Harbour Radio Pty Ltd v Australian Communications and Media Authority

In Harbour Radio Pty Ltd v Australian Communications and Media Authority, the applicants, Harbour Radio Pty Ltd and others, sought judicial review of a decision made by the respondent, the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA), to make the Broadcasting Services (Commercial Radio Current Affairs Disclosure) Standard 2012. The applicants challenged the validity of the 2012 Standard on multiple grounds, including jurisdictional error, inconsistency with the implied freedom of political communication, and unreasonableness. The legal issues before the court were whether the decision to make the 2012 Standard was in excess of the jurisdiction conferred by section 125 of the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 (Cth), whether the standard imposed obligations contrary to the implied freedom of political communication, and whether the decision was so unreasonable that no reasonable person could have made it.

The court found that the relevant jurisdictional facts under section 125 of the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 (Cth) were the ACMA's satisfaction that there was convincing evidence that a registered code of practice was not operating to provide appropriate community safeguards for a prescribed matter, and that the ACMA should determine a standard in relation to that matter. The court held that the ACMA's decision to make the 2012 Standard was not in excess of its jurisdiction as the jurisdictional facts existed. Regarding the implied freedom of political communication, the court concluded that the 2012 Standard did not impose obligations contrary to this freedom. The court also found that the decision to make the 2012 Standard was not so unreasonable that no reasonable person could have made it. Consequently, the applicants' challenge to the 2012 Standard was dismissed.

The court ordered that the Second Amended Originating Application for Judicial Review be dismissed, the Objection to Competency be upheld, and the applicants to pay the respondent's costs. The orders were entered in accordance with Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.