Australia’s spy agency recommended the banning of the White Australia Party in order to prevent it from developing a larger platform by “engaging in political processes”, court documents show.
Advice by Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO) Director-General Mike Burgess led to the Labor government officially listing the White Australia Party as a prohibited hate group on May 15, sparking a constitutional challenge in the High Court.
A declassified truncated version of the ASIO recommendation was filed with the High Court earlier this month ahead of a hearing in September, when the full court will determine whether the government can use hate group laws passed after the Bondi Islamic terrorist attack to ban rival political parties.
The advice, dated May 11, included a detailed ASIO assessment stating that if the White Australia Party was permitted to take part in politics it would expand its platform, which the spy agency said could “increase the risk of the promotion of communal violence”.
“ASIO’s longstanding assessment of White Australia is that, despite members holding and promoting NRVE (Nationalist and Racist Violent Extremist) ideologies, the primary threat associated with the group stems from its inflammatory rhetoric which may in turn inspire individuals to promote communal violence, or even seek to engage in acts of communal violence which may endanger the peace, order or good government of the Commonwealth,” the assessment stated.
“ASIO assesses the White Australia Party will continue to expound inflammatory rhetoric that it used under its former names, and, if registered as a political party, is likely to achieve a greater platform for this rhetoric due to its engagement in political processes.”
The assessment also stated that ASIO believed the party name was chosen to “capitalise” on its media attention and status as the Australia’s best-known nationalist group, and “convert this attention into political support for White Australia’s national socialist objectives”.
The spy agency went on to note that White Australia was not engaged in criminal activity or the promotion of violence, but said there was “a risk that the organisation may advocate for, or engage in, the promotion of communal violence in the future”.
“ASIO assesses that White Australia is aware of the current legal thresholds for criminality and at this point in time deliberately endeavours to engage in activity that stops short of such thresholds,” the assessment stated.
But ASIO assessed that the activities and “messaging” of the White Australia Party were nonetheless likely to increase the risk of that others would promote communal violence.
“This is because inflaming and exacerbating existing anti-immigration, racist and anti-Semitic narratives and perceived inter-community grievances are likely to increase the risk that individuals who consume this messaging will consider the promotion of communal violence a viable mechanism to express support for these narratives, or to seek to achieve objectives linked to these narratives,” the assessment stated.
“This is especially the case in the current heightened security environment, where inflammatory rhetoric on divisive social issues can quickly gain momentum, fuelling anger or frustration and likely increasing the willingness of some individuals to promote or even engage in violence.
“In such an environment, the promotion of communal violence may be conducted by individuals who are inspired by the activities of White Australia but are beyond the organisation’s control.”
The White Australia Party and Thomas Sewell are challenging the hate group listing and the laws themselves on the grounds that they infringe on the freedom of political communication granted to all Australians under the constitution, and permanently exclude former party members from political life.
Legal experts and civil liberties advocates have warned the laws “abolish liberal democracy” as they can be used to ban any political party, and the legislation has sparked calls for a constitutional bill of rights to protect freedom of political communication.
In a GiveSendGo set up to fund the legal challenge, which has raised almost $200,000 so far, Mr Sewell said the government had “revealed itself to be a dangerous tyrant afraid of the will of the Australian people”.
“Our challenge seeks to protect the right of all Australians to politically communicate and organise, now and for those generations to come,” he wrote.
“Our case will also have a political flow on effect to other nations in the Anglosphere such as the UK, Canada and New Zealand, who face similar draconian legislation.”
Header image: Mr Burgess, Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke, and Prime Minister Anthony Albanese after the Bondi massacre (PMO).
