The only form of speech that enjoys some protection is political speech. So whilst Australian's can freely talk crap about the government, Australia is far from a beacon of free speech.
I come from New Zealand, and although there's a lot of rivalry between Australia and New Zealand, I nevertheless consider Australia to be a second home -- even though I've only been there twice.
What is enshrined in law, however, is that certain types of speech are a criminal offence. Further, there is no constitutional impediment to Parliament passing legislation which criminalises other forms of speech.
I'm no trespasser and trouble maker, but I can tell you that anybody is free to do whatever they intend to in Australia, so as long as it doesn't impair other people doing so. In other words, you're as free as you can be without causing damage to others. I'm not sure what you're referring to though.
On my way home I saw dudes roller-blading half naked in the city. I call that freedom. Do you have examples?
The statement "anybody is free to do whatever they intend to in Australia, so as long as it doesn't impair other people doing so" is as absurd as it is false.
There are reams of legislation to prevent you from doing everything from arriving unlawfully by boat, to lying about your income, to using a wire carriage service to cause offence.
As to speech, here is a simplistic example: Let's say I walk into Federation Square and say to you "Go and burn down the Parliament, you useless white cunt!" Depending on who takes offence to my comments I can be:
a) Issued an on the spot fine for AUD$238.50 for using language likely to cause offence in a public place.
b) Prosecuted for racial vilification.
c) Prosecuted for sedition.
The fact that all but a) are highly unlikely does nothing to progress the case that "anybody is free to do whatever they intend to in Australia".
In the comment to which you replied I'm merely countering the claim that "anybody is free to do whatever they intend to in Australia, so as long as it doesn't impair other people doing so", with respect to speech.
Mind you, I did admit the example was simplistic, but it captured the essence of the three most contentious classes of prohibited speech without verbosity.
The only claims I have made with respect to free speech are that:
a) Australians have no constitutional right to free speech.
b) There are laws that criminalise certain kinds of speech.
c) There is no constitutional impediment to the creation of new laws which criminalise other forms of speech.
d) Political speech enjoys some protection.
If free speech only covers things that others might find acceptable, then it is completely meaningless.