Advocacy Exercise
LLB203 Constitutional Law
McCloy v New South Wales [2015] HCA 34
Respondent.
Question: Is division 4A of part 6 of the Election Funding, Expenditure and Disclosures Act 1981 (NSW) invalid under the implied freedom of political communication to the extent that it applies to property developers?
Division 4A Prohibition of property developer donations
700-750 words
Intro: (Facts & Law) 50w
This challenge originated from Mr. Jeff McCloy, a property developer, making donations in excess of $31 500 to the candidates in connection with the NSW election of March 2011.
Arguments: 500 w
On 28 July 2014, McCloy began proceedings in the High Court challenging the validity of s96GA of the Election Funding, Expenditure and Disclosures Act 1981 …show more content…
• Secondly, is the law reasonably appropriate and adapted to serve a legitimate end in a manner which is compatible with the maintenance of the constitutionally prescribed system of representative and responsible government?
It has been agreed by both the State of NSW and McCloy [in the hearing prior to the appeal] that the first limb does in fact burden this freedom of communication as it ‘restricts the funds which are available to political parties’. Therefore the focus will be on the second limb.
The second limb is two pronged. First, McCloy makes the argument there is no rational connection between the impugned provisions and any legitimate end. The existence of a legitimate end is confirmed in the ‘general anti-corruption purposes of the EFED Act’ in Unions NSW v New South Wales (2013) 88 ALJR 227.
In a NSW Parliamentary debate in the Legislative Assembly, 28 May 2014, Premier Nathan Rees explained the reason property developers were singled out was because corruption requires both motive and opportunity; property developers have large profit as incentives for
LLB203 Constitutional Law
McCloy v New South Wales [2015] HCA 34
Respondent.
Question: Is division 4A of part 6 of the Election Funding, Expenditure and Disclosures Act 1981 (NSW) invalid under the implied freedom of political communication to the extent that it applies to property developers?
Division 4A Prohibition of property developer donations
700-750 words
Intro: (Facts & Law) 50w
This challenge originated from Mr. Jeff McCloy, a property developer, making donations in excess of $31 500 to the candidates in connection with the NSW election of March 2011.
Arguments: 500 w
On 28 July 2014, McCloy began proceedings in the High Court challenging the validity of s96GA of the Election Funding, Expenditure and Disclosures Act 1981 …show more content…
• Secondly, is the law reasonably appropriate and adapted to serve a legitimate end in a manner which is compatible with the maintenance of the constitutionally prescribed system of representative and responsible government?
It has been agreed by both the State of NSW and McCloy [in the hearing prior to the appeal] that the first limb does in fact burden this freedom of communication as it ‘restricts the funds which are available to political parties’. Therefore the focus will be on the second limb.
The second limb is two pronged. First, McCloy makes the argument there is no rational connection between the impugned provisions and any legitimate end. The existence of a legitimate end is confirmed in the ‘general anti-corruption purposes of the EFED Act’ in Unions NSW v New South Wales (2013) 88 ALJR 227.
In a NSW Parliamentary debate in the Legislative Assembly, 28 May 2014, Premier Nathan Rees explained the reason property developers were singled out was because corruption requires both motive and opportunity; property developers have large profit as incentives for