This bill would insert a new Chapter IIIA and a single section (80A) into the Australian Constitution declaring that the Commonwealth or a State must not make any law that limits freedom of speech, expressly including freedom of the press and other media. The text is short and absolute: it bars any law that “limits” speech and names the press and other media specifically, without defining limits or listing exceptions.
The provision would change where disputes about speech restrictions are ultimately decided. Rather than Parliament or state legislatures calibrating the balance between speech and competing harms, courts—primarily the High Court—would decide whether statutes in areas such as defamation, national security, hate‑speech, electoral regulation, and public order are compatible with an explicit constitutional right.
The amendment’s brevity creates immediate interpretive and implementation questions about scope, permissible regulation, and the remedy for incompatible laws.
At a Glance
What It Does
Inserts Chapter IIIA into the Constitution and adds section 80A which forbids the Commonwealth or any State from making laws that limit freedom of speech, including freedom of the press and other media. The text contains no express exceptions, definitions, or tests.
Who It Affects
Directly constrains federal and state lawmakers and regulators across criminal law, media law, anti‑discrimination and public‑order statutes; it empowers courts and affects media organisations, online platforms, journalists, campaigners, and persons subject to speech‑related civil claims (eg, defamation plaintiffs).
Why It Matters
An express constitutional prohibition would be broader and more enforceable than the current implied freedom jurisprudence, shifting key policy tradeoffs from legislatures to the judiciary and generating litigation to define limits and carveouts in core areas like national security, incitement and hate speech.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill proposes a narrowly-worded constitutional amendment: a single new section that says neither the Commonwealth nor a State may make any law that limits freedom of speech, and it explicitly mentions the press and other media. Formally, this is an addition to the Constitution that would become binding on every level of government; practically, it elevates speech protection from a common-law or implied constitutional doctrine into an express ban on legislative restrictions.
Because the text contains no qualifiers, exceptions, or definitions, judges will have to decide what counts as a law that “limits” speech. That invites doctrinal work: courts may develop tests for whether a law meaningfully impairs speech (for example, a strict prohibition, a substantial‑burden test, or a proportionality/necessity analysis).
The absence of an explicit exception for laws targeting defamation, child exploitation, incitement to violence, or national security means those statutes could be vulnerable to constitutional challenge until the High Court crafts a limiting principle.The amendment applies to both the Commonwealth and the States. That federal reach matters because many speech‑related rules—defamation, racial‑vilification laws, public‑order offences, advertising and broadcasting standards—are state or territory statutes.
If courts interpret section 80A broadly, governments will need to revise existing laws or risk invalidation; if courts read the provision narrowly, legislatures will retain substantial regulatory space but face increased litigation to test the boundaries.Finally, the bill’s focus on “press and other media” signals that publishers and distribution channels are especially protected, but the language is capacious and likely to be read to cover contemporary digital platforms and social media. How that coverage maps onto platform liability regimes, content moderation requirements, and metadata/security obligations will depend on future judicial interpretation and possibly further legislative responses designed to survive constitutional scrutiny.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill creates Chapter IIIA and inserts a new section, 80A, into the Constitution that states: “The Commonwealth or a State must not make any law that limits the freedom of speech, including freedom of the press and other media.”, The prohibition applies to both Commonwealth and State law — the amendment does not distinguish between levels of government or reserve areas for local regulation.
The text contains no express exceptions, qualifications, or saving clauses for defamation, hate speech, public order, national security, privacy, or other commonly regulated speech categories.
Because the change is constitutional, courts (principally the High Court) will have the authority to invalidate statutes that they find limit freedom of speech; the bill itself sets no judicial test or remedy standard.
The bill’s operative language is brief and declarative; it relies on judicial development to define key terms such as “limits,” “freedom of the press,” and the scope of coverage for modern digital media.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title and commencement
These clauses are procedural: the Act’s short title and that it commences on Royal Assent. Practically, commencement only follows the successful referendum process prescribed by section 128 of the Constitution; the insertion takes legal effect only once the amendment is enacted under the Constitution’s amendment mechanism.
