Conaghan's plan to jail flag burners lapsed without a vote
Pat Conaghan MP is a National Party member of Parliament. He wanted jail for burning or badly disrespecting the national flag or the Red Ensign in public. This would apply when it risks hate, violence or public trouble. The bill was dropped in September 2026.
Official name: Flags Amendment (Protection of Australian National Flags) Bill 2026
- Burning, wrecking or badly disrespecting the national flag or the Red Ensign in public would have been a crime.
- It only applied if the person did not care about the risk of stirring up hate, violence or public trouble.
- A first crime could bring a fine or up to 12 months in jail. A repeat crime meant at least 12 months in jail.
- Artists, reporters, teachers and people throwing out old flags the proper way had a defence.
- The bill was dropped from Parliament's to-do list on 8 September 2026. It never got a vote.
Who it affects
- Protesters: Burning or disrespecting the flag in public, or posting video of it, could have led to jail.
- People who are not Australian citizens: A guilty finding would have been reported to the department that runs visas. It checks visa holders' character.
- Artists, reporters, teachers and researchers: Real work in these fields was protected by a defence.
- Everyday flag owners: Throwing out a worn flag the proper way, or wearing out a flag T-shirt, stayed legal.
No crime for damaging flags
The Flags Act 1953 sets out Australia's official flags. These include the Australian National Flag and the Australian Red Ensign.
The Red Ensign is the red version of the flag. Trading ships use it. Many people flew it during both World Wars.
The Flags Act sets how the flags look and how to use them. But it has no crime for damaging or disrespecting them.
Pat Conaghan MP brought this bill. He says flag burning is now handled under general crimes, like rowdy or offensive behaviour. He says these give police a lot of choice and no clear rules.
He says people are often arrested just to calm things down. He says people are often never charged, or the charges are dropped later.
He also says earlier bills to protect the flag were brought in but never debated.
Who brought it
This was a private bill. That means the government did not bring it. Pat Conaghan MP brought it to the House of Representatives on 9 February 2026. That is the lower house of Parliament.
The new crime
The bill would have added a new crime to the Flags Act. Three things all had to be true.
First, the person meant to badly disrespect the flag, or to burn, cut up or destroy it. These words would have their normal meanings.
Second, it had to be in public. It counted if it was done in a public place, or where people in a public place could see. It counted if the damaged flag was put on show there. It also counted if photos or video of it were shared with the public.
A public place meant anywhere the public can go, even if they pay to get in.
Third, the person had to be reckless. That means they knew it could stir up hate or violence, or cause public trouble, and they went ahead anyway.
Say someone sets fire to a flag at a rally and films it for social media. If they knew it could spark violence, that would have been a crime.
Punishments
A first crime came with a fine of up to 50 penalty units (about $16,500, at $330 a unit), or up to 12 months in jail. A penalty unit is a set dollar amount used to work out fines in federal law.
A second or later crime came with at least 12 months in jail. A court could not give less.
Who had a defence
A defence is a reason the law accepts for doing something that would be a crime. Several were in the bill.
The crime would not cover a flag printed on an everyday item that wears out or gets thrown away. A worn-out T-shirt or a used paper plate with a flag on it are examples.
It would not cover people who use or throw out a flag under the official flag rules. It would not cover throwing out a flag because it was worn, dirty or damaged. It would not cover people who honestly work on an idea for a new national flag.
It would not cover real science, school or art work, or paid reporters. It would not cover acts that help the public. Pat Conaghan says normal government research and reports would fit here.
A person using a defence would first need to point to some proof for it.
Telling immigration about guilty findings
Under the bill, a person might be found guilty of the flag crime. A department head would then have to tell another department in writing.
That is the Department of Home Affairs. It runs the Migration Act, the law on visas.
Pat Conaghan's notes on the bill say this is aimed at people who are not citizens. They say the guilty finding could then be weighed when checking if a visa holder passes the character test. That test checks whether a person is of good enough character to keep a visa.
Free speech worries
The Australian Constitution is the rule book for how the country is run. It protects a limited freedom to talk about politics. The courts have said this limits what laws Parliament can make.
Pat Conaghan accepts the bill would limit how people speak about politics. He argues this is lawful because it helps keep the peace in public places.
His notes say the bill could touch on the right to protest peacefully. They say it does not ban protest itself.
He compares it to laws that ban showing Nazi symbols in public. He also compares it to section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act. That part bans some public acts that offend people because of their race.
The law would have started the day after it was signed into law. His notes say the bill would cost nothing.
Dropped after time ran out
Pat Conaghan MP brought the bill on 9 February 2026. That day he also started the debate on its main idea.
The House never debated it or voted on it. On 8 September 2026, it was dropped from Parliament's to-do list. Under the House's rules, private bills not dealt with in time are dropped this way.
The bill will not become law in this form.
Its journey through Parliament
| 09 Feb 2026 | House of Representatives: Introduced and read a first time |
| 09 Feb 2026 | House of Representatives: Second reading moved |
| 08 Sep 2026 | House of Representatives: Removed from the Notice Paper in accordance with (SO 42) |