b'Freedom of political communicationAustralian Capital Television Pty Ltd v CommonwealthOn a cold winter evening in July 1987 Bob Hawke claimedIn addition to restricting political advertising during election victory in the federal election. It was a historic win, returningcampaigns, the governments intention was to increase the Australian Labor Party to power for an unprecedentedtransparency around political donations. The television third term.networks, keen to protect their advertising revenue and to resist what they saw as an undue restriction on the political It had been a close race and Hawke was worried Australianprocess, appointed Allen Allen & Hemsley to assist them to political discourse was heading down the path of theoppose the legislation.US where, on one view, political influence and electoral outcomes were heavily dependent on the fundraisingAustralian Capital Television Pty Ltd and seven other capabilities of the parties and candidates. The issue wascommercial television licensees challenged the validity discussed by the Joint Standing Committee on Electoralof Part IIID of Broadcasting Act 1942 (Cth) in the High Matters in its report, Who pays the piper calls the tune,Court of Australia. They argued that the Constitution which reviewed the conduct of the 1987 federal election.contained implied rights (freedom of participation, The report found that corruption had the potential to enterassociation and communication) that were necessary to federal politics as a result of the high cost of politicalenable voters to make informed choices about candidates campaigns, especially the costs associated with televisionoffering themselves for election, and that the changes to advertising. The amount spent on television advertisementsthe Broadcasting Act would reduce the effectiveness of in the 1987 election campaign was approximately 100 perAustralias democratic political system. cent more than the amount spent in the 1983 election. The report concluded that the democratic process had becomeOn 30 September 1992 the court handed down its landmark increasingly dependent on raising the substantial fundsdecision, finding that the legislation was invalid on the basis needed to buy advertising on electronic media. that it contravened the implied constitutional guarantee of freedom of communication about political matters. This To address these concerns the government introducedwas one of the first in a series of cases in which the High a new Part IIID into the Broadcasting Act 1942 (Cth) toCourt recognised this implied guarantee in the Australian prohibit political advertisements on radio and televisionConstitution. during election campaigns while also requiring broadcasters to make free time available for election programs. SenatorPartner Ian McGill, who led the challenge for Allens, said Chris Schacht, at the time a member of the Parliamentarythat from the start the legal team, including Sir Maurice Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, said, IfByers QC and Stephen Gageler (now a judge of the High we really want to protect Australian democracy fromCourt of Australia), knew this would be a groundbreaking corruption, we must bite the bullet and stop the escalation matter: Our Constitution was not framed to include of the amount of money spent on elections.comprehensive guarantees of individual rights, unlike the 194'