The High Court is about to consider a case that could determine how much constitutional protection political organisations receive in Australia.
We have applied to intervene in this case and now we are asking for your support.
The legislation passed earlier this year has next to no safeguards in it. A party can be banned by a Minister with no natural justice. If today's Government can prohibit one political organisation then who might be banned next?
Perhaps it would be One Nation? Or a militant environmental movement? Or a religious organisation the government says is 'extremist'? This could apply to any political movement that falls sufficiently out of favour.Whilst the Albanese Government is using the White Australia Party as cover for these laws, the problem is that can be applied a lot more widely.It is not just us who is seriously concerned. For example, constitutional law expert Professor Anne Twomey has highlighted the inherent risks of ignoring the implied freedom when making well intentioned changes.
That's why the Free Speech Union is asking the High Court to once again prevent undemocratic power grabs on this nature. We hope to expand the implied freedom of political communication (and thus free speech) through our intervention in this case. Please support this important legal challenge and help protect your freedoms.
Become a member of the Free Speech Union and help protect freedom of expression in Australia.
Become a MemberWe have applied to appear as amicus curiae because we believe the High Court would benefit from additional constitutional arguments concerning the implied freedom of political communication. We consider this to be an important opportunity to advance the freedom of expression rights of all Australians.
Our submissions differ from those advanced by the existing parties and seek to improve Australia's constitutional protection for political freedom. Unlike the White Australia Party, we have entirely focussed on the implied freedom, whereas their case only somewhat deals with it (due to their choice to run a wide range of grounds).
.We are asking the Court to strengthen Australia's implied freedom of political communication by recognising that laws imposing exceptionally serious burdens on political communication and political participation should require correspondingly stronger constitutional justification.
.This group continuing to be prohibited and being prevented from contesting elections at the ballot just draws more attention to them and guarantees their survival. Legislation like this fuels them.
But more importantly, everyones rights are at stake. If this legislation is found to be constitutional, then a wide range of civil society organisaitions could be banned. At the least, this will have a chilling effect on all organisations, regardless of political persuasion.
.The existing parties focus primarily on whether the legislation is constitutionally valid.
Our submissions ask the Court to develop the broader constitutional framework by recognising that the intensity of judicial scrutiny should reflect the seriousness of the burden imposed on political freedom.
That principle could strengthen constitutional protections well beyond this case.
Donations will fund the Free Speech Union's legal costs associated with preparing and presenting its submissions before the High Court.
If donations exceed the costs of this matter, surplus funds will be used to support future constitutional litigation and other legal matters advancing freedom of speech and political communication.
The High Court can deny our application to make submissions, but even if they do they will still have read them.
If they do accept our application, our submissions will potentially be pivotal in the outcome of the case and the development of the doctrine of implied freedom of political communication in Australia.
We'll provide updates on the progress of the case through the Free Speech Union's website, newsletter and social media channels.