Members of the White Australia party, including its leader, Thomas Sewell, sat in the front of the courtroom’s public benches. Photograph: Charlie Kinross/The GuardianView image in fullscreenMembers of the White Australia party, including its leader, Thomas Sewell, sat in the front of the courtroom’s public benches. Photograph: Charlie Kinross/The GuardianBan on neo-Nazi White Australia party is ‘authoritarian’ and breaches constitution, high court hearsLawyers also argue commonwealth does not have the power to ban a political party, as the high court ruled in 1951 over attempt to ban the Communist party
Follow our Australia news live blog for latest updates
Get our breaking news email, free app or daily news podcast
Lawyers for an outlawed neo-Nazi political party have argued anti-hate laws passed after the Bondi terror attack rely on the opinion of a politician and are “authoritarian in nature”.
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 passed on its recommendation to the home affairs minister, Tony Burke.
The listing means that activities including supporting, funding, training, recruiting and joining the group constitute a criminal offence with a maximum penalty of 15 years in prison.
The far-right nationalist party 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.
Lawyers also argued 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.
On Tuesday, the group’s barristers, Peter King and Shahed Sharify, argued a total ban on the party was akin to using a “sledgehammer on a nut”.
The arguments centre on proving part 5.3B of the criminal code – which allows the federal police minister to recommend to the governor-general that a group is listed as a prohibited hate group – is invalid.
Sharify argued the law’s breach of implied freedom of political communication was “authoritarian in nature” and suggested it could be used to ban any political party where its members had threatened or engaged in a hate crime with the assistance of the organisation.
The barrister 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”.
The government is expected to defend the anti-hate laws by arguing the party is not a political party but an arm of White Australia, itself a rebranded version of NSN.
“Forming a political party was a calculated attempt to secure legal protection for members engaging in openly racist and anti-Semitic speech,” the Commonwealth said in written submissions.
Members of the White Australia party sat in the front of the courtroom’s public benches, including its leader, Tom Sewell.
The 33-year-old was sentenced in June to a community corrections order – which includes 200 hours of community work – for behaving in an offensive manner in public.
A Melbourne magistrate had found the neo-Nazi leader emulated “Nazi thugs of 1930s Berlin” when he used “appalling racial slurs” during a stunt outside a Chinese consulate.
