Right to Protest Bill 2025; Second Reading

Hodgins-May strongly supported the bill, arguing that it addresses the erosion of democratic freedoms through repressive state anti-protest laws. Hodgins-May cited reports from human rights organisations indicating that Australia leads the world in arresting climate activists and that current laws disproportionately target dissenters. Hodgins-May emphasised that the bill codifies international obligations and ensures that excessive penalties and vague restrictions on protest are invalidated. Hodgins-May asserted that protecting the right to dissent is essential for a functioning democracy and holding powerful interests accountable.

Scarr opposed the bill, raising concerns about its drafting and the definition of protest, which includes disruptive actions. Scarr argued that while freedom of speech and assembly are fundamental, they must be balanced against the rights of others, including public safety and access to emergency services. Scarr noted that recent large-scale marches proceeded without issue under current laws, suggesting the existing system works effectively. Scarr warned that the bill could inadvertently protect extreme conduct and undermine the ability of authorities to manage public order and safety.

Roberts expressed support for the principle of peaceful protest but raised significant concerns about the bill’s vague wording and lack of specific protections for individual rights. Roberts noted that the bill does not adequately address conflicts between protesters and others, such as the right to free movement, nor does it define terms like excessive or peaceful. Roberts emphasised One Nation’s commitment to states’ rights and competitive federalism, opposing federal encroachment into areas traditionally managed by state laws. Roberts concluded that while the concept of peaceful protest is important, the bill requires significant amendments to address its deficiencies.

McKenzie opposed the bill, arguing that the right to protest should not extend to holding others hostage or impeding freedom of movement. McKenzie cited examples of protests that disrupted agricultural operations and intimidated communities, particularly Jewish Australians, as problematic. McKenzie contended that democracy relies on persuasion rather than coercion and that the bill could enable such coercive tactics. McKenzie also criticised the Victorian government’s handling of renewable energy projects, linking it to broader concerns about authoritarian tendencies in protest management.