On 15th April, human rights organisations sent a joint letter to the University of Melbourne Vice-Chancellor, Emma Johnston, citing serious concerns on both repressive anti-protest and surveillance policies. The letter was sent by the Human Rights Law Centre, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International. It directly urges the University to “abandon policy changes that restrict staff and students’ right to protest and permit the widespread surveillance of people using their wifi network” regarding recent amendments to the Wireless Terms of Use and Vice Chancellor Regulation.
The Protest Direction
These concerns come after the University changed its protest policy on 3rd March, specifying that (1) protests may only be held outdoors, (2) protests may not obstruct entry or exit from any University building, and (3) protests may not unreasonably undermine the capacity of individuals to fully participate in the University, restrict the University of its “duty to foster the safety and wellbeing of staff, students and visitors” and “unreasonably disrupt activities or operations of the University or result in damage to University property.” In May 2024, the University banned “protest that is not peaceful” or that involve members of the public altogether.
The letter expressed concerns “that the blanket ban on indoor protests does not meet [international human rights law] requirements”, calling the restrictions “presumptively disproportionate” and at risk of breaching human rights.
It further criticised the language of the policy as “insufficiently precise to enable individuals to regulate their conduct accordingly” and “written in a manner that would be difficult for students or staff to ascertain whether their protest activity is compliant with the direction”.
Sarah Schwartz, Legal Director of the Human Rights Law Centre, said that “students should be commended, not punished, for peacefully standing up for human rights.” She further recognised the position of staff and students who “have been at the forefront of driving positive social change” throughout history.
“These repressive and draconian policies by the University of Melbourne will have a chilling effect on campus life,” she said. Schwartz also urged the University to encourage critical debate and diverse perspectives, where the new policies “erode staff and students’ right to freedom of political expression, peaceful assembly, and privacy”.
Australia Researcher Annabel Hennessy of Human Rights Watch said that the policies “are likely to have a serious chilling effect on the freedoms of expression and opinion of students and staff.”
The Wireless Policy
The Wireless Policy directly permits the surveillance of all users connected to the network, most notably “to assist in the detection and investigation of any actual or suspected unlawful or antisocial behaviour or any breach of any University policy by a network user, including where no unauthorised use or misuse of the network is suspected” and “to assist in the detection, identification, and investigation of network users, including by using network data to infer the location of an individual via their connected device” among other reasons.
Again, the human rights organisations have expressed concerns over vague language where “antisocial does not appear to be defined in the policy, which is problematic given ‘antisocial’ could be used to describe a broad number of activities”. It further expresses concern over the risk of “violating the right to privacy and reputation” as protected by Australian and International Law.
Mohamed Duar, Occupied Palestinian Territory Spokesperson of Amnesty International Australia, further said that “students and staff taking part in peaceful protests shouldn’t face surveillance and disciplinary action, including suspension and expulsion… Amnesty calls on the University of Melbourne to respect the rights to privacy, and to drop these harmful policies.”
The letter further cites the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the right to freedom of assembly and association which found that “the brutal repression of the university-based protest movement is posing a profound threat to democratic systems and institutions” in addition to “failing the responsibility to prevent atrocity crimes and contribute to peace” in October 2024.
The letter concluded by inviting the University to meet about the matters raised in the letter.
In response to questioning over readiness to reform inhumane policies, a University spokesperson provided this statement:
“The University of Melbourne rejects any suggestion its new conditions regarding protests made under the Vice-Chancellor Regulation are unlawful.
The University respects the rights of individuals to protest, which has not changed. We recognise that protest is protected by law. Universities are places where free and open debate must take place.
All students and staff have a right to access our campuses – to work, learn and be part of our community. Their safety must also be protected as this is integral to enabling free and open debate.
This new rule makes it clear that indoor protest, protest that obstructs entries or exits of buildings, or that unreasonably disrupts University operations, is prohibited.”
The letter follows a joint statement released by the University of Melbourne Student Union and the NTEU Melbourne Branch on 6th March, urging the University to repeal protest bans.
