Measuring the Criminalisation of Environmental Protest
An empirical look at how peaceful protest has been criminalised in Australia from the 1960s to now, across rhetoric, law, policing and surveillance. The same patterns run back decades, long before the current wave of anti-protest laws. This dashboard puts numbers on the long arc, and asks what our transparency mechanisms can and cannot reveal.
What this research examines
Across the globe, a wave of legislation targeting peaceful protest over the past decade has coincided with periods of significant corporate lobbying by fossil fuel and extractive industries. At the same time, citizens and organisations using transparency mechanisms such as Freedom of Information requests, parliamentary Questions on Notice have encountered systematic refusals, delays, and fee gouging that prevent scrutiny of exactly the decisions most in need of it. This dashboard tracks how these trends might be connected and if so, whether Australia's democratci transparency mechanisms allow citizens to find out.
Using FOI requests, ministerial diary records, donation registers, Hansard analysis, and investigative journalism, researchers have mapped the channels through which corporate interests may have shaped government responses to climate activism, and documented what happened when citizens tried to see behind the curtain. This dashboard is a living record, updated as new data comes to light. If you have relevant documents, data, or leads, we welcome contributions from researchers, journalists, and members of the public.
What is protest criminalisation?
Protest criminalisation involves the strategies used by a state to suppress dissent by criminalizing social protest activities. This process typically operates through three core mechanisms—rhetorical, legislative, and expansionary—which function as a feedback loop, each reinforcing and boosting the others to curtail protest freedoms.
By redefining peaceful activities as criminal, states can maintain the status quo and resist calls for social and environmental change.
Why protest laws matter
Australia has seen more than a dozen significant pieces of anti-protest legislation since 2014, with penalties escalating from small fines to multi-year imprisonment. These laws particularly target protests at fossil fuel extraction sites, shipping hubs, and corporate conferences.
Protest criminalisation provides a revealing stress-test for democratic institutions: it involves constitutional rights, powerful corporate interests, and significant public opposition. This makes it possible to identify systemic patterns rather than isolated incidents.
Why transparency mechanisms matter
FOI requests, ministerial diaries, and parliamentary accountability tools are the primary means by which citizens can understand who shapes government decisions. When these mechanisms fail, such as through blanket refusals, excessive fees, or National Cabinet exemptions, the public cannot assess whether decisions serve the common good or narrow private interests.
Our current data suggests that the most politically sensitive decisions can also be the ones most systematically shielded from public view. This appears to be the case across both protest policing and legislative processes.
"The criminalisation of peaceful protest offers a particularly revealing domain for analysis. When governments restrict the ability of citizens to challenge powerful interests, we can observe whether corporate actors play a strategic role in undermining the very democratic mechanisms designed to hold them accountable." — Research framework, 2026
Mechanisms of Protest Criminalisation
Researchers identified three core mechanisms by which social protest is criminalised in democratic contexts. We apply this diagnostic framework to our analysis, alongside indicators of state capture which are explored further below.
Rhetorical Criminalisation
Positioning protesters as outsiders through the use of terms such as “terrorists,” “vandals,” “extremists,” or “radicals.” This “othering” frames activists as threats to national security and legitimate targets of policing, justifying the erosion of protest rights.
Legislative Criminalisation
The construction or codification of legal sanctions for behaviors newly defined as criminal. This involves utilizing criminal justice procedures and legal vocabulary to transform previously noncriminal activities into crimes, often by redefining the act of obstruction.
Expansionary Criminalisation
The criminalisation of routine and peaceful citizen actions through the expanded use of existing powers and discretionary interpretation. This includes police using move-on orders to block access to public space, and corporate entities using strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPP) to silence dissent.
A test case for democratic transparency
Across the world, governments have introduced new restrictions on protest rights at an accelerating pace, particularly around climate change, mining, and fossil fuel extraction. Yet the processes by which these restrictions are proposed, promoted, and passed often remain opaque, even as surveys consistently show strong public support for action on climate change.
This raises a fundamental question: if there is broad public demand for climate action, why are governments simultaneously restricting the rights of people who organise and advocate on climate issues? Who is shaping these decisions, through which channels, and how much of it can citizens actually see?
