This bill did not become law and is no longer proceeding.
Law, justice & rights
A person would commit a federal crime by intentionally or recklessly burning or desecrating the Australian National Flag, Australian Aboriginal Flag or Torres Strait Islander Flag.
Rebekha Sharkie (Centre Alliance), who introduced the bill, said the three flags represent identity, history and belonging. She argued that burning them can provoke division rather than amount to peaceful protest, and that the same rules should apply to all three flags. The explanatory memorandumA document explaining a bill and its purpose. said Australians would remain free to criticise governments, policies, injustice and institutions. It also cited an August 2025 Institute of Public Affairs poll in which 77 per cent of respondents said burning the Australian National Flag should be illegal; 63 per cent of those surveyed supported imprisonment as a penalty.
Before this bill, Australia’s national, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander flags carried official recognition, but deliberately burning or desecrating them was not a specific federal crime; an August 2025 poll found 77 per cent supported making national-flag burning illegal. After an Australian flag was burned at an Invasion Day protest and a January 2026 attempt to add a ban to hate-crime laws failed, Rebekha Sharkie MP introduced this private member’s bill on 9 February 2026, but it was later removed from the Notice Paper without becoming law.
The evidence pack contains no speech opposing or criticising the bill. It includes speeches from Rebekha Sharkie (Centre Alliance) and Dai Le (Independent), and both supported it.
Rebekha Sharkie MP introduced this bill. Speeches supporting it came from Centre Alliance, some crossbench members.
Did it become law?
No
The bill did not complete passage through Parliament.
Final passage
No final passage
The bill has not completed passage and is no longer proceeding.
Time before failure
211 days
From introduction to the final recorded step before the bill stopped proceeding
Meaning
A person would commit a federal crime by intentionally or recklessly burning or desecrating the Australian National Flag, Australian Aboriginal Flag or Torres Strait Islander Flag.
The maximum penalty would be two years in prison. A second or later offence would carry a minimum penaltyThe lowest penalty permitted after conviction. of 12 months in prison.
The offence would not cover burning or damaging a reproduction or likeness of a flag if it was made for artistic, creative or educational purposes. This includes images such as those in textbooks.
Lawful disposal under the Flags Act would remain allowed. Incidental damage and ordinary wear and tear would also not count as desecration.
Prosecutors would have to prove that the conduct was intentional or recklessTaking an unjustified risk with the flag.. A defendant relying on an exception would have to produce evidence showing that it applied.
If enacted as introduced, the changes would begin the day after the law received Royal AssentFormal approval that turns a bill into law.. The explanatory memorandumA document explaining a bill and its purpose. says the bill would have no financial impact.
(1) A person commits an offence if the person intentionally or recklessly burns or desecrates: (a) the Australian National Flag (within the meaning of the Flags Act 1953); or (b) the Australian Aboriginal Flag (as proclaimed by the Governor‑General under the Flags Act 1953); or (c) the Torres Strait Islander Flag (as proclaimed by the Governor‑General under the Flags Act 1953).Criminal Code Amendment (Flag Protection) introduced text
(a) a maximum penalty of imprisonment for 2 years; and (b) a minimum penalty of imprisonment for 12 months for a second or subsequent offence.Criminal Code Amendment (Flag Protection) introduced text
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply if: (a) the person burns or desecrates a reproduction or likeness of the relevant flag; and (b) the reproduction or likeness is for artistic, creative or educational purposes. Note: A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to the matter in subsection (2).Criminal Code Amendment (Flag Protection) introduced text
(3) Subsection (1) does not apply if the person burns or desecrates the relevant flag in accordance with: (a) a warrant in force under section 6 of the Flags Act 1953; or (b) rules in force under section 7 of the Flags Act 1953. Note: A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to the matter in subsection (3). (4) In this section, desecration does not include incidental damage or wear and tear.Criminal Code Amendment (Flag Protection) introduced text
The onus is on the prosecution to prove that a person’s conduct in burning or desecrating a relevant flag was intentional or reckless. The prohibition of this conduct is reasonable and proportionate, noting that the destruction of a relevant flag is not captured by the offence provision if: it applies to an artistic, creative or educational representation or likeness of a flag, such as a picture in a text book, but only to a relevant flag itself, a person destroys a relevant flag in accordance with a warrant or rules under sections 6 or 7 of the Flags Act, or a relevant flag suffers incideCriminal Code Amendment (Flag Protection) explanatory memorandum
2 Commencement (1) Each provision of this Act specified in column 1 of the table commences, or is taken to have commenced, in accordance with column 2 of the table. Any other statement in column 2 has effect according to its terms. Commencement information Commencement Date/Details 1. The whole of this Act The day after this Act receives the Royal Assent. Note: This table relates only to the provisions of this Act as originally enacted. It will not be amended to deal with any later amendments of this Act.Criminal Code Amendment (Flag Protection) introduced text
Context
Before this bill, Australia’s national, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander flags carried official recognition, but deliberately burning or desecrating them was not a specific federal crime; an August 2025 poll found 77 per cent supported making national-flag burning illegal. After an Australian flag was burned at an Invasion Day protest and a January 2026 attempt to add a ban to hate-crime laws failed, Rebekha Sharkie MP introduced this private member’s bill on 9 February 2026, but it was later removed from the Notice Paper without becoming law.
