In Melbourne, ten days for adults open on 8 October with six stated principles

Ten days of parties, workshops and a makers’ fair reserved for adults will open on 8 October 2026 in Melbourne, in the Australian state of Victoria. The organisers’ website sets out six principles, the first of which calls for explicit verbal consent. The event runs until 18 October.

A ten-day programme with fixed dates

The festival presents itself as a gathering for the Australian alternative community, open to regulars and newcomers alike, and lists its main events on its 2026 page. On 8 October 2026, a launch party will be held at Pandora Nightclub, 127 Dorcas Street, South Melbourne. On Saturday 10 October 2026, from midday to 7pm, a makers’ fair will take over Collingwood Town Hall at 140 Hoddle Street, Abbotsford. The organisers are promising more than 60 stalls, hourly demonstrations and a closing parade.

On 11 October 2026, a casual meet-up known as a Munch is scheduled, followed by a series of workshops running from 11 to 16 October.

The final two days, 17 and 18 October 2026, will see weekend workshops at Second Story Studios, 222a Johnson Street, Collingwood. A party is scheduled for 17 October from 8:30pm to 2am, with a strict limit of 500 tickets at $75 with no discounts. The page states that the event is strictly for over-18s only.

The 10 October fair sold tickets for $35 in advance and $40 at the door.

A best-dressed competition is listed as being sponsored by Adult Match Maker, a name the page does not explain further.

Beat Magazine published an article on 6 October 2026 that outlines the programme and presents the event as one that welcomes beginners as much as experienced participants. The piece notes that it was produced in partnership with the festival: it is a preview, not an investigation. It lists communication, consent and safety among the workshop topics and says that consent and respect are placed at the centre of the entire programme.

Six principles on display and a right of withdrawal

The framework is summarised in six lines, repeated on the homepage, the fair page and the 17 October party page: seek explicit verbal consent, communicate clearly, know the risks, know your limits, respect yourself and others, and take responsibility for yourself and those in your care.

The page for the 17 October 2026 party is more specific than the slogan. It states that “Consent must be enthusiastic and freely given” and that “Consent may be withdrawn at any time.” It adds that “Clothing does not equal consent,” a concept that takes Victorian law several paragraphs to spell out. Consent also applies to other people’s belongings, as touching someone’s property without their explicit permission is prohibited in the same way as touching the person.

The same page contains a photography policy. Only designated, clearly identifiable photographers may carry a camera. They must seek verbal consent before every shot. Anyone who raises a hand to their face as a photographer approaches will not be photographed, and any image already taken will be deleted on the spot. The organisers say 80% of the images taken feature performers, with the rest showing consenting guests who have posed. Personal devices are banned in play areas, and selfies are only permitted if everyone in the frame has clearly consented. The party page also states there is “absolutely no pressure to play”: parts of the venue will be designated as no-play zones. It announces the presence of identifiable and approachable safety monitors.

What Victorian law has required since July 2023

The festival is taking place in a state that recently changed its consent laws. A 2021 report by the Victorian Law Reform Commission (VLRC) paved the way for an affirmative consent model.

The firm Moores notes that Parliament passed the corresponding legislation on 30 August 2022. The new rules came into force in July 2023, according to Go To Court Lawyers.

The model shifts the burden. According to Moores, it requires every person to actively seek the other’s agreement rather than wait for it to be given, and the Crimes Act 1958 requires anyone relying on consent to demonstrate that they sought it.

Go To Court Lawyers explains that consent is defined as free and voluntary agreement, that the absence of verbal or physical resistance does not amount to consent, and that a person who believed there was consent but did nothing to confirm it cannot rely on that belief as a defence.

The VLRC report describes consent as ongoing and performative: signs of agreement must be actively given before and during the act.

It also includes, among the situations where there is no consent, the case of a person who consents and then withdraws that consent before or during the act.

The six principles displayed in Melbourne and the withdrawal rule for the 17 October party therefore overlap with local law without replacing it. A poster can repeat what the law says, but it carries none of the sanctions the law provides.

A nuance comes from the report itself. The VLRC heard from victim advocacy organisations that argue the language of “withdrawing consent” weakens the communicative model: according to Rape & Sexual Assault Research & Advocacy, it is up to the initiator to seek ongoing consent, without the other person ever having to demonstrate refusal. The festival’s rule, framed as a right to withdraw consent, uses the very vocabulary this critique questions.

What psychology finds lacking in verbal consent alone

The first principle displayed calls for explicit verbal consent. A literature review published on 19 February 2020 in Frontiers in Psychology by Ramon Flecha, Gema Tomás and Ana Vidu of the University of Barcelona suggests this is not enough. The authors note that consent has largely been framed in linguistic terms, with formulas such as “anything less than yes is no,” and argue that this does not resolve most of the difficulties encountered, particularly in the Spanish “La Manada” case.

Their thesis locates the problem in acts of communication, not just in words. A “yes” can be uttered without genuine consent, they write, if it is given in a relationship shaped by institutional power, such as that of a recruiter over a candidate, or by interactional power, such as the threat of blackmail. They conclude that consent must be affirmative, given, free, informed, uncoerced, and valid from the beginning to the end of every intimate encounter.

The limitations are clear. This is a review presenting the authors’ own line of research, published in 2020. The cases it analyses concern coercion, and none relate to a festival like the one in Melbourne or the community it brings together. It therefore says nothing about how participants apply these principles.

The reading remains instructive: the rule that opens the poster — explicit verbal consent — is precisely the element this research considers insufficient on its own, while the withdrawal rule aligns with the idea of consent that must be maintained from start to finish.

Who enforces the framework

The programme does not say who decides in the event of a dispute during the ten days, nor what sanction awaits anyone who breaks the rules. The organisers mention safety personnel for the 17 October party and an email address for requesting image removal. Nothing comparable appears on the page for the 10 October fair.

The pages also say very little about previous editions: no incident reports, no participant surveys, no independent reviews. The figures quoted here — 60 stalls, 500 tickets, 80% performer photos — come solely from the organisers.

The festival opens on 8 October 2026 and closes on 18 October 2026 with the weekend workshops at Second Story Studios.

Sources

• Festival homepage, organisers’ site, organisers
• 2026 Festival programme, organisers’ site, organisers
• 10 October 2026 Makers’ Fair page, organisers’ site, organisers
• 17 October 2026 Party page, organisers’ site, organisers
• Victorian Law Reform Commission, 2021 report, Chapter 14 on legal definitions, public commission
• Flecha, Tomás & Vidu, Frontiers in Psychology, 19 February 2020, scientific journal