White Australia party is ‘modern manifestation’ of Nazi movement and should be banned, commonwealth tells high court

White Australia party leader Thomas Sewell at a March for Australia anti-immigration rally in Melbourne last year. The Commonwealth cited Sewell’s past criminal convictions while arguing the group should be banned. Photograph: Joel Carrett/EPA View image in fullscreen White Australia party leader Thomas Sewell at a March for Australia anti-immigration rally in Melbourne last year. The Commonwealth cited Sewell’s past criminal convictions while arguing the group should be banned. Photograph: Joel Carrett/EPA White Australia party is ‘modern manifestation’ of Nazi movement and should be banned, Commonwealth tells High Court The former National Socialist Network is challenging ban in High Court, arguing law breaches implied freedom of political communication Get our new political email, free app or daily news podcast The White Australia party is a “modern manifestation” of Adolf Hitler’s Nazi movement and would motivate hate crimes against sections of the country, the High Court has heard. The White Australia party, formerly known as the National Socialist Network (NSN), was designated as an illegal hate group in May after the Australian Security and Intelligence Organisation (Asio) passed on its recommendation to the home affairs minister, Tony Burke. It is challenging the ban at the High Court over two days this week, with its lawyers arguing the law breaches the implied freedom of political communication and that handing the decision to Burke breaches the separation of powers. It also argues the Commonwealth does not have the power to ban political parties, citing a major cold war-era High Court ruling in 1951, which overturned a ban on the Communist party of Australia. The Commonwealth’s lawyer, Brendan Lim, told the court on Wednesday that the group sought to create a political party after anti-hate laws passed in the wake of the Bondi terror attack threatened to disband it. The hate group listing means that supporting, funding, training, recruiting and joining the group constitutes a criminal offence with a maximum penalty of 15 years in prison. Lim said the group sought “protection” under the guise of creating a political party but remained the same group with the same goals. The barrister cited a series of examples, including inflammatory rhetoric to encourage communal violence, an alleged physically violent attack by some of its members on Camp Sovereignty in 2025, and past criminal convictions of its leader, Thomas Sewell. Justice Robert Beech-Jones asked whether the Commonwealth believed the group were the “modern manifestation” of Hitler’s Nazi movement. Lim responded: “Yes.” “There are few legitimate reasons, outside of history books and museum, that warrant the use of Nazi symbols,” Lim said. Citing a briefing from Asio and public speeches by its director general, Mike Burgess, Lim said the prohibited hate group listing was necessary because the group were security conscious and its operations savvy enough to work within the limits of the law. “The existence of the group itself is the source of harm,” Lim said. Lim said stochastic terrorism – the use of media and public discourse to demonise sections of the community – could lead lone wolves or fringe members to commit racially motivated hate crimes. Lim said the anti-hate laws go “no further than necessary” to remove that harm. Beech-Jones asked whether the party represented a greater threat to Australia’s nationhood than that of the Communist party in 1950 when prime minister Robert Menzies first banned the party. The ban was overturned the following year as constitutionally invalid. Lim said the current context was different but both parties represented “great threats” to the country. Lawyers for the party argued on Tuesday that a total ban on the party was akin to using a “sledgehammer on a nut”. Barrister Shahed Sharify argued the law’s breach of implied freedom of political communication was “authoritarian in nature” and suggested it could be used to outlaw any political party where its members had threatened or engaged in a hate crime with the assistance of the organisation. Sharify said the banning of hate groups was determined by a politician, based on an opinion with no judicial fairness to appeal that decision. Sharify said the law’s purposes would be better served by handing that decision to a judge rather than a “busy minister who flicks through a brief and decides in two hours”. Explore more on these topics Australian politics Far right Australian security and counter-terrorism Australian law news Share Reuse this content