Poll finds majority support a flag-burning ban
An Institute of Public Affairs poll found that 77 per cent of Australians supported making burning the Australian National Flag illegal.
Criminal Code Amendment (Flag Protection) explanatory memorandum ↗Attempt to ban flag burning in hate-law amendments fails
The Coalition amendment was rejected, so burning the Australian flag remained legal at that point.
News.com.au ↗Australian flag burned at an Invasion Day protest
The incident became the immediate real-world trigger for new private members’ bills seeking to criminalise flag burning.
News.com.au ↗Rebekha Sharkie MP introduces the flag protection bill
Rebekha Sharkie MP introduced a private member’s bill proposing a federal offence for intentionally or recklessly burning or desecrating the three recognised Australian flags.
Parliamentary timeline ↗Bill is removed from the Notice Paper
The private member’s bill was removed without recorded passage, so its proposed flag-burning offence was not enacted.
Parliamentary timeline ↗Legislative route
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
Introduced and read a first time
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second reading, opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
Second reading moved
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Key criticism
The evidence pack contains no speech opposing or criticising the bill. It includes speeches from Rebekha Sharkie (Centre Alliance) and Dai Le (Independent), and both supported it.
Because no opposing contribution is included, the evidence does not establish the main arguments critics may have made. The explanatory memorandumA document explaining a bill and its purpose. does acknowledge that the proposed offence would limit freedom of expression and peaceful assembly, but argues that those limits are justified to protect public order and the rights of others.
Further sources
Votes
No recorded votes were found before this bill stopped proceeding.
Parliamentary debate
Start here — lead voices
Sharkie supports her bill to criminalise deliberate or recklessTaking an unjustified risk with the flag. desecration or burning of Australia's three national flags, arguing that such acts express hatred and disrespect rather than peaceful protest and that consistent protection would promote unity and social cohesion.
Read in Hansard ↗Dai Le supports the bill, arguing that protecting the Australian flag safeguards a widely respected symbol of national unity, sanctuary and shared values.
Read in Hansard ↗All speeches by bloc
2 speakers · 2 support
“Our national flags hold deep significance for Australians. Our service men and women have fought under our Australian national flag. This bill seeks to have the same rules for all three flags. I must say, I was very surprised when there was an amendment to the hate laws that we passed in late January—there was an amendment by the opposition to make it a criminal offence to burn the Australian flag—and the government didn't accept that. The government rejected that amendment. So this bill actually seeks to bring us all together to look at all three national flags and say the same rule should apply. It also draws a line in the sand. It says this behaviour is unacceptable. It's unacceptable no matter who you are in Australia or whether you're visiting. If you want to peacefully protest, that is one thing, but to burn a flag is another. We have a long and proud tradition in Australia of political expression, but we cannot see burning a flag as a peaceful political act.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“If we choose to come here, we must also choose to embrace what Australia stands for: fairness, opportunity and sanctuary. Respect for the flag reflects respect for the sanctuary that has welcomed generations of migrants and refugees. We are one people under one flag in one shared home, and it is our responsibility to protect that symbol of unity. I commend the bill to the House.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
Record
House · Introduced and read a first time
Introduced
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
House · Second reading moved
Second reading opened
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second reading, opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
House · Removed from the Notice Paper in accordance with (SO 42)
Removed from the Notice Paper in accordance with (SO 42)
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
