassment, or vilification. While maintaining public safety and cohesion in Australian communities is a salient issue, concerns have nonetheless been raised as to the extent these regulations will suppress Western Australians right to peaceful assembly.
In consultation with the Bill, the Australian Lawyers Alliance raised concern that ‘paramount consideration’ is too broadly defined and is not balanced against the legitimate interests of those seeking to participate in peaceful protest. These fears have been echoed by the Australian Democracy Network, which argued that the expansion of police powers to refuse protest permits are overly broad and threaten fundamental democratic rights.
The Opposition, while rhetorically in support of the amendments, have questioned the extent of this restriction. Liberal Member for Carine, Liam Staltari, suggested that the paramount consideration and broadened grounds of refusal may depart from the Public Order in Streets Act 1984 (WA)’s original recognition of a basic right to orderly assembly. The WA Greens have raised similar concerns, with spokesperson Sophie McNeill criticising the Bill for providing broad police discretion to decide who has the right to protest, with no oversight or independent scrutiny.
The proposed Bill has similarities with other jurisdictions, particularly Queensland. The objects clause of the Peaceful Assembly Act 1992 (Qld) also identifies public safety as an objective of protest regulation within the state. Section 13 of the Act entitles authorities to refuse the authorisation of a public assembly where it has formed the reasonable opinion that the safety of persons would be placed in jeopardy or public disorder would occur if the protest were to proceed. This legislation therefore appears to create a similarly broad discretion to refuse protest permits as that now proposed in WA.
The difference between WA and Queensland, however, is that Queensland has a Human Rights Act that limits infringements on the right to peaceful assembly. Subsection 22(1) of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) provides that every person within the State has the right to peaceful assembly. In effect, this right may be invoked in response to police decisions to refuse or disperse protests, as well as to protect other rights including association and communication with organisations, such as trade unions.
An example of this right in action was demonstrated in Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Sri & Ors [2020] QSC 246. In this matter, the Queensland Supreme Court considered if a request by the Queensland Attorney-General to prohibit a planned sit-in protest for the rights of refugees planned during the COVID-19 pandemic should be granted.
While this protest was ultimately ordered not to proceed given the public health concerns of the broader community, the Court emphasised the rights of protestors and the importance of this right in a democracy. By introducing these mandatory considerations, protesters are better equipped to respond to police and state orders that undermine their right to peaceful assembly.
Conversations about a dedicated Human Rights Act in WA have continued after first gaining momentum in the 2007 statewide inquiry led by former federal human rights commissioner Fred Chaney AO. In this inquiry, Australian Lawyers for Human Rights (ALHR) emphasised that the right to peaceful assembly “only has piecemeal protection from a patchwork of laws” and correctly predicted that this right’s level of protection would change depending on current political and social attitudes.
Submissions to the 2024 inquiry by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights into a Federal Human Rights Framework further highlighted that Australians’ freedom of assembly and expression have been under sustained attack by State Parliaments, calling for increased protection for this fundamental right.
Despite the increasingly unstable security environment Australia is currently facing, this civil right must continue to be recognised and preserved by authorities. State-level protection is needed to safeguard the continued enjoyment and enhancement of democratic values, rights and liberties by every person in WA, including the right to peaceful assembly. A WA Human Rights Act recognising Western Australian’s fundamental right to peaceful assembly would reflect the importance of protest and dissent to both a health democracy and the Australian identity as a whole.
The Public Order Legislation Amendment Bill 2026 (WA) does ultimately make necessary changes that protect vulnerable communities from harm and intimidation. It is however important we are not overzealous in our sacrifice of hard-won protest rights, and create counterbalances to preserve Australians’ proud tradition of meaningful dissent.
