Vice Chancellor Emma Johnston AO set the tone for her tenure by announcing fresh bans on campus protests on the first day of semester 1, 2025. She carries on the work of her predecessor, Duncan Maskell, who in May 2024 banned non-university affiliated individuals from on-campus protests in response to growing public support for the pro-Palestine movement led by student group UniMelb for Palestine (UM4P).

The University Rules under Vice Chancellor Regulation released on 3 March, 2025, bans protests that are ‘held inside, or obstruct entry into, or exit from, any building used for University activities.’ It includes prohibitions on protests or ‘other protest activity’ that ‘unreasonably disrupt(s) activities or operations of the University’. 

The new regulations apply to both students and staff. Although lawful industrial actions are exempt from the latest regulations, protestors who fail to comply may face trespassing charges.

The meaning of lawful protest in Victoria may soon change. Premier Jacinta Allan’s Labor government has proposed new harsher anti-protest legislation banning the wearing of face masks and the possession of attachment devices, including glue and chains, at protests. Multicultural organisations will also be made to sign a ‘social cohesion pledge’, its contents yet unknown, in order to be eligible for government funding. The new University Rules announced at the beginning of Semester One mirror the  state and federal government’s harsher anti-protest legislation. 

Vice Chancellor Regulation: the Right to Appeal

Unlike standard University policies, the Rules under VC Regulation are more widely interpretable and lack the usual rigorous procedural checks. The VC sets the terms and conditions for these rules; as such, they differ from and are not subject to the same procedures as University policies.

This year’s protest restrictions are enabled by the VC Regulation’s Sections 5 and 15, which outline the VC’s ‘Powers, functions and duties’ and her authority over ‘University activities, premises and facilities’, respectively. Former VC Duncan Maskell’s 2024 protest regulation only concerned Section 15.

For students faced with disciplinary actions due to the indoor protest bans, the ambiguity surrounding the appeal process raises concerns, coupled with the lack of rigorous procedural checks and widely interpretable rules. The formation of an appeal panel is limited to matters under the following Sections or policies made under the following Sections of this regulation:

(a) sections 25-28 Student general misconduct

(b) section 30 Exclusion for a notifiable disease

(c) section 31 Student fitness to study.

Failure to comply with rules may result in various penalties including but not limited to student general misconduct. Students in breach of the protest regulations can be barred from campus and prohibited from attending classes or examinations under an ‘Immediate Order’ without the right to appeal the decision.

Immediate Orders exclude students from the right to ‘20 University business days for the student to appeal in accordance with the Academic Board Regulation before the suspension, termination, expulsion, and/or exclusion takes effect.’ This is a right for all other decisions resulting in suspension, termination, expulsion or exclusion from the University.

The VC may declare an Immediate Order in a wide range of circumstances, such as:

• ‘risk of material damage to University property’

• ‘risk of material disruption to any activity sanctioned by the University’

• ‘risk that student general misconduct is planned, is likely to occur or will continue, and that cannot be reasonably managed’.

The University did not respond to Farrago’s request for comment regarding students’ right to appeal decisions made under the VC’s Regulation.

Freedom of Speech policy updates

With the University’s freedom of speech policy amended in February of 2025—for the first time since 2021—where policy 4.3 now states, ‘The University recognises the right to protest as a manifestation of freedom of speech. Protests and protest activity may be subject to other rules or policies made by the University, including rules issued under the Vice Chancellor Regulation or Property Policy (MPF1115).’

The previous freedom of speech policy recognised protests as a legitimate form of free speech, whereas now, it is recognised as a manifestation of freedom of speech. 

The new protest ban would have breached the University’s freedom of speech policy had it not been amended days before the announcement of the protest ban. Thus, it concedes that the restrictions had to be enacted via an alternative (executive) regulatory framework to skirt long-held University standards of ethics and freedom of speech. The new regulations amount to an overextension of executive management, typical of the corporatised university model’s response to student movements that critique the same university-as-business systems.

‘Safety’

The University’s appeal to safety to justify the prohibitive protest rules rings hollow following allegations of tracking and surveillance of students involved in the July 2024 Arts West/Mahmoiud’s Hall sit-in. Data collection methods included CCTV footage and geolocating students based on their use of the University Wi-Fi. 

A month after the sit-in, the Office of the Victorian Information Commissioner confirmed that the University of Melbourne was under investigation for breaching the Privacy and Data Protection Act 2024. Despite calls for hearings to be postponed until the investigation into the University concluded, the University went ahead with hearings against the accused students.

