Implied Freedom Of Political Communication

Running head: Implied Freedom Of Political Communication
IMPLIED FREEDOM OF POLITICAL COMMUNICATION

Implied Freedom Of Political Communication
Table of Contents
Q1....................................................................................................................................................2
Q2....................................................................................................................................................2
Q3....................................................................................................................................................4
Q4....................................................................................................................................................5
Q5....................................................................................................................................................6
References........................................................................................................................................8
1

Implied Freedom Of Political Communication
Q1.
The government of Australia has passed the Government Neatness Act which ensures that all the
members of the Parliament have standardized cuts with no coverings on head and mustaches or
beards. The issue here is that the three religious people who are Judith, Islamic and Sikh in
Parliament people have problems in following these provisions. Due to their culture, beliefs, and
religion, they are required to wear coverings on their head and have mustache and beards. This
can be regarded as against the religious rights of people as the government cannot interfere with
the religious beliefs of people. Being a secular country, the three individuals have the right to
approach the court to challenge the constitutionality of this act.
The Constitution of 1901 provides that the Commonwealth Government cannot interfere with the
religions of the individuals residing in the state. Section 116 of the Australian Constitution
prohibits the Commonwealth government to pass any law that prevents the free exercise of any
religion. However, religious freedom given in Section 116 is not absolute which indicates that
laws can be passed for maintaining a balance between religion and rights1. In case of Kruger v
Commonwealth (1997) 190 CLR 1, 125, the high court has ensured that law needs to ensure that
individuals can execute their rights regarding religion. The High Court has unanimously held that
there requires no action regarding breach of constitutional rights. It further states that the
government should not make any rules for imposing any religious observance or preventing the
free exercise of religion. It ensures that law can be framed for promoting civil unity and
achieving a legitimate purpose2.
Q2.
The issue here is related to protest meeting that is held in front of Parliament House regarding
railway reforms which can hamper the traffic movement and add confusions as large number of
people are traveling to a sporting event. The protests have been held against the Citizen
1 Anthony, Gray. "Religious Freedom and Section 116 of the Australian Constitution: Would a
Banning of the Hijab or Burqa Be Constitutionally Valid?." (2011) In Forum on Public Policy
Online, vol. 2011, no. 2. Oxford Round Table. 406 West Florida Avenue, Urbana, IL 61801.
2 Kruger v Commonwealth (1997) 190 CLR 1, 125
2