Latest Posts RSSTue, 20 Jan 2026 23:58:46 GMTAustralia’s New “Hate & Extremism” Law Isn’t Coming For Them… It’s Coming For YouParliament has just handed the Executive a new weapon: a “middle-tier” proscription regime that can ban organisations by regulation, criminalise ordinary proximity to those organisations, and turn immigration decisions into a “might”-based purge—all while quietly switching off procedural fairness at the front end.This isn’t a laser. It’s a net. And the net is designed to catch people who think they’re nowhere near “extremism”.The Big Pivot: From “terror” to “hate”—and from “proof” to “risk”1) “Prohibited hate groups” can be created by regulation (executive pen, not a court order)An organisation becomes a “prohibited hate group” if it’s specified in regulations—a classic “list first, litigate later” architecture.The “advocacy” test is where this turns explosive: it captures not just urging violence, but “praise” of a hate crime where there is an “unacceptable risk” that the praise might lead someone else to act.That’s a triple-elastic concept stack: praise + unacceptable risk + might lead. In law, elastic language doesn’t “protect the community”—it protects discretion.2) The listing threshold is “reasonably necessary” to protect the community—another rubber phraseThe final Act keeps the threshold that banning must be “reasonably necessary to protect the Australian community”.What is “harm”? What is “necessary”? Who decides what’s “reasonable”? The Minister does—then the courts are left cleaning up after the fact (if you can even get standing, evidence, and time).The “No Hearing” Problem: Natural justice is deliberately switched offThe final Act retains the ouster of procedural fairness for listing decisions—word-for-word.And the Act itself is blunt: the Minister is not required to observe any rules of natural justice in these listing decisions.So if your organisation is listed:you may not get notice beforehand,you may not get a meaningful chance to respond,and the legal “battle” begi... Read more

]]>Tue, 20 Jan 2026 23:58:46 GMTThe Erosion of Liberty: A Forensic and Constitutional Critique of the Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism Bill 2026Executive Summary: The Architecture of the Security StateThe introduction of the Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism Bill 2026 into the Australian Parliament marks a precipitous descent into legislative authoritarianism. Masquerading as a necessary shield against the scourge of hatred, this omnibus Bill is, in reality, a sword struck at the heart of Australia’s liberal democratic tradition. It represents a fundamental realignment of the relationship between the citizen and the state, substituting the rule of law for the rule of executive suspicion, and replacing the presumption of innocence with a presumption of guilt for those who dare to traverse the increasingly narrow corridors of permissible expression and association.This report, authored from the perspective of a constitutional and human rights legal expert, provides an exhaustive, hard-hitting analysis of the Bill. It exposes the constitutional fragilities, the draconian overreach, and the insidious mechanisms by which this legislation seeks to criminalise ideology, weaponise migration law, and automate injustice. The analysis draws upon a comprehensive review of the Bill’s text 1, established High Court precedents including Williams v Commonwealth 2 and Lange v Australian Broadcasting Corporation 4, and international human rights frameworks under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).5The Bill is not merely a collection of amendments; it is a coherent architecture of oppression. It creates a new class of "thought crimes" by criminalising the dissemination of "ideas of superiority" 1, a concept so vague as to capture religious doctrine, political philosophy, and historical debate. It resurrects the discredited doctrine of "guilt by association" in migration law, enacting a statutory definition of "association" that captures a single meeting or communica... Read more

