Case: Nationwide News v Wills [1992] HCA 46 ; (1992) 177 CLR 1
Outcome: cited
at the matters generally, in the applicant's submission, the following are protected: (1) the freedom of the Australian people to discuss government and political matters: Nationwide News v Wills [1992] HCA 46 ; (1992) 177 CLR 1 at 50; (2) the dissemination of information, opinions and ideas about all aspects of the Government of the Commonwealth: Nationwide News v Wills at 74; Cunliffe v The Commonwealth [1994] HCA 44 ; (1994) 182 CLR 272 at 364; and (3) the freedom to communicate views on a wide range of matters that may call for, or are relevant to, political action or decision: Australian Capital Television Pty Limited v The Commonwealth [1992] HCA 45 ; (1992) 177 CLR 106 at 138. The applicant submitted that clearly the prohibition of certain conduct can be compatible with the system of representative government prescribed by the Constitution . See Nationwide News v Wills at 77 per Deane and Toohey JJ. It submitted, correctly in my view, that the ultimate question on this aspect of the case is whether the relevant law does no more than is reasonably necessary to achieve the protection of the competing public interest invoked to justify the burden on the communication. It submitted that what is involved at this stage of the inquiry is a weighing of the detriment imposed by a law which burdens political communication against the benefit of a governmental regulation imposed for the benefit of public safety. The applicant further submitted that, at the outset of any balancing exercise, it is necessary to note that a more compelling justification is required in the case of a law which restricts ideas or information as opposed to a law which restricts the mode of communication of those ideas. The applicant referred to what Mason CJ said in Australian Capital Television at 143: 'A distinction should perhaps be made between restrictions on communication which target ideas or information and those which restrict an activity or mode of communication by which ideas or information are transmitted. In the first class of case, only a compelling justification will warrant the imposition of a burden on free communication by way of restriction and the restriction must be no more than is reasonably necessary to achieve the protection of the competing public interest which is invoked to justify the burden on communication. Generally speaking, it will be extremely difficult to justify restrictions imposed on free communication which operate by reference to the character of the ideas or information.' The applicant noted that a detailed understanding of the contents of the two books appears to be necessary for the conduct of policy analysis of the kind undertaken by Anthony Bulbalo and Dr Greg Fealy in Joining the Caravan: the Middle East, Islamism and Indonesia (Lowy Institute Paper, 2005) . In that publication the authors analyse 'some of the main vectors through which Islamist ideas have been transmitted to Indonesia' to propose detailed approaches for Australia's engagement with Indonesia 'to respond to the Islamist phenomenon in all its dimensions, from the spread of ideas that underpin terrorism, to the role of Islamist parties in processes of democratisation.'