Defending the democratic right of political speech and assembly in Australia

The current attacks on freedom of speech and assembly through the “hate laws” and anti-protest legislation call for action.

Australians’ history in defeating repressive legislation through mass non-violent civil disobedience suggests an effective practical mode of action.

We have never lived in an Australia where true freedom of speech and political action can be practised.

As former PM John Gorton allegedly said in 1968 in relation to Vietnam War protesters:

"We will tolerate dissent as long as it is ineffective."

In response to the recent police attack on a Sydney rally opposing the visit to Australia of Israeli President Isaac Herzog, an attack during which some police used protesters as punching bags, Sydney criminal lawyer Nick Hanna said in a podcast interview that:

“We don’t have a constitutionally enshrined right to free speech in the same way as they do in the United States. What we have here is a very limited form of freedom of speech if you can call it that; it is the implied freedom of political communication which has severe limitations.”

Sydney protests are our Minneapolis moment

When riot police use force against peaceful protesters and premiers applaud the batons, it’s no longer just a rally, it’s a warning about how quickly democratic rights can be stripped away.

He further explained that the truth is no defence against these new “hate speech laws”:

“Truthful statements like: ‘Zionism is a form of racism’, ‘Israel is carrying out a genocide in Gaza’, ‘Israel is an apartheid state’ and ‘Palestine should be free from the river to the sea’ could see you potentially arrested, charged and facing gaol time.”

The attacks on freedom of political speech and action intensified after 9/11 with the initiation of the so-called War on Terror.

Ben Saul is Professor of International Law at The University of Sydney and wrote (ABC, 2014) the following on the raft of repressive laws enacted as part of the War on Terror:

'The truth is that Australia already has enough laws to deal with terrorism. Since 9/11 the Parliament has been amongst the most hyperactive and invasive counter-terrorism law-makers on the planet.'

Professor Saul continued:

The new laws also go too far. They criminalise innocent travel to places the Foreign Minister does not want you to go. They criminalise free speech. They criminalise whistle-blowers and the media that report them. They allow mass surveillance of innocent Australians on the internet. They deny procedural fairness. They violate the right to social security and therefore potentially leave people destitute. All of this comes without the binding human rights safeguards that every other self-respecting democracy imposes on its security agencies.

Further restrictive laws were passed in several states to stop environmental protest action.

Pro-Palestine rally gives politicians fuel for anti-protest agenda

A protest against the families of Israeli hostages has been turned into a political stunt, providing our leaders with a reason to call for increased anti-protest laws.

For example, in NSW, the Council for Civil Liberties (CCL) stated in 2018 that:

'On 1 July, new regulations will come into effect, granting the NSW State Government incredibly wide powers to disperse or ban protests, rallies, and virtually any public gathering across approximately half of all land across the state. CCL strongly opposes these regulations.'

The ABC reported on 12th February 2026:

'Days after the Bondi massacre the government passed laws giving police the discretion to ban authorised public assemblies, a fortnight at a time, for up to three months following a terror attack. Protest groups are challenging the law underpinning this prohibition, which has been extended four times already.'

Australians have shown courage and defiance in the face of anti-democratic laws and, where necessary, have supported non-violent, mass civil disobedience to challenge and defeat repressive legislation.

In 1977, then Queensland Premier Joh Bjelke‑Petersen declared:

“The day of the political street march is over. Don’t bother to apply for a permit. You won’t get one. That’s government policy now.”

A few weeks later, thousands of people defied Bjelke‑Petersen’s proclamation and gathered in Brisbane for an anti‑uranium march. That afternoon in October 1977, 418 people were arrested and Queensland’s “right to march” movement was initiated. Civil liberties demonstrations continued until the ban – originally enacted to curb a growing anti-nuclear movement – was lifted two years later.

One of the largest campaigns in defiance of unjust legislation was the May 1969 mass mobilisation demanding the release of Clarrie O’Shea, Victorian Secretary of the Tramways Union. gaoled for contempt of court when his union refused to pay fines imposed under the anti-union Penal Powers legislation. One million workers downed tools for a week until O’Shea was released.

This massive strike action that forced the state to release Clarrie O'Shea was not legal. The union and workers were threatened with even heftier fines and gaol if they went on strike. They knew this, but much work had been done in educating union members of the consequences of the Penal Powers and coupled with their experience, courage and confidence in their collective strength, they proceeded undeterred. The Penal Powers, as then constituted, were never used again.

There were numerous acts of civil disobedience in defiance of the National Service Act 1964 conscription laws in the late 1960s and early 1970s. At that time, a newspaper advertisement was placed in a major Melbourne daily calling on young men not to register for national service. This was a Crimes Act offence because it urged the breaking of a Commonwealth law and could result in a gaol sentence.

Hundreds of people from all walks of life, ministers of religion, trade union leaders and some politicians signed that statement in a mass public act of defiance, but no one was ever arrested or charged.

Criminalisation of protests may increase draconian laws

The criminalisation of pro-Palestinian activism could see states implementing further anti-protest laws that would stifle democratic freedom of speech.

On 8 May 1970, 100,000 protesters sat down and occupied the central streets of Melbourne in protest against the Vietnam War and conscription, despite being told not to do so by Victorian Premier Bolte. This was a mass act of civil disobedience and again, no one was arrested or charged for this defiance of the law.

Draft resisters and their supporters publicly burned their call-up cards and National Service registration forms, both of which were Crimes Act offences. This defiance was so widespread that few were penalised and it all added “fuel to the fire”. A mood of rebellion was in the air, which could not be quelled and which led to the December 1972 ousting of the Coalition Government and its replacement by the Whitlam ALP Government, which abolished conscription, released gaoled draft resisters and brought all Australian troops home from Vietnam.

Clearly, we have in Australia many historical precedents for successful defiance of unjust laws. We should keep this in mind when campaigning against legislative assaults such as the “hate speech” laws and the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Amendment Bill (No.2) 2025 currently before Parliament.

These, together with the establishment of the AFP AUKUS Command charged with dispersing protesters and implementation of “public order management munitions delivery” (pepper spray, tear gas, stun grenades, laser electrical weapons, rubber bullets and firearms), have established a repressive political environment intended to shut down the unprecedented campaign of mass support for the Palestinians.

And, additionally, to stifle growing public opposition to the 2021 AUKUS war pact and our integration into the U.S. war machine in preparation for a U.S.-instigated war on China.

Current anti-democratic laws restricting freedom of speech and assembly cry out to be broken and defeated. Campaigns of mass, non-violent civil disobedience beckon.

Do they teach this at the @NSWPolice Academy?
Brutality 101, am I right? #HerzogNotWelcome #auspol pic.twitter.com/0oRAzgk5mn
— AJGardineresq.bsky.social (@AJGardineresq) February 9, 2026

Bevan Ramsden is a long-time peace activist going back to his full-time voluntary organising work in the Vietnam Moratorium Campaign, for which he was, with Jim Cairns, the Victorian representative on the National Vietnam Moratorium Campaign committee. He has continued since in peace activities and more recently as a member of the national coordinating committee for the Independence and Peaceful Australia network and editor of its monthly publication, Voice.