‘Dangerous’, ‘divisive’, ‘unjust’ – the Justice Legislation Amendment (Police and Other Matters) Act 2025

The new laws, based on disinformation to legitimise state violence against protesters, will have no effect on confronting hateful ideologies.

Overview

In December 2025, the Victorian government passed the Justice Legislation Amendment (Police and Other Matters) Act 2025 which added a range of new provisions to a variety of justice related legislation. Included was the addition of new offences and expanded police powers which restrict the ability to protest, some of which came into effect on 10 December 2025 with the rest coming into effect on 4 March 2026.

In their announcement, the government claimed that the purpose of the new anti-protest laws was to “keep Victorians safe” and to “crack down on violent, dangerous and hateful protesters and safeguard places of worship.”[1] However, what these new laws, and the government commentary about them, actually do is falsely conflate human-rights, environmental, and anti-war motivated political demonstrations with hatred and a danger to the public. The rhetoric broadly conflates pro-Palestinian demonstrations with antisemitism.[2]

Depriving, or limiting fundamental human and democratic rights for the purpose of presenting a certain political image, or convincing the public of the government’s attitude is a baseless exercise of legislative power.[3] Antisemitism, along with Islamophobia, as well as racism and discrimination against First Nations peoples and other communities of colour in Australia are all very real and deserve evidence-based responses that will  reduce their prevalence and harmful effects.

This blog post sets out to explain these new laws, the limits on police powers in enforcing these new laws, and where they fit with other existing laws.

Right to protest

These new laws don’t remove the right to protest. Police and other public authorities have legal obligations to ensure that the rights to politically demonstrate are respected, protected, and facilitated. As such, understanding these new protest laws and police powers, including the limitations on those powers, is critical for advocating for individual rights in interactions with police, as well as broader advocacy for individual and collective rights to political demonstration and other civil, political, and human rights.

The new laws create:

• police powers to direct a person to remove face covering;
• offences relating to people in proximity to religious assemblies;
• offences for using lock-on devices and police powers to search for and seize them; and
• Victorian offences for the display of terrorist symbols.

Face coverings

Sections 6B, 6C, 6D have been inserted into the Summary Offences Act 1966 (Vic).

From 4 March 2026, police have the power to:

• Direct a person at a public protest to remove face covering if the police officer reasonably believes the person has committed or intends to commit an offence at the public protest.
  o They can also direct the person not to resume wearing or wear another face covering while at the public protest.
• Direct a person leaving a public protest or who is at a place where a public protest was, to remove a face covering if the police officer reasonably believes the person committed an offence at the public protest.
  o Police can only give this direction if “no more than a reasonable amount of time has elapsed since the person left the place or
  the public protest stopped occurring at that place.”

In other words, there is a time limit on when police can make the direction, however this time limit is not explicitly defined.

What constitutes “no more than a reasonable amount of time” will likely be argued about in court on a case-by-case basis.

A note is included in the new laws that the actual or anticipated offence may be conduct that is likely to incite hatred against, serious contempt for, revulsion towards or severe ridicule of, another person or a group and that is engaged on the ground of a protected attribute. This conduct is an offence under s 195N(1) of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic).

Immediately after giving a direction to remove a face covering, police must inform the person that it is an offence not to comply. If police don’t give this warning, then failing to comply with the direction is not an offence.

Failing to comply is also not an offence if the person has a reasonable excuse for not complying. The laws leave open what a ‘reasonable excuse’ could be but do explicitly include ‘genuine religious or cultural’ or ‘genuine medical’ purposes as reasonable excuses.

There is nothing in the legislation about what constitutes a genuine religious, cultural or medical purpose or how a person can demonstrate the existence of these purposes to police.

The penalty for failing to comply is 5 penalty units. As of March 2026, that is $1,017.

What is a ‘public protest?

The new laws include a definition of ‘public protest’ found under s6B of the Summary Offences Act.

