Roach v Electoral Commission (2007)
The plaintiff Roach was a woman of Indigenous descent. She was sentenced to 6 years imprisonment after committing a series of indictable offences. While in prison, amendments were made to the Electoral Act banning all prisoners from participating in federal elections. Roach believed that the amendments were unconstitutional based on two arguments:
Firstly, the amendment should not be allowed as it impacted prisoners serving sentences (for the most part) for committing criminal offences. Crimes fall within residual powers and thus the Commonwealth should not be able to interfere.
Secondly and more importantly, the amendment was unconstitutional as it limited the notion of representative government. Under S7 and S24, the Constitution requires that the Senate and House of Representatives must be 'directly chosen by the people'. By banning all prisoners from voting, this infringed upon the idea of people being able to directly elect their leaders.
The High Court agreed with Roach's argument and declared the amendment whereby all prisoners were banned from voting invalid. As a result, the original provision came back into affect whereby prisoners serving more than 3 years were barred from voting. Unfortunately for Roach, she fell within that category and was still barred from voting in the 2007.
For Roach, this was a victory for Indigenous people as they are over represented within our prison system and it meant that the lack of voting would have had a greater impact on Indigenous people.
Political Advertising Case (1992)
During the Hawke government, a ban was implemented that prevented political advertising on television and radios during a federal election. The ban excluded news items and a current affairs. The reason for the ban was to prevent more wealthy political parties that could afford to buy more air time from dominating the media.
The plaintiffs were a group of broadcasters that challenged the amendments and argued that they were unconstitutional.
The plaintiffs argued that under S7 and S24 whereby the Upper and Lower House must be 'directly chosen by the people' to uphold the notion of representative government. In order to participate in a democratic election and therefore uphold representative government, the people must be informed of who and what party they are voting for. It is then essential that debates concerning political issues by freely debated and discussed. The banning of political advertising infringed and will limit the notion of representative government from occurring.
The case went to the High court and was ruled in favour of the plaintiffs. The amendments on political advertising was uplifted allowing political adverting to freely take place in the lead up to an election to allow people to be informed in order to cast their vote.
The plaintiff Roach was a woman of Indigenous descent. She was sentenced to 6 years imprisonment after committing a series of indictable offences. While in prison, amendments were made to the Electoral Act banning all prisoners from participating in federal elections. Roach believed that the amendments were unconstitutional based on two arguments:
Firstly, the amendment should not be allowed as it impacted prisoners serving sentences (for the most part) for committing criminal offences. Crimes fall within residual powers and thus the Commonwealth should not be able to interfere.
Secondly and more importantly, the amendment was unconstitutional as it limited the notion of representative government. Under S7 and S24, the Constitution requires that the Senate and House of Representatives must be 'directly chosen by the people'. By banning all prisoners from voting, this infringed upon the idea of people being able to directly elect their leaders.
The High Court agreed with Roach's argument and declared the amendment whereby all prisoners were banned from voting invalid. As a result, the original provision came back into affect whereby prisoners serving more than 3 years were barred from voting. Unfortunately for Roach, she fell within that category and was still barred from voting in the 2007.
For Roach, this was a victory for Indigenous people as they are over represented within our prison system and it meant that the lack of voting would have had a greater impact on Indigenous people.
Political Advertising Case (1992)
During the Hawke government, a ban was implemented that prevented political advertising on television and radios during a federal election. The ban excluded news items and a current affairs. The reason for the ban was to prevent more wealthy political parties that could afford to buy more air time from dominating the media.
The plaintiffs were a group of broadcasters that challenged the amendments and argued that they were unconstitutional.
The plaintiffs argued that under S7 and S24 whereby the Upper and Lower House must be 'directly chosen by the people' to uphold the notion of representative government. In order to participate in a democratic election and therefore uphold representative government, the people must be informed of who and what party they are voting for. It is then essential that debates concerning political issues by freely debated and discussed. The banning of political advertising infringed and will limit the notion of representative government from occurring.
The case went to the High court and was ruled in favour of the plaintiffs. The amendments on political advertising was uplifted allowing political adverting to freely take place in the lead up to an election to allow people to be informed in order to cast their vote.