Babet v Commonwealth of Australia; Palmer v Commonwealth of Australia

In *Babet v Commonwealth of Australia* and *Palmer v Commonwealth of Australia*, the High Court of Australia considered the constitutional validity of s 135(3) of the *Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918* (Cth). The plaintiffs, associated with the United Australia Party (UAP), challenged this provision, which prevented the reregistration of a voluntarily deregistered political party until the next general election. The UAP had voluntarily deregistered and sought to reregister, but s 135(3) imposed a waiting period.

The legal issues before the Court were whether s 135(3) was invalid on three grounds: first, that it impaired the direct choice by the people of Senators and Members of the House of Representatives, contrary to ss 7 and 24 of the Constitution; second, that it impermissibly discriminated against candidates of a voluntarily deregistered political party or Parliamentary party; and third, that it infringed the implied freedom of political communication.

The Court reasoned that s 135(3) was a valid exercise of the Parliament's legislative power to regulate federal elections. It found that the provision did not impair the direct choice of the people, nor did it impermissibly discriminate against deregistered parties. Crucially, the Court determined that the restriction imposed by s 135(3) on political communication was justified, as it was reasonably appropriate and adapted to serve the legitimate purpose of promoting electoral transparency and preventing potential abuses associated with frequent deregistration and reregistration. The Court applied principles of structured proportionality and deference to Parliament's legislative choices in electoral matters.

The High Court answered all questions in the special cases in the negative, finding s 135(3) to be valid. Consequently, no relief was granted to the plaintiffs, and they were ordered to pay the costs of the proceedings.