A REFERUNDUM ON FREE SPEECH IS REQUIRED IN AUSTRALIA IMMEDIATELY

A REFERUNDUM ON FREE SPEECH IS REQUIRED IN AUSTRALIA IMMEDIATELY To protect the individual rights and religious (non violent) freedoms a Referendum on Free Speech must be done ASAP . This will also counter all the over-regulations of the Socialists type governments who rule by "red tape" by restricting freedom of speech by step by step regulating another layer of control by the government until they totally control the population. Under labor and Greens Australia we have reached the TURNING POINT . Graham Healy Tue 28/7/26 **Australian free speech and peaceful protest rights (no constitutional Bill of Rights equivalent to the US First Amendment)**

Australia has **no absolute free speech right**. Protection comes mainly from:

- The **implied freedom of political communication** under the Australian Constitution (High Court cases such as *Lange*, *McCloy*). This is a limit on laws that unreasonably restrict communication about government and political matters; it is **not** a personal individual right.

- Common law freedom of assembly.

- Explicit protections in human rights legislation in **Queensland, Victoria and the ACT** (peaceful assembly, association and expression). These can still be limited if reasonable and proportionate.

- International obligations (ICCPR Articles 19 & 21), which Australia has ratified but which are not directly enforceable as domestic law without legislation.

Peaceful protest is recognised as a legitimate and important form of political communication, but it is heavily regulated by **state/territory laws** (which differ) plus some Commonwealth laws. Recent years have seen many new restrictions (obstruction, lock-ons, major facilities, places of worship, face coverings, terrorist symbols, etc.), some of which have been struck down by courts as unconstitutional burdens on the implied freedom.

### Table: What you can generally do vs legal limits / caveats (peaceful protest, no violence or incitement)

| Activity / Expression | Generally allowed / protected | Key legal limits, offences & caveats |

|-----------------------|-------------------------------|--------------------------------------|

| **Peaceful assembly / march / rally** (holding signs, chanting political slogans, gathering in public) | Yes – protected as political communication and (in some jurisdictions) by statute/common law. Authorisation/notification often not required to make it “legal,” but recommended for practical protection. | Must remain peaceful. Police can impose conditions, move or disperse for public safety/order. State-specific permit/notification schemes exist (e.g. NSW Summary Offences Act consultation process). Unauthorised does not automatically make it illegal, but removes some protections against obstruction charges. |

| **Speech criticising government, policies, foreign governments, political ideologies** | Broadly protected under implied freedom (including unpopular or offensive views). Courts have protected criticism of Israel/Zionism as political speech when not targeting people by race/ethnicity. | Not absolute. Cannot cross into **incitement to violence**, threats, or certain hate speech. |

| **Non-violent civil disobedience / temporary disruption** (e.g. sitting-in, blocking a road briefly) | Sometimes tolerated as political expression; human rights bodies argue peaceful disruption can still be protected. | Frequently criminalised. Common offences: **obstructing traffic/public place**, unreasonable obstruction, hindering police. Penalties vary widely – SA has high fines/possible short jail; NSW major roads/facilities can attract large fines + jail; QLD/WA have specific attachment-device and business-interference rules. |

| **Using signs, banners, flags, chants** | Generally yes for political messages. | Banned or restricted: terrorist organisation symbols/insignia (federal + some states), Nazi symbols (NSW and others), certain hate symbols. Display can lead to seizure/charges. |

| **Masks / face coverings** | Often allowed for anonymity or health. | Increasing police powers to direct removal (e.g. Victoria 2025 laws). Disguise with unlawful intent already an offence in some places. |

| **Lock-on devices, glue, chains, ropes** | Rarely protected; treated as direct action. | Explicitly criminalised or heavily penalised in several states (Victoria, Queensland, etc.) when creating safety risk or obstructing. |

| **Trespass on private or restricted land / premises** | No general right. | Criminal trespass offences apply (fines or jail). Some defences for reasonable excuse exist but are narrow. |

| **Near places of worship, religious assemblies, major facilities, critical infrastructure** | Ordinary peaceful presence may be ok. | Specific protective offences in recent laws (NSW places-of-worship provisions were challenged/struck down in part; Victoria has disturbance/harassment rules). |

| **Hate speech / racial or religious vilification** | Political criticism is protected. Fair comment, academic, artistic or public-interest discussion done reasonably and in good faith is exempt (Racial Discrimination Act s 18D). | **Federal s 18C RDA**: unlawful (civil, not automatically criminal) to do a public act reasonably likely to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate because of race, colour, national or ethnic origin. Threshold is “profound and serious effects,” not mere offence. State laws also prohibit racial/religious vilification; some now criminalise certain forms of hatred/incitement. |

| **Incitement to violence or threats of violence** | Never protected. | Criminal offences federally (Criminal Code Division 80 – advocating/threatening force or violence against groups or individuals on protected attributes) and in states (e.g. NSW Crimes Act s 93Z). Penalties include years of imprisonment. Intention or recklessness usually required. Isolated violence by a few does not automatically make the whole assembly unlawful, but participants can still be charged individually. |

### Important caveats on free speech and protest in Australia

- **No personal right to free speech** – only a constitutional limit on disproportionate laws that burden political communication. Courts apply a proportionality test.

