Defined in (1994) Theophanous v Herald and Weekly Ltd 182 CLR 104 at 124 discussion of the conduct, policies or fitness ‘includes for office of government, political parties, public bodies, public officers and those seeking public office. Concept also includes discussion of political views and public conduct of persons who are engaged in activities that have become the subject of political debate ... Indeed in our view, the concept is not exhausted by political publications and addresses which are calculated to influence choices’ This was restricted to some degree to Federal or Constitutional in Referenda Lange v. Australian Broadcasting Corporation (1997) 189 CLR 520 able to communicate with each other with respect to ‘be matters that could affect their choice in federal elections or constitutional referenda or that could throw light on the performance of Ministers of State and the conduct of the executive branch of Government’ Although the Court did subsequently provide that it is open to interpretation. Entertainment is not considered Entertainment – ‘political’ – satirical commentary is considered to be protected as per the comments in the case Theophanous insults are as much a part of ‘[Reasonable] communications concerning political and government matters as is irony, humour or acerbic criticism.’ There are Limits to Freedom The Freedom can be removed by Can be expressly removed – laws that are design to achieve legitimate, reasonable, appropriate and purposeful objectives. If such laws are enacted do not achieve aims it – will infringe. (2004) 220 CLR 1 Coleman v Power Held: HCA found that while the law to prevent was avlid language in a public place’ ‘insulting for breaches of the peace it went beyond what – was reasonable for a of reasonable ‘system and representative government’. Manner and Form
Defined in Theophanous v Herald and Weekly Ltd (1994) 182 CLR 104 at 124 ‘includes discussion of the conduct, policies or fitness for office of government, political parties, public bodies, public officers and those seeking public office. Concept also includes discussion of political views and public conduct of persons who are engaged in activities that have become the subject of political debate ... Indeed in our view, the concept is not exhausted by political publications and addresses which are calculated to influence choices’ This was restricted to some degree to Federal or Constitutional Referenda in Lange v. Australian Broadcasting Corporation (1997) 189 CLR 520 ‘be able to communicate with each other with respect to matters that could affect their choice in federal elections or constitutional referenda or that could throw light on the performance of Ministers of State and the conduct of the executive branch of Government’ Although the Court did subsequently provide that it is open to interpretation. Entertainment – Entertainment is not considered ‘political’ – satirical commentary is considered to be protected as per the comments in the Theophanous case ‘[Reasonable] insults are as much a part of communications concerning political and government matters as is irony, humour or acerbic criticism.’ There are Limits to Freedom Can be expressly removed – The Freedom can be removed by laws that are design to achieve legitimate, reasonable, appropriate and purposeful objectives. If such laws are enacted do not achieve aims – it will infringe. Coleman v Power (2004) 220 CLR 1 Held: HCA found that while the law to prevent ‘insulting language in a public place’ was avlid for breaches of the peace – it went beyond what was reasonable for a ‘system of reasonable and representative government’. Manner and Form
Constitutional_Notes.docx