The Australian Electoral Commission v Johnston & Ors; Wang v Johnston & Ors; Mead v Johnston & Ors

These three cases, heard together, concerned applications by the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) and two individuals, Mr Wang and Mr Mead, seeking declarations and injunctions against Ms Johnston and other respondents. The core of the dispute involved allegations that the respondents had engaged in conduct that contravened provisions of the *Broadcasting Services Act 1992* (Cth) and the *Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918* (Cth) by broadcasting political matter during a federal election period without complying with the relevant disclosure and authorisation requirements. The AEC sought to enforce these legislative provisions, while Mr Wang and Mr Mead, as individuals who had allegedly been the subject of the broadcasts, also sought relief. The matter came before Hayne J of the High Court of Australia.

The central legal issues before the Court were whether the broadcasts constituted "political matter" within the meaning of the *Broadcasting Services Act*, and if so, whether the respondents had failed to comply with the statutory obligations regarding the disclosure of the source of the political matter and the authorisation of its broadcast. The Court was required to interpret the definitions of "political matter" and "broadcaster" under the Act, and to determine the scope of the disclosure and authorisation requirements in the context of the alleged broadcasts. Furthermore, the Court had to consider whether the conduct of the respondents also engaged provisions of the *Commonwealth Electoral Act* relating to electoral advertising.

Hayne J considered the nature of the broadcasts and the relevant legislative provisions. His Honour found that the broadcasts did indeed constitute "political matter" as defined by the *Broadcasting Services Act*. Crucially, the Court determined that the respondents had failed to comply with the statutory requirements for disclosure and authorisation of political matter. The reasoning focused on the plain meaning of the statutory language and the evident purpose of the disclosure provisions, which is to ensure transparency in political communication. The Court rejected arguments that the broadcasts fell outside the scope of the legislation or that the respondents had substantially complied with their obligations.

The Court made declarations that the respondents had contravened specified provisions of the *Broadcasting Services Act* and the *Commonwealth Electoral Act*. Injunctions were also granted restraining the respondents from further contravening these provisions.