Constitutional Clarion
The Challenge by ‘White Australia’ to the
Prohibited Hate Group Law
Sun, May 24, 2026
[Anne Twomey, who is a Professor Emerita of the University of Sydney and has both taught and practised in constitutional law, gives her opinion on the chances of success of the White Australia Party’s High Court challenge as to the validity of it being listed as a “prohibited hate group” under the recent draconian laws (and likely unconstitutional) passed after the Bondi shooting in December 2025.
– KATANA]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ls8E486K3Tw
www.youtube.com/@constitutionalclarion1901
Published on Sun, May 24, 2026
Description
The challenge by ‘White Australia’ to the prohibited hate group law
Constitutional Clarion
24.7K subscribers
views
May 24, 2026 SYDNEY
This video addresses the arguments that are proposed to be raised by the ‘White Australia Party’ in its challenge to the constitutional validity of Part 5.3B of the Criminal Code (Cth), after it was designated a ‘prohibited hate group’ under that Part.
The video explains how a group is designated a ‘prohibited hate group’ and the criminal consequences of such a designation.
It then discusses two of the three arguments identified by the White Australia Party in its challenge: the absence of a head of legislative power and a breach of the implied freedom of political communication.
In discussing the head of power, it explains the change in the interpretation of the scope of the defence power from the Communist Party Case to Thomas v Mowbray and the expansion of the nationhood power. It also discusses the application of the external affairs power in implementing relevant treaty obligations in the ICCPR and CERD. It notes the operation of the Communist Party Case, where the only connection between the law and the head of power is a decision by the executive government. It also notes features of Part 5.3B that distinguish it from the Communist Party Case.
It concludes with a discussion of the application of the implied freedom of political communication, including comments in the Farmer case on the legitimate purpose for such laws.
It does not discuss the third constitutional argument – concerning the separation of powers and punitive action by the executive. This might be dealt with in a subsequent video.
NOTE: Given the nature of some of the comments (which were not directed at the issues, but rather at racial abuse), the comments will now be put on hold and only released if relevant.
Constitutional Clarion
24.7K subscribers
Videos
About
174 Comments
_____________
Following Transcript Quality = 5 Stars
1 Star — Poor quality with many errors, contains nonsense text 2 Stars — Low quality with many errors, some nonsense text. 3 Stars — Medium quality with some errors. 4 Stars — Good quality with only a few errors. 5 Stars — High quality with few to no errors.
NOTE: Readers can help improve the quality of this transcript by putting corrections in the Comment/Leave a Reply section. Don’t be just a consumer, contribute to the cause, however small. Thanks.
TRANSCRIPT
(Words: 2,754 – Duration: 20 mins)



















