2. The Implied Freedom of Political Communication Several members of the court have also referred to international conventions in decisions concerning the implied freedom of political communication. In Australian Capital Television and Nationwide News, Mason CJ, Brennan J and Gaudron J used the European Convention on Human Rights in support of the fundamental importance of freedom of communication to representative democracy.These judges did not engage in any in depth discussion or analysis of freedom of expression as guaranteed by the ECHR; rather, they merely used the EChr (to which, of course, Australia is not a party) to demonstrate that other representative democracies value freedom of expression The ECHR was also used by Brennan J in Australian Capital Television in his assessment of whether the freedom of political communication had been violated He noted that in X and the Association of z v United Kingdom a challenge under the ECHR to a ban on political advertisements on British television had failed. Brennan J paid some attention to this case, which was directly on point although not referred to by mason CJ or Gaudron J. Ultimately, Brennan J concluded that the ban on paid political advertising did not violate the implied right to freedom of political expression and the European case, although not decisive, was influential in reaching that conclusion McHugh J, too, considered the ECHR, but found it unnecessary to discuss X and the Association of Z, because he concluded that the constitutional context in which the guarantee of freedom of expression operated in Australia meant that there was no valid analogy between the international instruments and the commonwealth 33 Nationwide News Pty Ltd v Wills(1992)177 CLR 1, 47(Brennan J); Australian Capital Television Pty Ltd v The Commonwealth(1992)177 CLR 106, 140 (Mason J), 211(Gaudron J) y4(192)177CLR106,1542. The Implied Freedom of Political Communication Several members of the Court have also referred to international conventions in decisions concerning the implied freedom of political communication. In Australian Capital Television and Nationwide News, Mason CJ, Brennan J and Gaudron J used the European Convention on Human Rights in support of the fundamental importance of freedom of communication to representative democracy.33 These judges did not engage in any in depth discussion or analysis of freedom of expression as guaranteed by the ECHR; rather, they merely used the ECHR (to which, of course, Australia is not a party) to demonstrate that other representative democracies value freedom of expression. The ECHR was also used by Brennan J in Australian Capital Television in his assessment of whether the freedom of political communication had been violated. He noted that in X and the Association of Z v United Kingdom a challenge under the ECHR to a ban on political advertisements on British television had failed.34 Brennan J paid some attention to this case, which was directly on point although not referred to by Mason CJ or Gaudron J. Ultimately, Brennan J concluded that the ban on paid political advertising did not violate the implied right to freedom of political expression, and the European case, although not decisive, was influential in reaching that conclusion. McHugh J, too, considered the ECHR , but found it unnecessary to discuss X and the Association of Z, because he concluded that the constitutional context in which the guarantee of freedom of expression operated in Australia meant that there was no valid analogy between the international instruments and the Commonwealth 33 Nationwide News Pty Ltd v Wills (1992) 177 CLR 1, 47 (Brennan J); Australian Capital Television Pty Ltd v The Commonwealth (1992) 177 CLR 106, 140 (Mason J), 211 (Gaudron J). 34 (1992) 177 CLR 106, 154. 8