Key Points
- A joint report by the Australian Democracy Network (ADN) and Deakin University’s Centre for Law as Protection warns that council red tape, including excessive public liability insurance demands, is suppressing the fundamental right to protest.
- Regional New South Wales (NSW) councils have demanded insurance coverage up to $20 million from local rally organisers before granting access to public parks.
- In Bathurst, protest organiser Mariella Gussoni was forced to move a rally against brumby culling to a public footpath after Bathurst Regional Council required $20 million in public liability coverage.
- In Queanbeyan, protest organisers were initially quoted $5,000 for insurance to hold a rally involving horses, which was reduced to $330 only after obtaining participant liability waivers.
- Community groups, including Stop the Cooks River AI Project (SCRAP) opposing a $2.9 billion data centre, face similar barriers, with Bayside Council classifying community rallies as commercial events requiring eight-week assessment periods.
- Legal experts and civil liberties advocates argue that council permits and financial burdens infringe upon the implied constitutional right to freedom of political communication, calling for permit systems to be transformed into simple notification processes.
Australian News Today (ANT) October 14, 2026 – Local council red tape and excessive administrative demands are severely hindering the constitutional right to protest across Australia, according to a landmark joint report released by the Australian Democracy Network (ADN) and Deakin University’s Centre for Law as Protection. The report highlights growing concerns over regional and urban local governments requiring grassroots organisers to secure public liability insurance policies worth tens of millions of dollars or undergo months of formal event assessments before gathering in public parks. Civil liberties advocates argue that these bureaucratic hurdles act as a de facto ban on local assembly and threaten democracy.
How Are Australian Councils Restricting Public Rallies?
According to report co-author and ADN protest rights campaigner Anastasia Radievska, council administrative hurdles such as high-cost insurance requirements and complex permit systems are creating a dangerous chilling effect on community activism. Radievska emphasised that community groups frequently form in response to localized neighbourhood issues, but prohibitive council demands deter citizens from speaking out. As reported by Guardian Australia, Radievska stated that “often, community groups might spring up in relation to a specific local issue,” warning that “the more councils do this, the more other councils think that this is the way to interact with protest.”
The report outlines that across most Australian jurisdictions, public assembly remains legally unprotected or technically unlawful without explicit permission from police, local councils, or place managers. In New South Wales, holding an unauthorised public gathering on council-managed land carries a default fine of up to $2,200 under the state’s Local Government Act, although individual councils retain the power to adopt distinct policies.
These local government permits operate concurrently with the NSW Police Form 1 notification process, which grants protesters legal immunity from offences such as road obstruction when notice is provided in advance. The authors of the report called for existing council permit systems across Australia to be re-engineered strictly as notification processes rather than authorization systems, while advocating for the complete elimination of public liability insurance demands for peaceful political gatherings.
What Challenges Have Local Protest Organisers Faced?
The real-world impacts of council regulatory demands are illustrated through several recent regional and metropolitan incidents. In July, 61-year-old organiser Mariella Gussoni notified Bathurst Regional Council of her intention to host a peaceful rally in a public park against the culling of wild horses (brumbies) in Kosciuszko National Park as part of a national day of action. Gussoni advised the council that the event would feature music and guest speakers, with attendance expected to range between five and 50 people.
In response, Bathurst Regional Council issued formal correspondence stipulating that the protest could only proceed if Gussoni secured a $20 million public liability insurance policy, explicitly declaring that the council would accept no liability for injury or loss. As reported by Guardian Australia, Gussoni stated, “it scared me that I would be liable. I had just let the council know as a courtesy.” Intimidated by potential financial ruin, Gussoni relocated the rally—which eventually drew approximately 120 attendees—to an adjacent public footpath outside council control, notifying police to ensure the event proceeded without incident.
Similarly, in Queanbeyan, organisers of a brumby culling rally involving 16 horses and public speeches were informed by local council staff that insurance was mandatory. As reported by the Australian Democracy Network, the organizers were initially quoted $5,000 for public coverage involving livestock, a cost that was reduced to $330 only after securing signed liability waivers from participants.
