U2 AOS3 - Australian Capital Television v Commonwealth

Question 1

Key points

Answer 1

• Background: The case arose from a challenge to the Political Broadcasts and Political Disclosures Act 1991, which imposed restrictions on political advertising during election campaigns. Australian Capital Television (ACTV) sought to challenge the constitutionality of the Act, arguing that it violated the implied freedom of political communication.
• High Court Decision: The High Court of Australia ruled in favor of ACTV, holding that the restrictions imposed by the Act were unconstitutional. The court found that the Constitution implicitly guarantees freedom of political communication, which is necessary for the system of representative government established by the Constitution.
• Implications: The decision reinforced the importance of free political discourse in Australia and established that laws restricting political communication must be justified by a legitimate aim and be proportionate to that aim. This case set a precedent for subsequent cases involving political expression and communication.
• Significance: This case is significant as it highlights the balance between the regulation of political advertising and the protection of free speech in the context of elections. It affirmed the principle that democratic governance relies on an informed electorate and open discussion of political matters.

Question 2

What sections in the Constitution affected this ruling?

Answer 2

• S7 + 24
• ‘directly chosen by the people’