The Federal Court’s decision in Giggle for Girls v Roxanne Tickle (2026) shows our judiciary to be falling in its core duties. Society expects our judiciary to protect us from attack, protect our property from theft and damage and protect our fundamental right to liberty. This case shows our Federal Court as having failed to protect our freedom of association. Some go further, arguing that our Federal Court is the problem – because it interpreted the legislation more broadly than the legislature intended, and certainly more than society intended by the legislation.
The problem could lie with the way the judiciary interprets legislation. It generally adheres to the plain text of a statute and only turns to legislative intent when the wording is ambiguous. In this case the Court appears to have applied a strictly literal reading. That approach is inadequate.
Society expects courts to go further: to examine the purpose of the legislation—what problem it was designed to solve and what conduct it was meant to permit or prohibit—and then to ask whether the circumstances before the court were within Parliament’s contemplation. Even unambiguous wording can produce unintended consequences that the legislature never foresaw or intended.
Society also expects the courts to consider whether Parliament had a genuine democratic mandate for the law as interpreted. Since parliament derives its authority from the people; its power should not be unlimited. If a strict reading extends beyond what the electorate contemplated, the courts should confine the legislation. If a strict reading produces a result contrary to the clear wishes of the people, the courts must declare the offending application invalid.
And that is not the least of it, society also expects the judiciary to strike down legislation that removes or diminishes a fundamental right—such as our liberties — even if it enjoys majority support. History shows that unconstrained majorities and compliant judiciaries have enabled serious abuses on minorities. This has resulted in the deaths of over hundred million people in the 20th century alone. That should no longer be possible. Our judiciary must prevent overreach by the government of the day.
Applied to the present case, most Australians would have wanted to outlaw hostility to and discrimination against transgender people. Few would have wanted it to be unlawful for a biological woman to form a group exclusively for biological women. Surely, that’s obvious. There is a material difference between establishing a group open only to people who meet defined criteria and establishing a group that is open to everyone except those who meet the criteria. A biological woman should, for example, be entitled to create a space for solely for biological women; that is an exercise of freedom of association that no Parliament should be able to extinguish. Our courts must ensure it.
Classic Liberals Australia will ensure courts interpret legislation with proper regard to its purpose, democratic mandate and fundamental rights. Citizens must retain the freedom to decide who belongs in any association they form. No government should dictate who must be included in—or excluded from—private groups.
If you value freedom of association, Classic Liberals is the party for you. Join or support it, or risk losing more of your freedoms.
For most of history, ordinary people were subjugated. Since the Reformation, countless individuals have died seeking greater liberty. Many of whom were condemned as heretics and burnt at the stake. The freedoms we enjoy in Western democracies were hard-won. Recent governments have steadily eroded them. Join and support Classic Liberals to help restore them.
Written by Mark M.J. Morris