Throughout this essay I will be focusing on a conversation that was held between Shane, Jane and Husna in relation to Australian judges and our parliamentary system. There are several issues which have been raised throughout this conversation, such as what role do judges play in society and how are they perceived? I will also look into the Australian Communist Party case, what the case entailed, why it occurred and what was the outcome, as well as other cases which are relevant to certain areas. I will also endeavor to divulge current sections of the constitution which prohibit certain behavior and laws. I will look into what exactly Jane means by the term, 'reasonably necessary.' I also aim to provide many examples to justify my contention and discuss at lengths the validity of the claims made in the conversation.
             Shane discusses the Communist Party case and how it showed Australian judges in their best light and how they appeared to be fearless guardians of individual rights in Australia at that point in time. The Communist Party case occurred in 1951. The Communist Party case is a historical and famous Australian case which has been known to be considered a highly influential tool for Australian Defense powers, Judicial review as well as the rule of law. In 1950 the Australian Federal Government acted upon legislation to claim that the Australian Communist Party was illegitimate organization and had aims of seizing their property. Brought before the High Court of Australia in 1951 the law was challenged and it became a majority decision of 6:1, Latham being the dissenting Judge, held that this specific law was outside the Commonwealth jurisdiction and resulted in being invalid. The law was enacted at a time in Australia's history were the threat of communism was a very real threat not only for Australia but for many other western countries. The Australian Army were at the time fighting a war in Korea. There wa...