]]>Tue, 13 Jan 2026 12:08:27 GMTThe Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism Bill 2026 – A Draconian Assault on Civil LibertiesIn the name of fighting hate, the government is poised to unleash a law that could criminalize words, thoughts and associations on an unprecedented scale. The innocuously titled Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism Bill 2026 is an authoritarian sledgehammer cloaked in the language of tolerance. Behind its feel-good promises of safety and harmony, this Bill’s vague definitions, sweeping powers, and harsh penalties threaten to shatter fundamental freedoms – from free speech and free association to due process and equality before the law. It stretches well beyond targeting neo-Nazis or violent extremists, casting a wide net that could easily ensnare ordinary citizens – activists, journalists, artists, clergy, even members of minority communities – who never imagined they’d be branded “extremists.” Below, we expose how this Bill’s ambiguous language, constitutional infirmities, unchecked executive powers, and dangerous breadth put every Australian’s civil liberties at risk.Ambiguous Language – A Recipe for Misinterpretation and AbuseThe Bill is riddled with vague and overbroad terms that give authorities frightening latitude to interpret dissent or unpopular opinions as “hate” or “extremism.” Key definitions are so elastic that almost any controversial group or passionate speech could be stretched to fit. For example:• “Prohibited Hate Group” – Whatever the Government Says It Is: The Bill doesn’t precisely define what ideology or conduct makes a group “hateful.” Instead, a “prohibited hate group” is simply “an organisation that is specified by the regulations” – in other words, any group the government chooses to blacklist[1]. There are no clear limits: today a neo-Nazi cell, tomorrow a radical climate protest network or an outspoken religious sect could wear the “hate group” label if those in power decide so. This open-ended definition practically beg... Read more

]]>Tue, 13 Jan 2026 10:03:29 GMTASF17 v Commonwealth of Australia [2024] HCA 19 (10 May 2024) Intro:- This is an appeal from the Federal Court of Australia Facts:- The appellant, ASF17, is a citizen of Iran. He arrived in Australia as an unlawful non-citizen at the age of 27 in 2013. Except for a short period during which he held a bridging visa between 2013 and 2014, he has been held in immigration detention continuously since his arrival. While in immigration detention, ASF17 in 2015 made an application for a Safe Haven Enterprise Visa ("SHEV"). The application was refused by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection in 2017. An application for judicial review of the decision of the delegate was dismissed by the Federal Circuit Court of Australia in 2017[4] in a decision which was upheld on appeal to the Federal Court of Australia in 2018. The final determination of his application for a SHEV which occurred upon the dismissal of the appeal in 2018 engaged the duty imposed on officers of the Department of Home Affairs ("the Department") by s 198(6) of the Act to remove ASF17 from Australia as soon as reasonably practicable. Unlike the plaintiff in NZYQ, ASF17 has never formally requested to be removed from Australia so as to engage the other duty to remove imposed on officers of the Department by s 198(1) of the Act. For the purpose of facilitating removal of ASF17 from Australia, officers of the Department conducted regular interviews with him from 2018. Throughout those interviews, he consistently told officers that he would not voluntarily return to Iran. He consistently refused to sign a request for removal or to engage with Iranian authorities in planning for his removal. He repeatedly told officers that he would agree to be sent to any country other than Iran. However, he did not suggest that there was any country to which he might be removed other than Iran. Iranian citizens cannot enter Iran from Australia without a travel document issued by Iranian authorities and ... Read more

]]>Thu, 25 Jul 2024 08:09:27 GMTMiller v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2024] HCA 13 (17 April 2024) Intro:- This is an appeal from the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia Facts:- Mr Miller is a Fijian national whose Resident Return (Subclass 155) visa was cancelled under s 501(3A) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ("the Migration Act"). A delegate of the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs ("the Minister") decided under s 501CA(4) of the Migration Act not to revoke that original decision on the basis that the delegate was not satisfied in terms of s 501CA(4)(b)(ii) that there was "another reason why the original decision should be revoked". ... Calculating the period so fixed by s 500(6B) of the Migration Act in accordance with s 36 of Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth), the last day for Mr Miller to make an application to the Tribunal for review of the decision of the delegate was 25 March 2021. Mr Miller's migration agent made an application to the Tribunal for review of the decision of the delegate on 24 March 2021. Apparently because the migration agent mistook the form approved by the President of the Tribunal to be used for making such an application, the application made by the migration agent contained no statement of the reasons for the application. The Tribunal held a directions hearing on 1 April 2021 at which the Tribunal requested that Mr Miller provide reasons for the application. In response to that request, Mr Miller's solicitors emailed the Tribunal on 9 April 2021. Under the heading "Why do you claim the decision is wrong?", the email stated, "[t]he Minister erred in concluding that there is not another reason why the original decision to cancel the applicant's Resident Return (Subclass 155) visa should be revoked". There is no dispute that this statement would have been sufficient to comply with s 29(1)(c) of the AAT Act had it been contained in the application made on 24 March 2021. Tribunal and decision of t... Read more

