Murphy v Electoral Commissioner

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIAFRENCH CJ,KIEFEL, BELL, GAGELER, KEANE, NETTLE AND GORDON JJANTHONY JOHN MURPHY & ANOR  PLAINTIFFSANDELECTORAL COMMISSIONER & ANOR  DEFENDANTSMurphy v Electoral Commissioner[2016] HCA 36Date of Order:  12 May 2016Date of Publication of Reasons:  5 September 2016M247/2015ORDERThe questions stated by the parties in the amended special case dated 1 April 2016, as amended by the addendum to the amended special case dated 11 May 2016, and referred for consideration by the Full Court be answered as follows:Question 1Do one or both of the first plaintiff and the second plaintiff have standing to seek the relief sought in paragraphs 1, 2, 3 and/or 4 of the Further Amended Application for an Order to Show Cause?AnswerThe second plaintiff has standing and it is otherwise unnecessary to answer the question with respect to the first plaintiff. Question 2Are any or all of sections 94A(4), 95(4), 96(4), 102(4), 103A(5), 103B(5) and 118(5) of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 (Cth) contrary to ss 7 and 24 of the Constitution and therefore invalid?AnswerNo.Question 3If the answer to Question 2 in relation to a section is yes, do sections 152(1)(a) and 155 of the Act have the same or substantially the same operation or effect as the impugned provisions or any of them and, if so, are sections 152(1)(a) and 155 invalid and of no effect? AnswerThe question does not arise. Question 4If the answer to Question 2 or Question 3 in relation to a section is yes, is that section, or are those sections, severable...