Fairfax v Attorney-General (Qld), Fairfax v Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions

Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd and others (the applicants) sought declarations from the High Court of Australia that certain provisions of the *Public Interest Disclosure Act 2008* (Qld) and the *Public Interest Disclosure Act 2010* (Qld) were invalid. The applicants also sought declarations that the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (CDPP) and the Attorney-General of Queensland had acted unlawfully in their dealings with the applicants concerning information obtained under those Acts. The dispute arose from the applicants' publication of information concerning alleged corruption within the Queensland public sector, which had been disclosed under the Queensland public interest disclosure legislation.

The High Court was required to determine whether the Queensland Acts, by purporting to regulate the disclosure of information obtained under them, impermissibly encroached upon the implied freedom of political communication guaranteed by the Australian Constitution. Specifically, the Court had to consider whether the provisions requiring confidentiality and prohibiting publication of such information were reasonably appropriate and adapted to the legitimate end of protecting public interest disclosures, or whether they placed an undue burden on the implied freedom. The Court also considered whether the CDPP and the Attorney-General had acted within their legal powers in their interactions with Fairfax.

Callinan and Heydon JJ, in their joint judgment, found that the Queensland legislation, in its operation, did not infringe the implied freedom of political communication. Their Honours reasoned that the purpose of the legislation was to encourage the disclosure of wrongdoing within the public sector by providing a framework of protection for disclosers, and that the confidentiality provisions were a necessary and proportionate means of achieving this legitimate objective. They held that the restrictions on publication were not so burdensome as to impair the capacity of the media to communicate political or governmental information to the public, and that the legislation was therefore constitutionally valid. The Court also found that the actions of the CDPP and the Attorney-General were lawful.

The applications for declarations were dismissed.