‘Public protest’ is defined as “an event that occurs at a public place, a non-Government school or a post-secondary education institution and is held to advance, publicise or promote a political, ideological or industrial cause.”

This is a very broad definition and could capture a wide range of activities from an information stall or a community meeting with a handful of people to a mass-mobilisation with thousands of attendees. A better understanding of how and to what activities this definition applies may become clearer through court cases.

Where these face covering laws fit in the existing legal framework

Every person has a right to privacy and a person’s identity is generally something a person is entitled to keep private.[4] Unless there is a lawful restriction on doing so, everyone has an entitlement to wear a face covering for any reason.[5] See our blog post here, written when the bill for these new powers was introduced, which discusses the many reasons a person may want or need to wear a face covering while at a demonstration or to facilitate their attendance at a demonstration.

Police requests, or directions, to remove a face covering engage rights protected by the Victorian Charter and police are obligated to properly consider these human rights in every instance of the powers being used.[6]

Prior to this law, police already had powers to obtain a person’s identity – under arrest powers and powers to demand a person’s name and address.[7]

Police can arrest a person if they reasonably believe that person has committed or is about to commit an offence. Police can demand a person’s name and address if they reasonably believe the person has committed an offence, is about to commit an offence, is able to assist police with information about an indictable offence, and in other situations such as if the person is driving a vehicle, is on public transport without a valid ticket, or is in a licensed premises and appears underage.

The Victoria Police union has made public commentary that these new laws don’t give police more powers. These statements are misleading and fail to fully comprehend the changes and how these new powers are at risk of being used against political demonstrators.

These new laws were introduced as an alternative to a blanket criminalisation of face coverings that was initially proposed by the Victorian government. The blanket criminalisation was abandoned after advocacy pressure from the legal and human rights sector, and after the government received legal advice that a blanket ban would likely not withstand a constitutional challenge in the courts.[8]

Arrest and name and address powers are generally only exercised by police when they are going to charge someone with an offence or want to collect details to possibly charge someone with an offence at a later date. The exercising of these powers sets in motion a chain of legal processes where the person targeted has opportunity and recourse to challenge the lawful use of those powers and police actions.

In contrast to these existing powers, the new face covering powers are at higher risk of being used when there is no arrest or charge or possible future charge. This is because police have the power to direct a person to remove their face covering if they “reasonably believe the person intends to commit an offence”. This is a lower threshold for triggering the power than a reasonable belief a person is about to commit an offence. For example, where a person is standing in front of a wall shaking a spray can, that would likely satisfy a reasonable belief the person is about to commit a graffiti offence. But how many steps before standing there and shaking the can could give rise to a reasonable belief that the person formed the intention to commit the offence? What are the criteria necessary to inform a police officer that a person intends to commit an offence? There are no answers to these questions in the legislation nor are there any legislative safeguards on how such a reasonable belief about a persons intention may or may not be formed.

This incredibly wide discretion is also given to police with no legislative limitation on the level of seriousness of the supposedly anticipated offence needed to trigger this power. Could police lawfully use this power to direct someone to remove a mask if they reasonably believe the person intends to jaywalk? Or is this power limited to more serious indictable offences like inciting hatred which is included in the legislative note? Because this power can be exercised with no actual charge or arrest – to challenge the reasonableness of an officer’s belief the targeted person would either need to refuse to comply, get charged, and then defend that charge in court or explore lengthy and costly avenues for civil litigation.
In contrast to the new laws, in designated areas police can request a person to remove a face covering if they reasonably believe the person is wearing it for the primary purpose of concealing their identity or protecting themselves from crowd controlling substances. They don’t have a power to direct a person to remove the face covering. Rather, after a request is made the person can remove the face covering and stay in the area or if they refuse to remove it, police can direct them to leave the area. It is an offence to fail to comply with that direction to leave the area.

