Neo-Nazi Party Challenges Australia’s Anti-Hate Laws in High Court

Constitutional Challenge to Hate Group Ban

Lawyers Peter King and Shahed Sharify, representing the far-right group, argued before the High Court over two days that Part 5.3B of the Criminal Code is invalid. According to Sharify, the law breaches the implied freedom of political communication and relies entirely on the subjective opinion of a politician rather than judicial oversight. Sharify stated that the legislation is “authoritarian in nature” and that the banning of political groups should be determined by a judge rather than a busy minister who reviews a brief in a matter of hours.

The party was designated as an illegal hate group in May after the Australian Security and Intelligence Organisation (ASIO) recommended the listing to Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke. The designation makes supporting, funding, training, recruiting, and joining the organization a criminal offense. During Tuesday’s proceedings, barristers for the group contended that a total ban was akin to using a “sledgehammer on a nut” and argued that the Commonwealth lacks the constitutional power to ban political parties, citing a major 1951 High Court ruling that overturned a ban on the Communist Party of Australia.

Government Defense and Statutory Safeguards

Defending the legislation on behalf of the government, Brendan Lim denied that the anti-hate laws could be used for the illegitimate purpose of suppressing political competition, stating firmly in court, “It can’t happen.” Lim and government submissions maintained that the group is not a genuine political party but rather an operational arm of White Australia, functioning as a rebranded iteration of the National Socialist Network.

According to the Commonwealth’s written submissions, forming a political party was a calculated attempt to secure legal protection for members engaging in openly racist and antisemitic speech. Under the statutory framework governing these designations, the Home Affairs Minister must receive advice from the head of ASIO, secure written agreement from the Attorney General, and brief the opposition leader before a group is listed as a prohibited hate group. Groups can be listed if the action is deemed reasonably necessary to protect the Australian community from social, psychological, physical, or economic harm.

If the High Court challenge succeeds, the ruling could potentially dismantle laws that have also been used to ban the Islamist group Hizb ut-Tahrir. Unlike terrorist organization listings, current rules do not permit a listed hate group to submit a de-listing application. Members of the White Australia party, including 33-year-old leader Tom Sewell, observed the proceedings from the front of the courtroom’s public benches. Sewell was sentenced in June to a community corrections order involving 200 hours of community work after a Melbourne magistrate found he emulated 1930s Nazi thugs and used offensive racial slurs during a public stunt outside a Chinese consulate.