Candace Owens Farmer v Commonwealth
On 15 October 2025, the High Court of Australia upheld the Immigration Minister’s decision to refuse a visa to Candace Owens Farmer on the basis that she did not pass the character test. This article outlines the High Court decision and why it is significant.
Who is Candace Owens?
Candace Owens Farmer, better known as Candace Owens, is a right-wing activist, political commentator, and public figure in the United States. Owens has risen to notoriety over the last decade for commentary and activism advocating conservative and far-right views and promoting conspiracy theories.
Owens has criticised the ideas of systemic racism, systemic inequality and identity politics. She espouses views that are openly anti-LGBTIQ and anti-semitic, and ridicules the idea that white supremacy is a threat. She has described Black Lives Matter activists as “a bunch of whiny toddlers, pretending to be oppressed for attention”.
Owens has worked for Turning Point USA and hosted a number of television and radio programs. She has also expressed an interest in running for public office and even for president. In the past, she opposed Donald Trump, but in recent years has supported him.
Owens was planning to travel to Australia in October 2024 to undertake a speaking tour but was refused a visa on the basis that she did not pass the character test. She appealed against this decision, arguing that it was made on the basis of her political views and activities and as such was a breach of the implied freedom of political communication in the Australian Constitution.
The character test
When a person applies for an Australian Visa, one of the matters that must be considered is whether they pass the character test. The character test is contained in section 501 of the Migration Act 1958.
Under that section, a person does not pass the character test if:
- they have a substantial criminal record.
- they have been convicted of an offence while in immigration detention or during an escape from immigration detention.
- they have been convicted of escaping from immigration detention.
- the minister reasonably suspects that they are, or have been, a member of a criminal group.
- the minister reasonably suspect that they are, or have been, involved in people smuggling, people trafficking, war crimes, genocide, torture, slavery or another crime that is of international concern.
- the person is not of good character taking into account their past and present conduct.
- there is a risk that if the person was allowed to enter Australia they would engage in criminal conduct; harass, molest, intimidate or stalk a person; vilify a segment of the Australian community; incite discord in the Australian community or a segment of the Australian community; or represent a danger to the Australian community.
- the person has been found guilty of a child sex offence.
- the person has been charged, in any country, with an offence involving genocide, a crime against humanity, war crimes, slavery or torture, or another crime that is of international concern.
- the person has been assessed as a security risk by ASIO.
- there is an Interpol notice in force in relation to the person, from which it can be inferred that they would pose a risk to the Australian community.
Freedom of political communication
The Australian Constitution contains an implied right to freedom of political communication.
This means that persons in Australia are entitled to be allowed to freely express political views and access political information. It also means that the government must not pass laws that would unduly restrict political communication.
However, the freedom is not absolute. The government may make decisions and pass laws that limit political communication where this is appropriate and adapted to a legitimate purpose.
The court’s decision
The High Court rejected Candace Owens’ argument that the decision to refuse her a visa was invalid.
The minister had refused to grant her a visa on the basis that there was a chance she would incite discord in the Australian community and on the basis that refusing her a Visa was in the national interest. The minister found that Owen’s controversial views were likely to lead to increased hostility and radicalism in the Australian community.
The High Court found that section 501 of Migration Act 1958 interferes with the constitutional right to freedom of political communication only to the extent that is justified, when there is a risk that a person will stir up strife in the Australian community.
This decision is significant because it makes it clear that the Minister for Immigration may refuse to grant a visa to a person who has a profile for advocating extreme views, and may sow discord in Australia.
If you require legal advice or representation in any legal matter, please contact Go To Court Lawyers.
Fernanda Dahlstrom is a writer, editor and lawyer. She holds a Bachelor of Laws (Latrobe University), a Graduate Diploma in Legal Practice (College of Law), a Bachelor of Arts (The University of Melbourne) and a Master of Arts (Deakin University). Fernanda practised law for eight years, working in criminal law, child protection and domestic violence law in the Northern Territory, and in family law in Queensland.