Federal Court of Australia
Federal Court of Australia
Australian Electoral Commission v Kelly [2023] FCA 854 File number: NSD 375 of 2022
Judgment of: RARES J
Date of judgment: 27 July 2023
Catchwords: PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS (CTH) – application for declaration and pecuniary penalties for alleged contraventions of Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 (Cth) s 321D(5) – compliance with cl 11(3)(a) and (b) of Commonwealth Electoral (Authorisation of Voter Communication) Determination 2021 (Cth) (Determination) – where candidate in 2022 general election notified in 8pt font particulars of authorisation of posters and corflutes communicating electoral matter – whether notification of authorisation was "reasonably prominent" and or "legible at a distance at which the communication is intended to be read" as required by cl 11(3)(a) and (b) of Determination – held: proceeding dismissed. STATUTORY INTERPRETATION – principles of construction having regard to legislative purpose and objects of Act and legislative intention to enact valid legislation – where Pt XXA of Electoral Act burdened implied constitutional freedom of communication on government and political matter – where the Parliament intended Pt XXA to be within implied freedom – whether requirement in s 321D(5) for communication of electoral matter to include particulars of name and address of person authorising construed as burdening implied freedom – meaning of "reasonably prominent" in cl 11(3)(a) of Determination – meaning of "legible at a distance at which the communication is intended to be read" in cl 11(3)(b) of Determination – use of extrinsic material to confirm construction of Act and legislative instrument under s 15AB(1)(a) of Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth) and s 13(1) of Legislation Act 2003 (Cth). CIVIL PENALTIES – whether respondent acted under mistaken but reasonable belief about facts so as to establish defence under s 95(1) of Regulatory Powers (Standard Provisions) Act 2014 (Cth). CONSTITUTIONAL LAW – whether Electoral Act s 321D(5) and (7) and or Determination cll 11(3)(a) and (b) invalid because they impermissibly allowed infringement of, or infringed, the implied constitutional freedom of communication on government and political matter – where constitutional issue not necessary to decide.
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate