This week, the White Australia Party (formerly the National Socialist Network or NSN) is arguing in the High Court that a hate speech law passed in January is unconstitutional.
The law was introduced following the Bondi terror attack in December, and includes a framework to formally list prohibited hate groups.
The White Australia Party is on this list.
Party members, including the president, convicted criminal Thomas Sewell, are challenging the laws.
Here’s what you need to know.
Background
Last year, the National Socialist Network (NSN) renamed itself White Australia.
It is a neo-Nazi group that promotes white supremacy.
Sewell has faced criminal charges for his behaviour on multiple occasions.
He is currently serving a community corrections order for offensive behaviour outside the Chinese consulate in Melbourne in 2024.
Last year, Sewell spent two months in custody before being released on bail over an alleged attack on Camp Sovereignty, a First Nations protest site.
The matter is before the court.
Hate speech laws
In December, two gunmen opened fire at Sydney’s Bondi Beach, killing 15 people and injuring many more.
Hundreds had gathered to celebrate the start of the Jewish festival of Chanukah.
The mass shooting was declared a terrorist attack.
In the wake of the attack, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese vowed to change gun and hate speech laws.
In January, Albanese recalled Parliament early, and the Government introduced two bills, one of which addressed hate speech.
The hate speech bill passed with Liberal Party support and created a framework for the Government to formally list “prohibited hate groups,” similar to how terrorist organisations are listed.
It specifically aims to lower the legal threshold for organisations that are “just below” previous laws.
In the past, ASIO Director-General Mike Burgess identified NSN as an example.
Under the framework, it is a criminal offence to be a member of a prohibited hate group, recruit others, or provide training, funding or other support.
The rebranded White Australia was listed on 15 May, one day before the regulations came into effect.
Your contribution ensures The Daily Aus can continue doing the work you love.
I want to give $10 monthly to help TDA keep doing the news.
Your details:
Case
White Australia filed documentation with the Australian Electoral Commission to create the White Australia Party in April 2026.
The White Australia Party and Sewell filed a case in the High Court in May, after the new law came into effect.
Their lawyers have three key arguments against the law’s validity:
The Government is not authorised to create or enforce such a law;
It’s against the freedom of political communication implied in the constitution; and
It breaches the separation of the three streams of power: executive, judicial and legislative.
Essentially, they argue the law gives the Government powers that should belong to the court.
The lawyers are using a 1951 case as a precedent for their argument: Australian Communist Party v The Commonwealth.
This case determined it was unconstitutional for the Menzies Government to pass a law banning the Australian Communist Party in 1950.
The plaintiff also addressed the White Australia Party’s April request to the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) to register as an eligible political party.
However, the White Australia Party’s listing as a prohibited hate group means being active – such as through support or membership – is criminalised.
Expert opinion
ANU Professor Ron Levy told TDA it is an “unsympathetic case for those who wish to protect free speech at all costs,” adding the party “has few friends in government, or, presumably, in the legal world.”
He said the Communist Party comparison is a “stretch”, because the 1950s law was “very extreme” and possibly “too broad a power,” as it allowed the Government to declare a person a Communist under a “vague” definition.
Addressing the separation of powers argument, Levy said this is usually used to argue that “a law pronounces the guilt of a group of people... usurping the role of judges”.
He said the new law “allows the Government to outlaw any party if [it’s] committed to hate or other harms,” which he described as a “broad principle,” rather than a replacement of judges like the plaintiffs allege.
What’s next?
The case will be heard over two days in the High Court this week.
An outcome is not expected for some time.
Speaking outside the court on Tuesday, Sewell said they are challenging the laws “that effectively ban political parties in this country if the current Government and the current spy agency [ASIO] disagree with them.”
Levy told TDA he believes the outcome “will come down to some pretty value-based or subjective judgments... as to whether the current law goes too far.”