Urban protest groups have faced comparable administrative friction. Last week, community coalition Stop the Cooks River AI Project (SCRAP), which opposes a proposed $2.9 billion data centre on Sydney’s Cooks River, attempted to organize a public rally at Cahill Park in Wolli Creek. Bayside Council informed organizers that public liability insurance was mandatory and insisted on a full event application process requiring eight weeks to assess, citing the inclusion of amplified sound, a film screening, and food.
As reported by Guardian Australia, SCRAP organiser Caitlin Boyce stated that after seeking pro bono legal advice, the group chose to proceed with the rally at Cahill Park without submitting a formal council event application. Boyce noted that the council took no further enforcement action following the rally. In response to inquiries, a spokesperson for Bayside Council defended its position, stating that while the council did not oppose the assembly itself, planned activities—including a smoking ceremony and barbecue—”constitute an organised event and are subject to Council’s event approval requirements.”
Are Council Insurance Demands Legally Justified?
Civil liberties organizations have strongly condemned council attempts to impose insurance liabilities and event permit frameworks on political expression. Tim Roberts, President of the NSW Council for Civil Liberties, described local government demands for permits and multi-million-dollar insurance policies as an unhelpful and reactionary approach to public management.
As reported by Guardian Australia, Roberts stated that such requirements are “a blatant contravention of the right to protest,” directly referencing the implied freedom of political communication protected under the Australian Constitution. Roberts affirmed that protest organisers should only ever be expected to provide reasonable notice to authorities rather than seek permission, equating council liability requirements to controversial proposals for user-pays policing models at democratic rallies.
While some jurisdictions like the City of Sydney have passed formal motions affirming the explicit right to protest on council-managed land without administrative fees, the broader regional landscape remains heavily restricted by default legislative penalties and local bureaucratic discretion.
Background of the Particular Development
The tension between local government authority and democratic assembly rights in Australia stems from a complex, dual-layered regulatory framework. Traditionally, public space management falls under state-based local government legislation, which grants local councils broad administrative authority to regulate public parks, manage risk, and prevent commercial or physical damage to public assets.
Over recent decades, insurance liability concerns have led local government authorities to increasingly treat non-violent political gatherings under the same regulatory umbrella as commercial festivals, community fetes, and private commercial hires. This classification requires public liability indemnifications that are functionally unachievable for informal, unincorporated grassroots groups or individual citizens.
Simultaneously, state-level legislation—such as Part 4 of the Summary Offences Act 1988 in NSW—establishes a statutory notification scheme (the Form 1 process) with law enforcement. This system was originally designed to balance public order with freedom of speech by granting protesters legal protection from obstruction charges without requiring formal council consent. However, the rise of overlapping local government by-laws, default fines, and council event management policies has created legal ambiguity, allowing local councils to assert administrative veto power over public land usage regardless of police arrangements.
Prediction: How This Development Can Affect Protest Organisers and Local Communities
If local councils continue to treat peaceful public rallies as commercial events requiring multi-million-dollar insurance policies and lengthier assessment windows, the practical capacity for grassroots democratic engagement in Australia will diminish significantly.
- Suppression of Grassroots Activism: Unincorporated community groups, neighborhood associations, and individual citizens will be effectively priced out of organizing lawful public assemblies in their own local spaces. The risk of personal financial liability or substantial default council fines will deter individuals from leading local campaigns.
- Shift to Unregulated or High-Friction Assemblies: Rather than preventing protests, onerous council red tape is likely to force organizers to bypass local authorities entirely. As demonstrated in Bathurst and Wolli Creek, groups will increasingly choose to host unpermitted rallies on footpaths or public parks, escalating legal ambiguity and potential friction with local authorities.
- Increased Legal and Constitutional Challenges: Continued enforcement of $20 million liability policies and $2,200 fines may precipitate high-court legal challenges grounded in Australia’s implied constitutional freedom of political communication. Such litigation could ultimately force state governments to reform local government acts to explicitly exempt non-commercial democratic gatherings from council event approval systems.
