Decided 30 September 1992 Prior action(s) none End date September 30, 1992 | Citation(s) (1992) 177 CLR 1 Subsequent action(s) none Ruling court High Court of Australia | |
 | ||
Full case name Nationwide News Pty Ltd v Wills Judge(s) sitting Mason CJ, Brennan, Deane, Dawson, Toohey, Gaudron and McHugh JJ Similar Monis v The Queen, Commonwealth v Tasmania, Roach v Electoral Commissioner | ||
Nationwide News Pty Ltd v Wills (1992) 177 CLR 1 is a High Court of Australia case that deals with a number of issues regarding the Australian Constitution, including freedom of interstate intercourse (section 92), the implied freedom of political communication, and the role of proportionality.
Contents
Background
The Industrial Relations Act 1988 (Cth) made it an offence to bring the Australian Industrial Relations Commission into disrepute. Nationwide News published an article attacking the integrity and independence of the Commission.
Nationwide News argued that the Act infringed the implied freedom of political communications, while the Commonwealth argued that the Act was valid under section 51(xxxv) (conciliation and arbitration power), as well as section 51(xxxix) (express incidental power).
Interstate intercourse
Although it was not a decisive factor, it was argued that freedom of communication falls under freedom of interstate intercourse.
Per Brennan J, the protection in section 92 is given to such things as the movement of people, goods and communications. The essential ingredient is that there is movement across State boundaries, although the movement need not be perceivable. A test can be specified as follows:
Implied freedom of political communication
Brennan, Deane, Toohey and Gaudron JJ thought that it was within the conciliation head of power, but that it infringed the implied freedom of political communication. Mason CJ, McHugh and Dawson JJ, however, held that it was outside the head of power.
Proportionality
Nationwide News is the key case where the concept of proportionality is discussed. Proportionality is the idea that there should be a reasonable relationship between an end and the means used to achieve that end. It has been used for:
Dawson J rejects the proportionality test as suggested by Mason CJ, arguing that it should be a test of sufficient connection, and not proportionality.