This wide discretion with none of the regular, albeit limited, opportunities for accountability and scrutiny gives rise to the real possibility of arrest (and the use of force to make an arrest), criminal charges and prosecution being used as an implicit threat to force compliance even where the statutory grounds for the use of power may not be met. MALS has observed this possible tactic already being used in the exercise of face covering powers inside designated areas.

The designated area laws are supposed to limit the exercise of the request to remove the face covering depending on the primary purpose for why the person is wearing it. This limitation does not exist in the new laws. Even with the designated area limitations on police powers in designated areas, MALS has observed protests where police have made sweeping requests across attendees for people to remove face coverings giving an objectively strong impression that police were not forming the requisite belief and were misusing the power to enact a blanket ban on the wearing of face covering by protesters in the area.

There is a real risk that these new face covering powers may be misused in similar manners to target specific individuals or entire groups to gather information, deter participation in protest, or intimidate people participating in protest. Those affected will have little recourse to challenge the use of these powers without taking the incredible risk of arrest, criminal charge and prosecution or the burden of civil litigation. 

Importantly, there is no avenue for a person to maintain their privacy and keep a face covering on in circumstances where the power is misused. This is because when the power is used, or misused, there are no options for a person to keep the face covering on even if they agree to leave the area (in contrast to the designated area power, which adds an additional layer of interference with the right to political communication). A person who does not comply with what may later turn out to be an unlawful exercise of power, will have had their face covering removed anyway as part of the arrest process.

Both the designated area powers and the new powers are explicitly not supposed to be exercised against persons who are wearing the face covering for medical, religious, or cultural reasons. However, MALS has repeatedly reported on Victoria Police’s inability to have a functional policy that enables people at a political demonstrations who have a medical need to wear a face covering to do so.

This has included observations of police telling demonstrators wanting to wear PPE face masks for medical reasons that they were not allowed to do so, and that if they were worried about their health, they could leave the demonstration. In one instance, MALS observed an onsite Police Prosecutor informing another officer and a demonstrator that health concerns were not a legitimate reason to keep a mask on – a starkly obvious incorrect application and communication of the law.[9] According to Victoria Police, they have no way to know if a face covering was being worn for genuine medical reasons – meaning that they have no way of correctly applying the law and upholding the legislative safeguards imposed to limit the use of the power.

Lock-ons

Sections 6E, 6F, 6G, and 6H have been inserted into the Summary Offences Act 1966 (Vic).

From 4 March 2026, it is an offence for a person to use a thing or substance to lock or otherwise secure any person, including themselves to another person, surface, or thing at a public protest if:

• it’s likely to cause injury to a person other than one of those who is locked or secured; or
• it presents a serious risk to public safety; or
• unlocking or releasing a person who is locked or secured is likely to cause injury to a person other than those locked-on or is a serious risk to public safety.

The maximum penalty for this new offence is 120 penalty unit fine (currently $24,421), 12 months imprisonment, or both.

Police will also be allowed to seize things or substances if:

• the person is locked or otherwise secured using the thing or substance, or they reasonably believe they are being used for the new offence or are about to be used to commit the new offence; and
• they have informed the person of their belief, asked the person to hand over the container or thing, and warned the person that they can use reasonable force to seize.

Police can also apply for a search warrant to look for evidence that these offences have been committed or are likely to be committed in the next 72 hours.

Where these lock-on laws fit in the existing legal framework

Criminal offences already exist to capture conduct that endangers safety and/or causes injury to others as well as conduct that causes a public nuisance.

MALS is aware of, and has observed the use of, lock-ons (or other methods of securing a person to an object, structure, the ground, or another person) in protests that have caused disruption to car traffic, foot traffic, as well as entry points to buildings or facilities. MALS is not aware of, nor have we observed, any political demonstrator using such devices to endanger themselves or others. Examples of protest related conduct that has caused or risked such dangers has not been provided by the government or Victoria Police, nor has there been any evidence provided that available criminal offences are lacking to adequately capture such conduct.

