When it comes to curbing foreign voices regarded as disruptive, Australia has raised the bar.
Farmer v Minister for Home Affairs [2025] HCA 38, delivered on October 15 in the High Court, has resulted in US commentator Candace Owens being banned from Australia.
On what grounds?
Supposedly, Owens carries the ‘risk of inciting discord’ with a speaking tour despite Australians already listening to her via social media.
The decision to refuse Candace Owens a speaking-tour visa, upheld unanimously, imposes both a practical and symbolic cost to free political expression. In my view, this is not in-line with the Constitutional implied right to political communication, which operates through Section 7 and 24.
It is also not in-line with maintaining ‘peace order and good governance’ which is a statement which undergirds how the Constitution should be applied in general terms and in practice.
Banning Owens is likely to incite more discord from the community than letting her speak.
Furthermore, there seems to be something quite ironic in the ruling, given ISIS Brides and refugees from Middle Eastern war zones, some of whom have been charged with (or suspected of) serious crimes, have been accepted into Australia.
Meanwhile Owens, an American patriot and celebrity with over 7 million followers on X, has been barred. How is it that a Catholic mother of four young children is apparently the top concern for our government departments?
In my opinion, the conclusion drawn in Farmer is not only ridiculous, anti-Constitutional, and devastating for an American with First Amendment rights, but it is tyrannical.
In America, the First Amendment is free speech for a reason – it is the right by which every other right stems from.
Without free speech you cannot fight for secondary rights such as freedom of movement, which is an internationally recognised right in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Of course, without a visa, foreign citizens cannot just enter countries, however it is a worrying precedent to suggest Americans with big platforms should not be able to go on tour in allied countries over what amounts to differing politics from the government of the day.
It is important to note that Owens is not just a cultural commentator – she is a political figure. She interviewed President Donald Trump in 2021.
Where to in the future?
There appears to be a complacency toward executive power that should set alarm bells ringing in liberal democracies on both sides of the Pacific. At risk is not just Candace Owens’ ability to set foot on Australian soil; it is a larger principle: that governments should not act as arbiters of permissible ideas.
Perhaps we should take a better look at the ‘character test’ in the Migration Act, listed under Section 501(6)v which indicates a person can be barred from entering the country if there is a risk they can ‘incite discord’ in the Australian community, or even a mere segment of the community. This legislation is very broad and left up to minister discretion. This discretion can result in bewildering decisions.
Australia is not some vacuum where ideas cannot ebb and flow into this country and shape our viewpoints – this is not a communist state. By affirming a broad ministerial power to exclude foreign speakers, we have permitted a form of gatekeeping that invites chilling consequences.
If a political actor’s admission can be denied merely for fear of incitement, the question becomes: Where does that stop? What of speakers whose views are less incendiary, but still polarising?
The High Court’s decision in Farmer will be hailed by some as a necessary balancing of speech and public order. But from the standpoint of democracies that value open political exchange – even messy or offensive – it is a total setback.
The Australian public are being treated as though we cannot make up our own minds about Candace Owens.
