White Australia party is 'modern manifestation' of Nazi movement, Commonwealth tells High Court

Key facts

• The White Australia party, formerly the National Socialist Network (NSN), is challenging its designation as an illegal hate group.
• The Commonwealth argues the group is a 'modern manifestation' of the Nazi movement and poses a security risk.
• The party's legal team claims the ban infringes on freedom of political communication and separation of powers.
• The Commonwealth cited inflammatory rhetoric, alleged violent incidents, and the leader's criminal record as justification for the ban.
• The party's lawyers suggested a judge, not a minister, should decide on hate group designations.

The White Australia party, previously known as the National Socialist Network (NSN), is facing a legal challenge at Australia's High Court over its designation as an illegal hate group. The Commonwealth, represented by lawyer Brendan Lim, argued that the group is a "modern manifestation" of Adolf Hitler’s Nazi movement and poses a significant security risk, potentially motivating hate crimes.

Lim presented evidence including inflammatory rhetoric, an alleged violent attack by members in 2025, and the criminal convictions of the group's leader, Thomas Sewell, to support the ban. He stated that the group's operations are "security conscious" and "savvy enough to work within the limits of the law," making its very existence a source of harm through "stochastic terrorism" – the use of public discourse to demonize communities.

Lawyers for the White Australia party, including Shahed Sharify, countered that the ban infringes on the implied freedom of political communication and is "authoritarian in nature." They argued that handing the decision to ban a group to a politician, like Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke, rather than a judge, breaches the separation of powers and lacks judicial fairness. The party's legal team suggested that such a broad ban could be used to outlaw any political group whose members have engaged in hate crimes. They likened the ban to using a "sledgehammer on a nut" and proposed that a judicial process would be more appropriate for such decisions.