Farrago confirmed with the Office of the Victorian Information Commissioner that this investigation remains ongoing. Nonetheless, the University introduced new Terms of Use for the UniWireless Wi-Fi in April, which forces users to agree to be monitored in order to access the internet on campus. 

In a letter penned to VC Johnston, the Human Rights Law Centre, Human Rights Watch, and Amnesty International urged the University to repeal its surveillance and protest restriction policies. 

Community Consultation 

The University of Melbourne Student Union (UMSU) and the National Tertiary Education Union (NTEU) UniMelb branch published a joint statement condemning the ‘authoritarian’ anti-protest Rules that ‘do not address racism or cultural safety on campus’.

In response to Farrago’s questions regarding consultations undertaken with the University community prior to the introduction of the new VC Regulations, the University provided statements from VC Johnston and cited emails sent out to the student body on 3 and 21 March. The statements largely repeated the new Rules and appealed to student and staff safety on campus.

The University is ‘continuing to meet with our elected student representatives, engaging in constructive conversations to make sure our university community is one where everyone feels safe and supported.’

However, the joint denunciatory statement from union bodies representing significant portions of students and staff disputes this claim. Furthermore, the announcement and immediate enforcement of the new regulation on 3 March suggests no consultation occurred beyond the executive level. The University did not provide any records of the consultations held between itself and student bodies, nor did the University claim such consultations in Farrago’s request for a comment.

UMSU President Joshua Stagg confirmed that the Union received ‘no notice, nor an opportunity to be consulted’ on the new rules. 

In a statement to Farrago, Stagg reaffirmed the Union’s commitment to student safety but distinguished between protest activity that makes someone feel unsafe and activity that makes someone feel uncomfortable. The former is unacceptable, but the latter is a fundamental right of political expression. It is an irremovable part of unionism and democratic freedoms.’ 

Stagg also recalled the University’s proud history of student activism against the White Australia policy and the Vietnam War. The George Paton Gallery celebrated this history as recently as February this year in their exhibition (re)Assembly: Action, Ephemera and Student Unionism.  

The National Day of Action for Palestine on 26 March saw students and staff rally on South Lawn, calling for an end to the war in Gaza. Students demanded that the University divest from all weapons manufacturers, cut all cultural and academic ties with Israel, end the ban on protest and overturn the adoption of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s definition of antisemitism.

Protesters heard speeches from Dr Jordan Silverstein, UMSU Queer Office Bearer Ivy Pierlot, Peringatan Darurat and organisers from Students Against War and Unimelb for Palestine. 

Students and staff marched from South Lawn and into Arts West/Mahmoud’s Hall, where approximately 100 protesters defied the new Vice Chancellor’s Rules banning indoor protests.  While some protesters remained outside, chants and speeches continued inside for around 10 minutes before security personnel informed protest leaders that they were in violation of the VC Rules and requested that they leave the building. Protestors inside Arts West/Mahmoud’s Hall promptly followed the security’s instructions to exit the building.

The new VC Rules were announced on the first day of semester one 2025, and come after a historic year of protest at the University. The Rules ban protests that are ‘held inside, or obstruct entry into, or exit from, any building used for University activities.’ It includes prohibitions on protests or ‘other protest activity’ that ‘unreasonably disrupt(s) activities or operations of the University’.

Failure to comply with the directives of the new policy may result in student general misconduct. Students who breach the protest rules can be barred from campus and prohibited from attending classes or examinations. Students who breach these policies may also face suspension or termination of enrollment and restrictions on students’ capacity to access the University campus.

University of Melbourne Student Union (UMSU) President Joshua Stagg and National Tertiary Education Union (NTEU) UniMelb Branch President David Gonzalez strongly condemned the VC’s Rules in a joint press statement, calling the rules an ‘authoritarian approach’ that does not address racism or cultural safety on campus.

The VC Rules were shortly followed by the implementation of new wireless terms of use which enshrined the University’s right to monitor students over their networks. To continue accessing the University Wi-Fi, students and staff were required to accept the new Wireless Terms of use.

The new conditions permit the University to monitor students in order ‘to assist in the detection and investigation of any actual or suspected unlawful or antisocial behaviour or breaches of University policies’ as well as ‘to infer the location of an individual via their connected device.’

Despite the University’s efforts, student action for Palestine has continued on campus. Students Against War recently held a forum titled ‘Why Anti-Zionism is not Antisemitism’, while Unimelb for Palestine has been holding weekly gatherings on South Lawn to raise money for aid provision in Gaza. 

While the full impact of the new policies is still unclear, these members of the University community remain committed to their campaign for divestment from weapons manufacturers.