- **State variation is large** – what is a minor fine in one jurisdiction can be jail time in another. Always check the specific state/territory rules where the protest occurs.

- **Public order and safety trump** – laws targeting violence, damage, serious obstruction, or threats are generally valid even if they incidentally affect protest.

- **Hate speech / symbols / places of worship** – recent tightening after high-profile incidents; some laws have been invalidated for overreach.

- **Police discretion** is significant in practice. Authorisation or prior liaison often reduces risk of charges for minor obstruction.

- **Civil vs criminal** – many speech restrictions (e.g. 18C) are civil complaint processes; violence/incitement and obstruction are criminal.

- International human rights standards say restrictions must be lawful, necessary and proportionate in a democratic society, and content-based restrictions are generally disfavoured except for violence/hate.

**This is a high-level summary only.** Laws change (especially state anti-protest and hate-speech amendments), court challenges continue, and outcomes depend on exact facts, location and police/prosecutorial decisions. For any specific planned activity, consult current legislation for that state/territory or obtain independent legal advice. Peaceful, non-violent political expression remains a core democratic activity and is still broadly facilitated when it stays within the bounds above. ____________________________________________ **To legislate stronger or more explicit free speech protections in Australia, there are two main pathways: ordinary federal legislation or constitutional amendment.** They differ sharply in difficulty, strength, and process.

Australia currently has **no comprehensive federal free speech statute** and **no explicit constitutional free speech right**. Protection rests mainly on the High Court’s *implied freedom of political communication* (a limit on laws, not a personal right), common law, and human rights acts in Victoria, Queensland and the ACT.

### 1. Ordinary legislation (easier, reversible, limited strength)

Parliament can pass a federal statute creating a statutory right to freedom of expression (for example as part of a Human Rights Act).

**Process (standard Commonwealth bill process):**

1. Government (or private member) drafts a bill (often after inquiry, consultation, or exposure draft). Recent examples include recommendations from the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights (2024) and Australian Human Rights Commission models for a federal Human Rights Act that would include freedom of expression.

2. Bill introduced in the House of Representatives or Senate.

3. First reading, second reading debate, possible committee inquiry/scrutiny (including by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights).

4. Consideration in detail / committee of the whole.

5. Third reading and passage by that House.

6. Same process in the other House (amendments may require negotiation).

7. Once identical text is passed by both Houses → presented to the Governor-General for Royal Assent → becomes law.

**Key features of this route:**

- Requires only ordinary majorities in both Houses (not absolute majorities).

- Can be amended or repealed by a later Parliament.

- Usually follows a “dialogue model” (like the UK or ACT/Victorian/Queensland charters): courts interpret laws consistently with the rights where possible; public authorities must act compatibly; Parliament retains the power to override or limit rights expressly.

- Parliament’s power is still constrained by the existing *implied freedom of political communication* and the federal division of powers. An absolute, US-style free speech guarantee cannot be created by ordinary statute alone.

- Could implement aspects of Australia’s ICCPR obligations (external affairs power).

This is the route most often discussed in recent inquiries. A federal Human Rights Act has been recommended multiple times but has not yet been enacted.

### 2. Constitutional amendment (harder, entrenched, strongest protection)

To create an *explicit, entrenched* free speech right (similar to the US First Amendment or a strong bill of rights), the Constitution itself must be changed under **section 128**.

**Strict process:**

1. A Constitution Alteration bill is introduced.

2. It must be passed by an **absolute majority** in both the House of Representatives and the Senate (i.e., more than half of the total membership of each House, not just those present).

- If one House repeatedly rejects it, there is a limited deadlock procedure allowing the Governor-General to still put it to referendum after the originating House passes it twice with an interval.

3. Between 2 and 6 months after passage, the proposal is put to a national referendum.

4. The referendum must achieve a **double majority**:

- A national majority of voters (including territories), **and**

- A majority of voters in a majority of the six states (at least 4 out of 6).

5. If successful, the Governor-General gives assent and the Constitution is amended.

**Reality check:** Only 8 of 44 referendum proposals since Federation have succeeded. Recent private members’ bills (e.g., attempts to insert a free speech provision) illustrate the idea but face the same high bar.

### Practical and political realities

- **Ordinary legislation** is realistic if there is bipartisan or major-party support and can be done relatively quickly.

- **Constitutional change** is rare, expensive, and politically difficult; history shows strong opposition or lack of consensus usually defeats proposals.

- Any new law (statutory or constitutional) would still allow reasonable, proportionate limits (national security, public order, protection of reputation, prevention of incitement to violence, etc.), consistent with international human rights standards. Absolute, unrestricted free speech is not how most democracies (including the US in practice) operate.

