Perth’s Land Forces protest restrictions explained: who is banned, and where

WA Police has issued exclusion notices to at least six people ahead of Perth’s Land Forces defence expo, ABC News reported on October 1, as temporary security powers took effect. The notices restrict access to the event’s security zone, but recipients can still protest outside it.

A letter examined by ABC warned that entering the security area could result in arrest, three years in prison and a $36,000 fine. Those are the warnings in the letter, not punishments imposed on recipients. Police defend the exclusions as security measures; critics say the people affected deserve specific explanations.

Where the Land Forces restrictions apply

Land Forces is scheduled for October 6–8 at the Perth Convention and Exhibition Centre. ABC describes the security zone as encompassing the convention centre and Elizabeth Quay busport. Its report does not set out a complete street-by-street boundary or establish that the whole Elizabeth Quay precinct is included.

The temporary powers operate from October 1 to October 10, covering the exhibition’s set-up and pack-down as well as the event itself. WA Police says they apply only within designated Land Forces security areas. The legislation enabling them passed in September, before the notices reported this week.

What extra powers WA Police has

In its published explanation of the temporary powers, WA Police describes checkpoints, roadblocks and controlled entry points, as well as identity checks. Police can search people, bags and vehicles and use metal detectors within the designated areas.

Police says people who refuse lawful entry requirements may be denied entry or directed to leave. Its explanation describes exclusion grounds involving noncompliance, risks to safety or public order, and a legislated list linked to violent behaviour. Police characterises the powers as preventative and subject to legislative safeguards.

The police announcement also lists prohibited items, including lock-on devices, bicycle locks, poles longer than one metre, glass containers and several categories of weapons. These published rules explain the general security arrangements; they do not disclose the evidence behind each individual exclusion notice.

Why police say the exclusions are necessary

Commander Darren Seivwright told reporters that the legislation had been applied judiciously. “It is case by case, we've set the threshold particularly high,” he said, according to ABC’s reporting.

Seivwright said those excluded had “earned it through previous suboptimal behaviour” and indicated that some had criminal histories. Those are police characterisations. ABC did not publish evidence establishing individual recipients’ conduct or histories and reported that authorities refused to reveal why the particular people had been targeted.

Police Minister Reece Whitby pointed to clashes outside the Melbourne edition of Land Forces in 2024. “What we want to see is this event occur safely … we will not tolerate what occurred in Melbourne at the last Land Forces,” he said.

Whitby described the security measures as the state’s “biggest police operation” in a “heightened security environment”. He also said the event was strategically and commercially important to Western Australia. Those descriptions are his stated case for the operation, rather than independently measured comparisons of police deployments.

Why critics want reasons for the bans

Greens MLC Sophie McNeill disputed the police account of those affected. “We know some of these individuals who have received these letters, and they have no history of any violent protest,” she told ABC. She accused police of targeting peaceful activists and trying to stop protests.

McNeill also criticised the allocation of police resources during Western Australia’s domestic-violence crisis. Her account of recipients’ histories and the police characterisation remain competing claims; the published report does not resolve them person by person.

Human Rights Law Centre senior lawyer Rohan Simpson focused on what the notices actually explained. “The notices that people have received today, and I've seen quite a few of them, they're just generic template letters,” he said.

Simpson argued that police should explain why someone prevented from attending a political protest was considered a threat. He expressed serious concerns about both the laws and their application. ABC reported no court determination resolving those concerns.

The Melbourne precedent and what remains unknown

In a September 17 report, micenet journalist Bronwen Largier reported that Western Australia had allocated $11.5 million for security connected to the 2026 event. That is allocated funding, not a final audited bill.

Micenet’s account of the Melbourne 2024 protests reported roughly 1,200 protesters, 33 arrests and 24 police receiving medical attention. It described rocks being thrown and police being sprayed with an irritant. Those figures concern the earlier Melbourne protest, not events in Perth this year.

The Perth expo is still ahead. ABC’s figure of at least six exclusion notices is a reported minimum, not a police-confirmed final total. The individual grounds remain undisclosed, while the scheduled end of the temporary powers is October 10.