Freedom of association is a cornerstone of a free society. It rests on the principle that consenting adults should be free to associate - or not associate - with whomever they choose, for peaceful purposes, on mutually agreed terms. This includes the freedom to form families, friendships, churches, clubs, businesses, unions, charities, and communities of belief; and equally the freedom to decline participation, withdraw consent, or set boundaries around one’s time, property, and conscience.
Freedom of association flows naturally from self‑ownership and private property. If individuals own themselves, they must control their labour and the use of their property. Compelling association — whether by forcing a person to transact, endorse, or participate against their will—is a form of coercion that treats people not as moral agents, but as instruments to achieve political or social ends.
A free society does not require moral uniformity. It allows peaceful coexistence under clear rules that prohibit force, fraud, and coercion. People can then form communities organically around shared values and standards of behaviour. Over time, social norms reinforce wholesome and future‑oriented behaviour, while short‑term and impulsive behaviour usually carries negative personal consequences. But when government gets involved, the costs of bad decisions become socialised, so people keep making them over and over, insulated from natural consequences.
Self‑governing individuals and families forming voluntary communities are often perceived as a threat to the State. Governments are uneasy with competing centres of allegiance, and political systems thrive on division rather than cohesion. Many Australians are concerned about the commodification of intimacy, the erosion of traditional marriage, and the prevalence of degrading or exploitative practices, while others argue for an ever‑expanding sphere of sexual permissiveness, including the normalisation of prostitution and pornography. The State then appoints itself as the arbiter of morality, pitting these perspectives against one another as they jostle for political control.
Libertarians believe government is a blunt and unreliable moral regulator. When the state attempts to police morality, it creates perverse incentives that increase harm and disempower private responses. Prohibition, censorship, and moralised regulation routinely produce outcomes worse than the behaviour they target. Once the power to regulate morality exists, it is inevitably captured by political fashion and used to force broad conformity to contested moral norms. People are expected to not just tolerate but 'celebrate' behaviour they find objectionable.
Freedom of association offers a better alternative. When people are free to associate and disassociate, moral norms are enforced socially rather than politically. Families, churches, schools, businesses, and voluntary organisations can set standards, reward virtue, withdraw cooperation, and express disapproval without calling in the police. This approach is both more effective and more respectful of conscience.
Freedom of association also protects the right of private groups to define their own membership and purpose. Recent legal cases have shown how anti‑discrimination law can be used to compel clubs, associations, and communities to accept members they were never formed to include, even where no essential service is denied. Forcing private groups to abandon their defining criteria - whether based on sex, belief, or shared experience - turns voluntary associations into regulated public bodies. Such disputes are better resolved through social choice, exit, and the formation of alternative groups, rather than through courts compelling association against the will of members.
Religious freedom and economic freedom both depend on freedom of association. Faith communities, charities, and businesses must be free to define their beliefs, missions, and terms of participation without state interference. A religious school that cannot choose it’s teachers, or a business that cannot refuse to endorse messages it rejects, is not truly free. Compelling participation - whether religious or commercial - corrodes conscience, undermines property rights, and turns moral questions into legal battles.
Government control of marriage illustrates the dangers of compelled uniformity. By defining and redefining marriage, the state transforms a deeply personal and community institution into a political one, subject to lobbying, litigation, and ideological change. What was once a matter for families, churches, and communities becomes a battleground in which one moral vision is imposed on all. This politicisation weakens marriage by detaching it from the institutions that give it meaning, while forcing universal recognition of definitions many citizens cannot in good conscience accept.
In practical terms, the state’s role in marriage is already largely symbolic. Taxation, welfare, immigration, superannuation, and family law are based on de‑facto relationships and shared domestic life, not marital status. Married and unmarried couples are treated almost identically in law, with the sole remaining distinctive feature of marriage being a state‑enforced exclusivity rule. Removing the government from marriage would therefore not strip couples of legal protections or entitlements; it would simply acknowledge the functional separation that already exists.
Privatising marriage would mean churches, celebrants, and marriage associations would set their own requirements, often including verification through trusted registries to prevent fraud or double‑marriage. Instead of a coercive monopoly, competitive, interoperable registries would provide searchable records, much as they do in finance, property, and professional accreditation today, eliminating political conflict over the definition of marriage.
A society confident in its values does not need the government to enforce them. It needs space for voluntary institutions to flourish, compete, and persuade. Freedom of association restores moral responsibility to citizens, reduces political conflict, and allows diverse communities to live according to conscience while respecting the equal freedom of others.
The Libertarians Party affirms:
-
Property Rights as the Foundation of Association
Control over one’s property - including homes, businesses, institutions, and voluntary organisations - is fundamental to freedom of association. The right to set conditions of access, membership, and use is inseparable from ownership and self‑determination. -
Voluntary Association and Disassociation
All association between consenting adults must be voluntary. No person or organisation should be compelled by law to associate, transact, endorse, employ, or participate against their will, provided no force or fraud is involved. -
Religious Autonomy
Religious institutions including private schools shall have full freedom to determine their beliefs, governance, membership, leadership, employment, and practices without state interference, recognising churches and faith communities as voluntary associations, not arms of the state. -
Freedom from Compelled Commerce and Expression
Repeal laws that force private businesses, charities, or sole traders to provide services, messages, or expressive acts that violate their conscience, values, or defining purpose. -
Limit Anti‑Discrimination Law to Government only
Confine anti‑discrimination regulation to government agencies, and prevent its application to individuals, private associations, clubs, faith‑based institutions, or enterprises where no essential service is denied. -
Reform Defamation and Vilification Laws
Wind back defamation and vilification regimes to prevent their use as tools of intimidation or ideological enforcement (see also our Free Speech Policy). -
Repeal the Marriage Act and Privatise Marriage
Repeal the Commonwealth Marriage Act and remove the state from defining, licensing, or regulating marriage. Marriage should be recognised as a voluntary association governed by churches, cultural bodies, and private covenants, each free to set their own criteria and standards of recognition. The Party affirms that minors lack the legal capacity to consent to marriage or marriage-like relationships, and supports clear, general legal protections to prevent such arrangements. -
Social Enforcement Over State Moral Regulation
Reject moral central planning by the state and favour non‑coercive social responses to objectionable conduct, including social norms, reputation, boycotts, voluntary arbitration, and the formation of alternative institutions.