Protest criminalisation turns out to be an exceptionally revealing test case for examining these questions. It sits at the intersection of constitutional rights, powerful corporate interests, and significant public opposition. This makes patterns of influence easier to identify than in areas of more routine or technical policymaking. If state capture dynamics are at work anywhere, they are likely to be visible here.
In Australia, the volume and consistency of climate-related arrests and new anti-protest legislation since 2014 provided a substantial body of evidence to examine. Researchers used these events as a practical stress-test: submitting Freedom of Information requests, analysing ministerial diaries and donation records, and reviewing parliamentary debates and consultation records to ask whether our transparency and accountability systems could reveal who was driving these changes and why.
The arrests and legislation mapped below are not simply a record of conflict between activists and the state. They are data points in an investigation into how democratic decisions are made in Australia, and whether citizens have meaningful access to information about the interests that shape them.
Each recorded arrest or criminalisation event shows where and when the state has used legal force against climate protesters. Together they reveal the scale and geographic spread of enforcement activity across Australia since 2008.
Each piece of anti-protest legislation marks a formal change to the legal framework governing dissent. The timing, speed, and consultation process behind each law are central to understanding whether democratic norms were followed or bypassed.
Thirteen case studies look behind specific arrests, laws, and FOI refusals to ask who was involved, what access they had, and what transparency mechanisms could and could not reveal about the decisions that were made. They run from the historical long arc, Franklin and Jabiluka, through to transparency failures, protest policing and anti-protest laws.
Tracking protest criminalisation in Australia over time
Our archive of Australian environmental protest puts numbers on the pattern. The same moves, arrests, new laws and surveillance, run back decades, long before the current wave of anti-protest legislation. The chart below counts criminalisation records by year from 1970 to 2025, with the modern record drawn from the mapped arrest and legislation data.
Arrests, police violence, fines and move-on orders. Jabiluka alone brought over 500 arrests in 1998; the Franklin blockade roughly 1,272 in 1982 to 1983.
Laws, injunctions and attempted bills, from the Atomic Energy Act in the 1950s to a 1997 Victorian trespass law flagged at once as usable on protesters.
Undercover operatives inside Friends of the Earth, the Wilderness Society and Greenpeace, 1985 to 1992, with files on around 1,240 people.
Arrests, Legislation & Case Study Locations
The numbered blue markers show the thirteen case study locations. Click any to jump to the full case summary below. Red markers show recorded protest arrest events; coloured squares show anti-protest legislation. Many records are still being geocoded, and new events can be added at any time. This map shows only confirmed coordinate data to date. Get in touch if you have more data to add.
Coordinate data is incomplete. Records are updated as sources are verified. Click any marker for details.
Case Study Analysis
The cases below fall into four strands. The long arc draws on the movement archive to show mass arrest, surveillance and force operating decades before the current wave. Transparency and FOI failures trace what happened when citizens tried to see behind corporate and government decisions. Protest policing asks whether corporate actors influenced operational responses, and anti-protest legislation follows the role of industry in drafting and timing new laws. Click any card to read the full case summary.
Franklin River Blockade, Tasmania, 1982 to 1983
The blockade against the Gordon below Franklin dam drew roughly 1,272 arrests over the summer of 1982 to 1983, with hundreds jailed. A foundational case of mass criminalisation of protest, decades before the current wave.
Jabiluka Blockade, Northern Territory, 1998
An eight month blockade against the Jabiluka uranium mine, led by the Mirarr Traditional Owners, brought over 500 arrests in 1998, alongside aerial and physical surveillance of the camp.
East Gippsland Forest Wars and Goolengook
The Goolengook blockade, often called the longest forest blockade in Australian history, saw repeated arrests and documented violence against conservationists across the East Gippsland forest campaigns.
Victoria Police Infiltration of Environmental Groups
Victoria Police ran undercover operatives inside Friends of the Earth, the Wilderness Society and Greenpeace, building intelligence files on around 1,240 people. A measurable baseline of surveillance before the digital era.
Monash–Woodside Sponsorship Melbourne, 2024–2025
Students lodged a Freedom of Information request to understand the terms of Monash's multi-million dollar partnership with Woodside Energy. The university charged $477 just to access documents, then refused the request in full, while hosting Woodside at an exclusive "energy transition" conference in Italy.
