A decision on the White Australia Party’s application for temporary legal protection from Labor’s controversial prohibited hate group laws is set to be handed down tomorrow.
High Court Chief Justice Stephen Gageler reserved his decision until 2pm on Thursday after a hearing in Canberra on Wednesday afternoon where the banned political party applied for injunctive relief.
Barrister Peter King, appearing for the White Australia Party and Thomas Sewell, told the court an injunction was needed to prevent the party from being “extinguished” by the hate group laws before the full court rules on the constitutional validity in September in a case with major implications for political freedom in Australia.
The laws, passed by both major parties in response to the Bondi Islamic terrorist attack, were used to list the party last month, which instantly made it illegal to direct, be a member of, recruit for, train, fund or support the group, punishable by up to 15 years’ imprisonment.
Mr King told the court the party had already been sent a show cause letter from Victorian authorities, as it is registered as an incorporated association in that state, warning it was understood to have been rendered “not in operation” by the hate group laws, and that its registration would be cancelled by June 25 and the party wound up as a result.
He told the court this put the party at imminent risk of “extinction” well before the main case is decided in September, resulting in the loss of operations, funding, and the ability to communicate politically and campaign, making the final outcome redundant and resulting in damages that could not be remedied.
“Will the court preserve its jurisdiction? Or will the case be rendered futile?” he asked.
Brendan Lim SC for the defendants argued that the White Australia Party could challenge any decision by the Victorian registrar to cancel the party, and told the court that preventing the Commonwealth from utilising the hate groups laws would be “deleterious to the public interest”.
Mr Lim told the court that preventing the criminal offences enlivened by the White Australia Party’s ban from being enforced would expose the community to harm and the risk of violence
He argued the laws were designed to prevent the White Australia Party from carrying out “certain activities” mentioned in the reasons for the hate group listing, which he alleged carried the risk of physical violence.
Mr Lim told the court the offences were also designed to protect the community from the White Australia Party’s “ideology and rhetoric”, which he alleged had a “broader risk” of inspiring non-affiliated individuals to commit acts of “serious violence”.
The September case will determine whether the laws, which experts and politicians have warned could be used to ban any party, infringe upon the freedom of political communication granted to all Australians under the constitution.
Header image: Left, Stephen Gageler (High Court of Australia). Right, Thomas Sewell outside court last year (supplied).