]]>Thu, 25 Jul 2024 08:01:58 GMTMinister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs v McQueen [2024] HCA 11 (10 April 2024) Intro:- This is an appeal from the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia. Facts:- The respondent is a citizen of the United States of America whose visa was mandatorily cancelled ("the cancellation decision") in 2019 pursuant to s 501(3A) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ("the Act") because the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs ("the Minister") was satisfied that the respondent did not pass the "character test" as defined in s 501(6) of the Act. Consequentially, the respondent made representations to the Minister seeking revocation of the cancellation decision pursuant to s 501CA(4) of the Act. For that purpose, the Minister was supplied by the Department of Home Affairs ("the Department") with a 13‑page "Submission" which summarised those representations; a 15‑page draft statement of reasons in support of a decision not to revoke the cancellation decision; and copies of all of the actual representations made by the respondent, and on his behalf, as well as other relevant material. The representations and other material comprised 213 pages. They included the respondent's handwritten request for revocation of the cancellation decision, letters and emails of support from his Australian partner, his children under his care and other individuals, letters and emails relating to the respondent's time in prison, certificates confirming the completion of certain courses, medical information and other correspondence. The material also included a record of the decision of the Prisoners Review Board of Western Australia providing for the respondent's conditional release on parole on the basis that the Board found that he "would not present an unacceptable risk to the safety of the community". In making his decision, it is now accepted that the Minister only read the Submission and the draft reasons. He did not read or oth... Read more

]]>Thu, 25 Jul 2024 07:55:34 GMTLPDT v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2024] HCA 12 (10 April 2024) Intro:- This is an appeal from the Full Federal Court of Australia Facts:- The appellant is a Vietnamese national. He arrived in Australia in 1997 and, in 2008, was granted a Class BS Subclass 801 (Spouse) visa. Between November 2011 and August 2017, he was convicted of various offences on three separate occasions, twice in the County Court of Victoria and once in the Magistrates' Court of Victoria, including offences of conspiring to import or export a marketable quantity of a border controlled drug or plant, attempting to possess a marketable quantity of a border controlled drug or plant, and trafficking a drug of dependence. On each occasion he was sentenced to a period of imprisonment, the most recent of which was on 17 August 2017 for a period of four years and six months. In May 2019, the appellant's visa was subject to mandatory cancellation under s 501(3A) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ("the cancellation decision"). An application, under s 501CA(4) of the Act, for revocation of the cancellation failed ("the delegate's decision"). The appellant applied to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal ("the Tribunal") to review the delegate's decision and, in deciding to affirm the delegate's decision, the Tribunal said it was not satisfied (under s 501CA(4)(b)(ii) of the Migration Act) that there was "another reason" why the cancellation decision should be revoked. In considering whether there was "another reason", the Tribunal was required by s 499(2A) of the Migration Act to comply with Direction No 90 – Visa refusal and cancellation under section 501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under section 501CA ("Direction 90"). Tribunal's decision The Tribunal was required by para 8.1.1(1)(a) to have regard to the fact that certain "types of crimes or conduct" described therein are deemed to be viewed "very seriously" by the Australian... Read more

]]>Thu, 25 Jul 2024 07:48:03 GMTLesianawai v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2024] HCA 6 (6 March 2024) Intro:- The plaintiff commenced proceedings in the High Court's original jurisdiction seeking certiorari to quash the delegate's decision to cancel the plaintiff's visa under s 501(2) of the Migration Act, 1958 (Cth). Facts:- The plaintiff was born in July 1983. He is a citizen of Fiji. He arrived in Australia with his parents and siblings in January 1988. In November 1999, he was granted a Class BF 154 Transitional (Permanent) visa permitting him to remain in Australia permanently. From 1996 until 2001, the plaintiff either pleaded guilty to, or was found guilty by the Children's Court of, numerous offences including multiple counts of robbery in company. In August 2003, he was convicted of three counts of robbery while armed with a dangerous or offensive weapon. He was sentenced by the District Court of New South Wales to substantial terms of imprisonment for each offence ("the 2003 offences"). In May 2010, the plaintiff was convicted and sentenced by the District Court to terms of imprisonment for two offences of robbery while armed with a dangerous weapon and two attempts to commit such offences. The issues paper and the delegate's decision As at October 2013, s 501(2) of the Migration Act provided that the Minister may cancel a visa that has been granted to a person if the Minister reasonably suspects the person does not pass the "character test" and the person does not satisfy the Minister that they pass that test. This power could be, and was, delegated.A person did not pass the character test if, inter alia, they had a "substantial criminal record", which included being sentenced to a term of imprisonment for 12 months or more. The sentences imposed for the 2003 and 2007 offences satisfied the definition of a substantial criminal record. Placed before the delegate was a memorandum prepared by a departmental officer entitled "Issues for consideration of po... Read more

