Tasmania’s upper house of Parliament will soon debate proposed laws that create new offences for conducting protests in a manner that disrupt business activities, including conducting protests on business premises or that impede access to the location for business activities.
The Workplaces (Protection from Protestors) Bill 2014 passed the Tasmanian lower house in late June 2014. On 19 August 2014 it was read for the first time in the Tasmanian Legislative Council. The Bill continues to generate protest and opposition from within parliament and beyond. The proposed bill creates new definitions of protest and business that, should the bill pass, will be much analysed by judges. However, as Melbourne Law School’s Professor Adrienne Stone has noted, the law may ultimately be subject to a constitutional challenge on the ground that it is inconsistent with the implied constitutional freedom of political communication. The limitation on protestors might be unreasonable or disproportionate to the desired purpose of the law – to protect businesses from disruption. Should a challenge to the law be brought before the High Court, it will add to the opportunities presented to the court last year in the cases of Monis and Corneloup and already this year in the Unions NSW case to develop jurisprudence on the implied freedom.
By Professor Adrienne Stone
Unions NSW v New South Wales Case Page
In 1992, in Australian Capital Television v Commonwealth  HCA 1, the very first case on the constitutional freedom of political communication, the High Court struck down a Commonwealth law prohibiting electronic advertising during election periods. That law had been enacted as a campaign finance reform measure aimed at reducing the reliance of political parties on their donors and thus the High Court’s first application of the freedom of political communication struck a blow to the cause of campaign finance reform in Australia.
In more than twenty years since, however, freedom of political communication cases have focused on other questions such as the protection of political process, the application of defamation law in political debate and the permissibility of insult laws. It was not until late last year, however, that the Court returned to consider the operation of the freedom of political communication to the regulation of electoral finance. In Unions NSW v New South Wales  HCA 58, the Court heard a challenge brought by unions to two sections of the Election Funding, Expenditure and Disclosures Act 1981 (NSW).
What were the challenged laws?
The general scheme of this Act requires disclosure of political donations by political parties, members of parliament, candidates and ‘third party campaigners’ (other persons who incur more than $2000 in electoral expenditure annually). It also caps the amount that can be donated to these persons and the total amount of electoral communication expenditure for State election campaigns. Continue reading
By Professor Adrienne Stone
Monis v The Queen Case Page
In Monis v The Queen  HCA 4, it was alleged that Monis (aided and abetted by Droudis) wrote letters to relatives of Australian soldiers killed in active service in Afghanistan and to the relative of an AusAid official killed by a bomb in Indonesia. The letters expressed opposition to the war in Afghanistan in ‘intemperate and extravagant terms’ and directly insulted those who had died, including describing them as murderers and comparing them to Hitler. These allegations bear an uncanny resemblance to those of Snyder v Phelps, a controversial recent decision of the United States Supreme Court. The Supreme Court found that the Westboro Baptist Church had a right under the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States to picket the funerals of American soldiers in order to communicate its belief that God hates the United States for its tolerance of homosexuality, particularly in the American military. Continue reading