The attempt to draw a connection between lock-on devices and an intention to cause harm to people attached to them, the public, or those attempting to remove them is blatant misinformation clearly intended to demonise political demonstrators and political dissent. It appears to MALS that the real intention of the new laws is to perpetuate false and stigmatising narratives that political demonstrators are bad people, to thus pre-emptively sanction state violence through the weaponisation of the criminal law against political demonstrators.

Disruption and inconvenience are inherent to public assembly and political communication and should not be criminalised. The very act of assembling with others in a public place causes a level of disruption and inconvenience. Acceptance and tolerance of disruption and inconvenience is an unavoidable, necessary aspect of living in a free and democratic society.

These lock-on laws have no connection with reducing vilifying and prejudice motivated crime which the Victorian government states is the rationale for why these laws have been introduced. It is plain that these new laws are part of the ongoing attempts to falsely frame protesters as hateful and violent and to erroneously conflate anti-war and pro-Palestine political demonstration with antisemitism and other forms of hate and vilification.

It is easily foreseeable that these new offences will see genuine political demonstrators being laden with more and more offences, increasing the risks of severe penalties including terms of imprisonment. This will form part of an existing and seriously concerning pattern in Victoria of increasing criminalisation of genuine political communication, and the positioning of Victoria as a jurisdiction that aggressively charges and prosecutes political demonstrators.

Terrorist symbols

Sections 41N, 41O, 41P, 41Q, 41R, 41S and 41T have been inserted into the Summary Offences Act 1966 (Vic).

 It is an offence to intentionally display a terrorist symbol where:

• the person knows the symbol is one of an organisation; and
• the organisation is a terrorist organisation; and
• the display is in a public place or occurs or can be seen from public place.

The maximum penalty for this new offence is a 120 penalty unit fine (currently $24,421), 12 months imprisonment, or both.

There are exceptions to the offence if the display:

• was for genuine academic, artistic, education, scientific cultural or religious purposes; or
• was in making or publishing a fair and accurate report of any event or matter of public interest; or
• is in opposition to the ideology or purpose of a terrorist organisation; or
• is on a persons body in the form of a tattoo or other like process; or
• is done as part of a persons official duties as a police officer or other official duties with the administration of the justice system.

Where these terrorist symbol laws fit in the existing legal framework

Federal laws already exist that cover the display of terrorist organisation symbols and it is unclear why the Victorian government is seeking to also legislate in this space. As discussed in our blog when these laws were introduced as a bill, the new Victorian laws will do little to nothing to substantively address problems of antisemitism, Islamophobia and other forms of vilification and prejudice motivated crime in Victoria.

MALS legal observers have been present at public assemblies where members of the demonstrator crowd have been approached by police on the allegation that they were displaying such prohibited symbols. In these incidents, MALS observed police to confiscate the item and take details of the accused persons. As such, it appears that authorities are sufficiently furnished with requisite powers.

With the government rhetoric surrounding the introduction of these laws broadly focused on left-wing political, anti-war, and pro-Palestinian demonstrations, MALS is concerned that the introduction of these state-based terrorism symbol display offences wrongly associate these movements, and particularly the pro-Palestinian movement, with terrorism.

MALS echoes concerns raised by the Human Rights Law Centre that “[rather] than delivering safety, laws that ban symbols risk further marginalising Muslim and other racialised communities—especially when developed without extensive consultation” and that “[banning] symbols also raises significant concerns about legitimate expression. The same imagery that may be associated with terrorism or hate can also appear in satire, education, art, historical analysis or even stamps and coins. Without careful drafting and clear safeguards, such laws risk capturing innocent and legitimate uses—creating confusion and a chilling effect on political discourse, scholarship, and protest.”[10]

Religious assemblies

Section 21 has been amended and sections 21A, 21B and 21C have been inserted into the Summary Offences Act 1966 (Vic).

Laws commenced last year make it an offence to:

• intentionally engage in conduct that disturbs a religious assembly;
• assault another person who is arriving at, attending, or leaving a religious assembly;
• intentionally intimidate, menace, or harass another person who is arriving at, attending, or leaving a religious assembly; or
• intentionally hinder or obstruct another person from arriving at, attending, or leaving a religious assembly.

The maximum penalty for these offences is a 15 penalty unit fine (currently $3,052.65) or 3 months imprisonment.

Where these religious assembly laws fit in the existing legal framework

Before these laws were introduced, it was already an offence for any person to  disturb a religious assembly or to assault any person officiating or attending a religious assembly.

Existing criminal offences also already exist to capture assaults, obstructing roads or footpaths, and aggressive, violent, or threatening conduct.

There has been no evidence provided by the government or Victoria Police that this conduct is taking place and existing criminal offences are inept to adequately respond.

As above, it is plainly clear that these new laws are not about addressing actual, existing dangerous conduct that existing laws are unable to respond to, but are about politics and the demonisation of protesters and specifically the pro-Palestine movement.

It is incredibly dangerous to the broader Victorian, Australian, and global communities for governments to wrongly conflate political dissent with hate. The spread and perpetuation of this disinformation is incredibly harmful and divisive and for those targeted can result in criminalisation and resultant further marginalisation and stigmatisation.

Conclusion

MALS maintains our position that these new laws are an unjust overreach and will have a real and live risk of repressing political demonstration in Victoria.

These laws will have no effect on confronting and changing the social conditions that are enabling racist, xenophobic and other actually hateful ideologies to fester and grow.

The false political and media narratives that spuriously connect political protests to attacks on Synagogues and buildings connected to the Jewish faith as well as false narratives that generally connect left-wing protests to actual vilification is incredibly dangerous and divisive to the whole community.

MALS remains deeply concerned that these stigmatising narratives and disinformation work to legitimise incredible levels of state violence to be used against political demonstrators.

[1] Premier of Victoria, ‘Stronger Police Powers To Keep Protests Peaceful’ (11 November 2025)
[2] Premier of Victoria, ‘Transcript Of Premier’s Remarks – Next Steps To Combat Anti-Semitism’ (22 December 2025, Media Release); Premier of Victoria, ‘Five Next Steps To Combat Anti-Semitism And Keep People Safe’ (22 December 2025, Media Release); Premier of Victoria, ‘Stronger Police Powers To Keep Protests Peaceful’ (11 November 2025, media release); Premier of Victoria, ‘Anti-Hate Taskforce Just One Part Of Our Action Plan’ (7 July 2025, Media Release); Premier of Victoria, ‘Premier’s Speech On Social Cohesion’ (17 December 2025, Media Release); Premier of Victoria, ‘Strong Action To Fight Hate And Help Victoria Heal’ (17 December 2025, Media Release).
[3] Minister of Home Affairs v National Institute for Crime Prevention and the Re-integration of Offenders (NICRO) 2004 (5) BCLR 445, [56].
[4] Browne v Assistant Commissioner of Police, North West Metro Region, [115]-[116] and [131]-[132].
[5] Brown v Assistant Commissioner of Police, North West Metro Region, [116].
[6] Brown v Assistant Commissioner of Police, North West Metro Region, [117], [132], [166].
[7] Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) s456AA.
[8] Benita Kolovos, ‘Victoria’s new anti-protest laws to be watered down amid pushback from human rights groups and unions’, The Guardian Australia (13 August 2025, online); Judd Boaz, ‘Government announces increased police powers around masks, bans on certain items and symbols in protest crackdown’, ABC News (11 November 2025, online).
[9] MALS, ‘Policing of the ‘Abolish the Police – Our Safety in Our Hands’ rally in the CBD on 9 May 2025’ (online report).
[10] Human Rights Law Centre, ‘Human rights briefing: Victoria’s anti-protest laws’ (9 July 2025).