- States and territories can (and some already do) legislate their own protections independently.

**In short:**

- For a *statutory* free speech / human rights protection → ordinary parliamentary process (bill through both Houses + Royal Assent).

- For an *entrenched constitutional* right → absolute majorities in both Houses + successful double-majority referendum under s 128.

Either path requires political will, drafting, and public support. Consult current parliamentary practice or legal advice for any specific proposal, as details of scrutiny committees and procedures can evolve.

____________________________________________ **A workable definition of freedom of religion that aligns with free speech while excluding hate preaching (incitement to violence or serious hatred) would follow international human rights standards already binding on Australia and the limits already recognised in Australian law.**

### Core definition consistent with Australian and international law

Freedom of religion (or belief) should be defined as:

> The right of every person to hold, adopt, change or abandon a religion or belief of their choice (absolute and non-derogable), and the freedom, either alone or in community with others, and in public or private, to manifest that religion or belief in worship, observance, practice, teaching and peaceful proselytising — **subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health, or morals, or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others**.

This tracks **Article 18 of the ICCPR** (which Australia has ratified) and the structure of section 116 of the Australian Constitution (which prohibits Commonwealth laws “for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion”). It also aligns with the implied freedom of political communication.

Key elements:

- **Belief itself is absolute** — no one can be forced to believe or disbelieve.

- **Manifestation (preaching, teaching, worship) is qualified** — it can be limited when it crosses into harm.

- Limits must be **prescribed by law, necessary, and proportionate**. Mere offence, disagreement, or strong criticism of ideas/doctrines does not justify restriction.

- The definition applies **equally to all religions and non-religious beliefs**. Singling out one faith would itself violate equality and non-discrimination principles.

### Alignment with free speech

Freedom of religion and free speech overlap heavily when people teach or preach. Protected activity includes:

- Quoting and explaining sacred texts (even difficult or historically harsh passages).

- Criticising other religions, ideologies, governments, or practices.

- Expressing unpopular or traditional moral teachings (e.g., on sexuality, gender, or interfaith relations) provided it does not meet the high threshold for restriction.

- Academic, historical, or theological discussion.

The boundary is drawn by the same standards that limit free speech more generally:

- **Incitement to violence** or threats of force (already criminal under the Commonwealth Criminal Code Division 80 and state equivalents).

- Advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes **incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence** (ICCPR Article 20(2)).

- Conduct that is reasonably likely to cause a reasonable person in the targeted group to fear harassment, intimidation, violence or for their safety (the threshold used in recent federal and state reforms).

Mere “hate preaching” that consists of strong condemnation of ideas, doctrines, or groups without urging violence or creating a real risk of imminent harm remains protected. Context, speaker status, intent, content, reach, and likelihood of harm matter (the Rabat Plan of Action six-part test used internationally).

### How this addresses publicly reported concerns about certain Islamic preachers

Public reports and investigations (including AFP examinations of sermons, civil cases under section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act, and state vilification proceedings) have involved sermons containing antisemitic tropes, calls that can be interpreted as supporting violence against Jews or others, or rhetoric framed as religious teaching. Australian law already responds to the unlawful end of this spectrum:

- Advocating or threatening violence carries serious criminal penalties; higher penalties apply when done by a religious official or spiritual leader in that capacity.

- Recent federal reforms (Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism measures) create aggravated offences for religious leaders who use their position to advocate or threaten force/violence, and introduce frameworks around hate groups and racial vilification with a high threshold.

- Civil remedies under section 18C and state racial/religious tolerance laws remain available for serious vilification.

- Narrow defences exist for *directly quoting* religious texts solely for teaching/discussion, but surrounding commentary that turns the quote into advocacy of hatred or violence is not protected.

A definition framed as above does **not** create a special exemption for any religion. It treats preaching the same whether the speaker is Muslim, Christian, Jewish, or of any other belief: the content and effect determine legality, not the religious label. Quoting scripture is protected; using it (or any other source) to urge violence or serious hostility is not.

### Practical drafting principles for legislation

Any statutory formulation (e.g., in a future federal Human Rights Act or refined hate-speech provisions) should:

1. Explicitly protect teaching, preaching and proselytising.

2. State that limitations are only those necessary for the listed public interests (safety, order, rights of others).

3. Require a high threshold (intent or recklessness + real risk of harm), not mere offence.

4. Apply equally across all religions and non-religious beliefs.

5. Preserve the ability to criticise religions as systems of ideas (protected political/religious speech).

6. Avoid vague terms that chill legitimate debate or create unequal enforcement.

This approach is already largely reflected in existing Commonwealth criminal law on advocating violence, recent reforms targeting hate preachers, and the constitutional framework. It protects genuine religious freedom and free speech while drawing a clear line against the forms of preaching that public reports have highlighted as crossing into criminal territory. Absolute, unrestricted religious speech (including open calls to violence) has never been part of Australian or international human rights law. ________________________________________