Fossil Free USyd Secret Re-Investment Sydney, 2019–2023
A 2019 FOI by Fossil Free USYD revealed $22.4 million in fossil fuel investments the university had denied. Then in 2023, Honi Soit used FOI to reveal USyd secretly purchased millions in BHP, Shell, and Rio Tinto shares the same year it claimed to be divesting.
ACF vs Environment Minister Canberra, 2021
The Australian Conservation Foundation sought documents on 15 fossil fuel and extractive projects fast-tracked under COVID recovery, including Narrabri Gas (Santos) and Olympic Dam uranium. Minister Sussan Ley refused outright, claiming National Cabinet exemption. ACF won at the AAT after 7 months, but systemic delay and fee gouging continued.
Woodside Energy Protests 2023 — Perth, WA
Activists opposing Woodside's Burrup Hub gas project were met with counter-terrorism police at the chief executive's home and legal orders barring them from naming her online. The state response closely tracked the company's own public messaging.
Blockade Australia 2021–22 Newcastle, NSW
Climate protesters blocking coal rail lines were met with Strike Force Tuohy, a unit normally reserved for organised crime, and charges carrying an unprecedented 25 year maximum. Police kept close and continuing engagement with coal companies throughout.
IMARC Conference Protests Melbourne & Sydney
Protests at the International Mining and Resources Conference led to 107 arrests in 2019. Before the 2022 event, police made pre-emptive home visits to more than 120 activists across three states, and the conference relocated to NSW soon after it brought in tough new anti-protest laws.
Dangerous Attachment Devices Act 2019 Queensland
The Adani CEO met the Police Minister on 8 October 2019. The next day the Minister fast-tracked the bill's committee date. Three days later the public hearing ran with less than 24 hours' notice. Of 212 submissions, the vast majority opposed the bill.
Summary Offences Amendment 2023 South Australia
Two days after the Energy Minister told an industry conference "the South Australian government is at your disposal," anti-protest legislation passed the Lower House in 20 minutes. Maximum penalties rose from $750 to $50,000. No consultation was conducted.
Inclosed Lands (Interference) Act 2016 NSW
On the day the bill was introduced, a Santos official emailed the Minister's adviser requesting an advance copy of the second reading speech. The adviser sent it to Santos before it was delivered. The bill passed both houses in eight days with no public consultation.
Indicators of State Capture
This is another way of exploring how protest criminalisation can occur. To assess whether state capture dynamics may be influencing legislation, researchers applied a diagnostic framework developed by scholars and transparency organisations. Each indicator provides evidence-based criteria for identifying whether private interests are shaping the rules of democratic participation.
Financial Interventions in Politics
Whether corporations make significant financial contributions to political parties or fundraising forums, particularly those responsible for legislation affecting their interests.
Lobbying & Personal Influence Networks
Whether corporate actors gain privileged and direct access to decision-makers—particularly in proximity to key legislative moments in ways unavailable to community groups.
Revolving Door Appointments
Whether senior politicians or public servants move into corporate or lobbying roles in industries they previously regulated, creating embedded networks of mutual interest.
Institutional Repurposing
Whether public institutions such as police, parliaments, FOI systems, and oversight bodies are used in ways that prioritise corporate security and secrecy over democratic oversight.
Research & Policymaking Influence
Whether corporate actors shape the evidence base for new laws, receive confidential access to legislative drafts, or dominate consultation processes while community voices are marginalised.
Public Influence Campaigns
Whether corporations run coordinated campaigns to shape public narratives about protest through media sponsorships, think-tank funding, and direct coordination with government communications.
Explore Networks of Influence
The findings in this investigation draw on data compiled in InfluenceTracker, a searchable platform that maps connections between corporations, industry bodies, lobbyists, politicians, and government decisions in Australia.
InfluenceTracker brings together lobbying registers, political donation records, ministerial diary entries, media reporting, parliamentary submissions, and other public interest sources into a single network view. Search for any company, industry body, minister, or campaign to see who is connected to whom, and where money and access flow in relation to specific policy areas.
Visit InfluenceTracker.org