]]>Thu, 25 Jul 2024 07:36:00 GMTAB (a pseudonym) v Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission [2024] HCA 10 (13 March 2024) Intro:- This is an appeal from the Supreme Court of Victoria. Facts:- Between 2019 and 2021, IBAC conducted an investigation into allegations of unauthorised access to, and disclosure of, internal email accounts of a "public body" within the meaning of s 6(1) of the IBAC Act. The second appellant, CD, is a registered organisation under the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009 (Cth). The first appellant, AB, is a senior officer of CD and an employee of the public body. During the investigation, AB gave evidence to IBAC in a private examination. On 6 December 2021, IBAC provided AB with a redacted version of its draft special report prepared under Pt 7 of the IBAC Act and requested his response by 20 December 2021 ("the Draft Report"). Part 4 of the Draft Report contained proposed findings adverse to AB (and others) in relation to the unauthorised access and disclosure of information and reasons for those findings. Part 5 of the Draft Report contained proposed findings adverse to the appellants (and others) in relation to the workplace culture of the public body and reasons for those findings. On 12 December 2021, AB's solicitor replied to IBAC seeking an extension of time in which to respond, the transcript of his examination, transcripts of the examinations of other witnesses referred to in the Draft Report and copies of other documentary material relied upon to support the proposed adverse findings. On 14 December 2021, IBAC agreed to the extension of time and provided the transcript of AB's examination as well as copies of the documents shown to him during his examination. However, IBAC did not agree to provide the transcripts of the other witness examinations or the other requested documents. Issues:- Does "adverse material" referred to in s 162(3) refer to the proposed adverse comments or opinions in the special report or whether it is the evidentiary mat... Read more

]]>Thu, 25 Jul 2024 07:21:40 GMTIsmail v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2024] HCA 2 (7 February 2024) Intro:- This matter, brought in the original jurisdiction of the Court, involves the construction, validity, and operation of parts of Direction No 90 – Visa refusal and cancellation under section 501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under section 501CA ("Direction 90"), which is a direction made under s 499(1) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ("the Act"). Facts:- The plaintiff was born in Lebanon and holds a travel document for Palestinian refugees issued by the Republic of Lebanon. The plaintiff came to Australia on a Student (Higher Education Sector) (Subclass 573) visa in 2010 when he was 21 years old. He was granted a Partner (Subclass 801) visa in 2015 ("Partner visa"). Between 2010 and 2022 the plaintiff was convicted of various offences, including offences of driving while disqualified and offences of domestic violence. On 28 September 2022, a delegate of the Minister administering the Act decided to refuse to grant the plaintiff a Return visa. The delegate concluded that the plaintiff did not pass the "character test" and that the "considerations favouring non‑refusal [of the visa application] are outweighed by the considerations favouring refusal". The plaintiff contends that in making this decision the delegate erred in law on several grounds, each relating to Direction 90. The Act and Direction 90 Section 501(1) of the Act provides that "[t]he Minister may refuse to grant a visa to a person if the person does not satisfy the Minister that the person passes the character test". "A decision under s 501(1) involves two steps, being a consideration of whether the person has satisfied the decision‑maker that the person passes the character test, and if not, the exercise of the discretion whether to exercise the power to refuse the visa."[1] The plaintiff does not dispute that he does not pass the "character test" as, in accordance with s ... Read more

]]>Thu, 25 Jul 2024 07:08:00 GMT