The World Health Organisation has urgently called for government leadership to tackle childhood obesity. Unfortunately there is no silver bullet, and conflicting stakeholder opinions enhance the difficulty of prioritising policies to reduce obesity. There is societal concern around implementing intrusive strategies and subsequently developing a ‘nanny state’, which has deterred governments from taking action. An investigation into the ‘intrusiveness’ of obesity policy options, as a barrier to potentially successful strategies, is warranted to further understand its role in delaying action. Priority Setting Partnerships (PSP) have been employed in the UK as a patient-centred method to prioritise treatment uncertainties for various medical conditions. Our research builds on the core values of this method, to develop a Policy-Delphi Study which unites the consumer, policymaker and public health practitioner to prioritise policy options of varying levels of intrusiveness, in isolation from the vested interest of industry. The primary aim is to identify how stakeholders perceive the intrusiveness of policy options for obesity prevention, and further understand the relevance of the construct in the prioritisation of, and resistance to, obesity policy. Final data collection will be complete by October 2016, and qualitative and quantitative methods of analysis will identify the intrusiveness of ten top priorities for obesity prevention policy in Australia, from an integrated public and political perspective. Importantly, the study will provide insight on the extent to which evidence for effectiveness, intrusiveness and autonomy govern prioritisation of policy options by stakeholders.