Australia high court hears challenge to neo-Nazi party ban as lawyers call it unconstitutional
Lawyers for Australia’s outlawed White Australia party told the High Court on Tuesday that the federal ban on the neo-Nazi group is “authoritarian in nature”
Lawyers for Australia’s outlawed White Australia party told the High Court on Tuesday that the federal ban on the neo-Nazi group is “authoritarian in nature” and cuts against the constitution. The party, formerly known as the National Socialist Network, is challenging the listing after it was declared an illegal hate group in May.
The case lands in a court that has dealt with this kind of fight before. The party’s lawyers say the commonwealth cannot ban a political organisation, pointing to the High Court’s 1951 ruling that stopped an attempt to outlaw the Communist Party. Different era. Same legal fault line.
What the ban does
The White Australia party was listed after the Australian Security and Intelligence Organisation passed a recommendation to home affairs minister Tony Burke. Under the ban, supporting, funding, training, recruiting or joining the group is a criminal offence. The maximum penalty is 15 years in prison.
That makes the case about more than one fringe organisation. It goes to who decides when a political movement crosses the line into criminality, and how far the state can go once it does.
The legal challenge
Lawyers for the far-right nationalist party argue the law breaches the implied freedom of political communication. They also say giving the decision to Burke violates the separation of powers. Their broader claim is blunt: the anti-hate laws passed after the Bondi terror attack depend on the opinion of a politician, and that makes them unconstitutional.
The challenge is being heard over two days this week. The hearing will test whether the ban stands or whether the court narrows the government’s power to shut down a political party by executive decision.
For governments watching abroad, the stakes are familiar. Democracies have long struggled with the same problem: how to respond to extremist politics without handing the state a tool that can be turned on dissent. Australia now has its answer under scrutiny.
And the legal fight is not over yet.
The lawyers also say the commonwealth does not have the power to ban a political party, invoking the High Court’s 1951 Communist Party decision as their central precedent.