Placement of new Chapter
The schedule amends the Constitution’s structure by inserting a new Chapter IIIA immediately after Chapter III (The Judicature). The formal placement adjacent to judicial provisions is symbolically significant: it positions freedom of speech among structural constitutional guarantees that courts administer, reinforcing that enforcement will be judicially driven.
Substantive prohibition on laws that limit speech
Section 80A is the operative text. It prohibits any law by Commonwealth or a State that limits freedom of speech and cites freedom of the press and other media. Because the clause lacks definitions, exceptions, and saving clauses, its practical effect depends on judicial interpretation—whether courts treat the prohibition as absolute, subject it to a proportionality or necessity test, or read in implied exceptions to preserve existing regulatory schemes.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Civil Rights across all five countries.
Explore Civil Rights in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Journalists, publishers and media organisations — The explicit constitutional protection strengthens legal claims against regulations or statutory schemes that restrict reporting, access to information, or newsroom operations, and it likely reduces the margin for state regulation of press content.
- Political actors and campaigners — Candidates, parties, and commentators gain stronger protections for political expression and campaign speech, making regulatory limits on electioneering or political advertising more susceptible to challenge.
- Online platform users and content creators — The broad wording and mention of “other media” suggests coverage of digital publication; individual creators and high-volume speakers would gain constitutional backing against laws that constrain distribution or expression.
- Civil liberties organisations — NGOs that litigate speech cases gain a clearer constitutional hook to challenge a wide range of laws that regulate expression, increasing strategic litigation opportunities and potential remedies.
Who Bears the Cost
- Commonwealth and State legislatures — Laws across defamation, racial‑vilification, hate‑speech, national security, public‑order, and broadcasting will face heightened constitutional risk and may need redrafting or repeal to survive judicial scrutiny.
- Regulators and enforcement agencies (eg, police, ACMA) — Existing enforcement powers tied to speech offences could be curtailed, complicating the investigation and prosecution of harmful or criminal speech conduct.
- Victims of certain harms (eg, targets of hate speech, defamatory statements) — If courts construe the provision narrowly or strike down existing protective laws, individuals and communities could have fewer legal remedies and protections against reputational or safety harms.
- State courts and the High Court — Expect increased litigation as governments and private parties litigate the boundaries of “limits,” imposing caseload and doctrinal burdens on the judiciary.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is straightforward but sharp: the amendment aims to maximize protection for expression and the press, yet an absolute prohibition on laws that “limit” speech risks removing tools that protect reputation, public safety and equality; reconciling robust public debate with targeted regulation of harmful speech forces courts to choose between safeguarding unfettered expression and preserving essential civil, criminal and administrative protections.
The bill’s brevity is its most consequential feature and its largest practical weakness. By proclaiming a categorical ban on laws that “limit” speech without defining key terms or listing exceptions, it hands the task of drawing lines to courts.
That will generate significant litigation over what qualifies as a limitation, the permissible justifications for restrictions (if any), and how to reconcile competing rights and policy objectives. The lack of an explicit proportionality or ‘‘reasonable limits’’ clause (as found in some other constitutions) leaves open whether Australian courts will develop a strict prohibition, adopt a balancing test, or read in implied qualifications to preserve essential regulatory schemes.
Implementation also raises federalism challenges. Many speech controls are state laws (defamation, racial‑vilification, local public‑order offences).
If courts apply section 80A expansively, states would need to revise a broad body of existing law, potentially creating uneven protections across jurisdictions during the reform process. Conversely, a narrow judicial reading could preserve legislative space but would sow uncertainty as stakeholders litigate particular statutes.
There is also a risk of perverse incentives: legislatures might redesign laws to target secondary conduct or impose indirect restrictions that evade a textual ban but still chill speech, prompting further litigation and doctrinal refinement.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.