Ruling backs minister’s discretion on visa applications
The Australian High Court has unanimously upheld the Immigration Minister’s decision to refuse a temporary visa to American commentator Candace Owens Farmer, who had planned a speaking tour of Australia in 2024. The ruling supports the minister’s use of the character test, a provision meant to assess whether a visa would be contrary to the public interest, including potential risks to social cohesion and safety.
The grounds of the decision
Immigration Minister Tony Burke refused Owens’ visa on the basis that her visit could incite discord within a segment of the Australian community and that granting entry would not serve the national interest. The decision cited Owens’s influence online and alleged past remarks, framing them as evidence that her activities could foment division and harm. Owens’s lawyers contended that the decision imposed an impermissible burden on the implied right to freedom of political communication and argued that the minister misread the law.
What the court decided
In a decision described as unanimous, the High Court confirmed that the character test applies in circumstances where a person could stir up dissension or strife, risking harm to the Australian community. The court rejected arguments that the law was invalid or inapplicable to Owens’s case and found that the minister’s interpretation fell within the statutory framework. The decision means the visa denial stands and the planned speaking engagement in Australia will not proceed under the current government interpretation of the law.
Key moments and considerations in the minister’s decision
Mr Burke’s decision, issued in October last year, stated that “Australia’s national interest is best served when Candace Owens is somewhere else.” The minister highlighted Owens’s online reach—more than 5 million subscribers on YouTube—and cited publicly reported remarks as part of the basis for the assessment of risk. For instance, in July 2024, Owens described stories about Nazi experiments during World War II as “completely absurd” and “bizarre propaganda,” which the government saw as contributing to a broader narrative that could influence audience attitudes in ways the law seeks to prevent.
Another factor cited by the minister was Owens’s perceived influence on individuals who have committed or inspired extremist acts. The decision referenced reports about a Christchurch mosque attacker describing Owens as having persuaded him above others, framing this as relevant to potential harm in the community if her visit were allowed.
Impact on Owens and the Australian public
The ruling closes the door on Owens’s proposed November 2024 tour, which would have taken her to major Australian cities, including Sydney, Perth, Melbourne, Adelaide and Brisbane. Owens had vowed that Australian audiences would hear discussions on topics she typically frames as critical to civil discourse, such as freedom of speech and religious perspectives. Supporters of the government’s decision argue that allowing such talks could undermine social harmony or enable harmful rhetoric, particularly given the country’s diverse population and history of sensitive public debates.
Responses from the community and observers
Reaction to the decision has been mixed. Some observers describe it as a victory for factual, measured policy-making and for the public interest in maintaining social cohesion. Others warn about the chilling effects of blocking a prominent commentator’s voice and warn against equating disagreement with incitement. A representative body for Jewish communities, the Anti-Defamation Commission, described the decision as a “victory for truth” in the wake of the ruling.
Legal implications and what lies ahead
The High Court’s decision clarifies how Australia’s character test can be applied, particularly in relation to opinions voiced by foreign commentators who attract large audiences. It signals that the government can rely on a broad interpretation of potential social harm to justify visa denial, without necessarily requiring a direct incitement to violence. The decision may influence future cases involving public figures, political commentary, and visa policy, prompting debate about the boundaries between free speech and national security.
As Australia continues to navigate complex questions about immigration, national interest and political communication, the balance between protecting public order and preserving open dialogue remains a persistent policy and constitutional issue for lawmakers, courts and the public alike.
