Seeing images of protest is how many of us learn about Australia’s iconic moments of progress. The 1972 Aboriginal Tent Embassy. The 1971 Springboks rugby anti-apartheid protests. The 2019 School Strike for Climate rallies. We laud them as signals of our egalitarian and democratic traditions; proof that our society not only listens to diverse voices, but also acts on them.
Few dates anchor this tradition more powerfully than January 26th with its long pedigree of peaceful dissent. As far back as 1938, Aboriginal leaders organised the “Day of Mourning” in Sydney as an alternative view of the consequences of 150 years of British colonisation. As over 1,000 people marched in silence, this foundational moment for modern First Nations activism helped shift the national narrative from celebration and peace to invasion and extermination. As the organisers declared:
“The 26th of January, 1938, is not a day of rejoicing for Australia’s Aborigines; it is a day of mourning. This festival of 150 years’ so-called “progress” in Australia commemorates also 150 years of misery and degradation imposed upon the original native inhabitants by the white invaders of this country.”
As with many protest messages, it was not a view that many Australians wanted to acknowledge.
Yet as decades of relentless protest persisted from the Day of Mourning to today, they have slowly changed perspectives about Australian history. And while we remain far from truly reckoning with our past, many Australians now recognise January 26th as a day of contested meaning rather than simple celebration.
Today, that historical tradition is being challenged by the NSW’s Terrorism and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2025, introduced on Christmas Eve 2025 following a terrorist incident in Bondi. These laws allow the Police Commissioner to suspend the “Form 1” process for up to 90 days; eliminating the limited legal protections that prevent protesters from being charged for gathering peacefully. In a state where police already possess expanded powers to search without warrants and use “move-on” directions, this loss of protected status during protests is dangerous.
The rapid introduction of the Amendment has followed a well-worn path. Time and time again we have seen legislation suppressing protest activities introduced rapidly, with little to no public consultation, often under the guise of ‘public safety’. Yet again politicians have used language to underpin their legislative reactions; conflating peaceful protest with violence, dehumanising advocates as ‘almost troll-like’, and fostering fear by claiming that organisers are ‘unleashing forces they can’t control’.
Form 1: A shield against state violence
The importance of “authorised” status via the Form 1 process must be understood against the backdrop of NSW’s aggressive anti-protest regime. In 2022, the state introduced laws that raised the stakes of unauthorised protest to unprecedented levels: blocking a major road, bridge, or tunnel can now result in fines of up to $22,000 and prison sentences of up to two years.
This legislative shift is backed by militarised policing. In late 2021, NSW Police formed Strike Force Tuohy: deploying helicopters, the Riot Squad, and intelligence units usually reserved for organised crime, specifically to target climate protesters. These pre-emptive raids have created a culture of intimidation, where even non-violent activists are treated as major threats to the state.
For Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, the absence of Form 1 protections carries even greater weight. The history of NSW policing is inextricably linked to colonial control, from the “Native Police” forces of the late 1800s to the forced removal of children under the Aborigines Protection Act. This historical pain is compounded by the escalating crisis of deaths in custody continuing today. Recent data shows that 2024–25 saw the highest number of First Nations deaths in custody since 1980. Indigenous people are 17 times more likely to be imprisoned than non-Indigenous Australians, and experience being over-policed and over-represented in every stage of the justice system.
The Form 1 is not a permit; it is meaningful protection against the misuse of state power.
Suppressing protest harms our democracy
Visible, peaceful, regular protest is not merely a pressure valve for public discontent: it is essential democratic infrastructure. Protests embody the core values of egalitarianism and collective deliberation, serving as public forums where marginalised groups bypass formal political processes that are often opaque, technical, or have historically excluded their perspectives entirely. Australia’s consistent history of peaceful protest demonstrates their important role as a peaceful avenue for sharing alternative perspectives.
Protecting this form of political communication doesn’t just benefit those who show up to protests. Democratic legitimacy requires fair consideration of dissenting views. This involves not just allowing people to speak, but ensuring their input enters public reflection.
This matters profoundly in an era of rising polarisation and ideological extremism. Unlike social media echo chambers or segregated political spheres, a march through city streets makes dissenting views visible and unavoidable. When bystanders witness thousands gathering peacefully for a cause they may not understand or agree with, they are confronted with the fact that others hold deeply different views for deeply held reasons.
These ideas, when aired publicly in peaceful, well-organised, and inclusive public forums such as protests, underpins genuine democratic debate. We need to foster this debate now more than ever to counter the rise in ideological extremism and rebuild community trust that our democracy is working for everyone; not just those who already have a seat at the table.
History shows us a better pathway forward
Three advocacy groups (Palestine Action Group Sydney, the Blak Caucus, and Jews Against the Occupation ’48) have filed a constitutional legal challenge in the NSW Supreme Court arguing the laws impermissibly burden the implied freedom of political communication, with a hearing set for late January. While this challenge is vital, we cannot wait for the courts to act. Given the fundamental importance of protest in fostering a vibrant and inclusive democracy, especially for communities historically silenced by the state, the NSW Parliament should repeal this amendment immediately.
For centuries, First Nations people have advocated peacefully and respectfully through public protest when other avenues have been closed to them. From the 1938 Day of Mourning to today’s Invasion Day marches, these vital deliberative acts force the state to hear a narrative it routinely ignores. This vibrant, engaging, challenging, and empowering democratic tradition must be protected, not dismantled in the name of security theatre.
