French CJ Hayne J Crennan J Kiefel J Bell J 12. Melbourne Corporation principle operates to protect the ability of the States to make their own laws regarding the functioning of political parties in the State, including laws bearing upon the discussion of political matters relevant to electors. It is necessary, in order to resolve the clash between the freedom and the principle, that a test different from that stated in Lange be applied to the EFED Act. 33 Each of the defendant and Victoria relied for support for their arguments on what was said by Gaudron J in Muldowney v South Australia 50. Her Honour proposed that: "the freedom which inheres in the Australian Constitution and which extends to matters within the province of the States does not operate to strike down a law which curtails freedom of communication in those limited circumstances where that curtailment is reasonably capable of being viewed as appropriate and adapted to furthering or enhancing the democratic processes of the States." (footnote omitted) In Victoria's submission, the test that a State law be "reasonably capable of being viewed as appropriate and adapted" allows a greater latitude to the State in the enactment of its electoral laws. Pressed, Victoria suggested that this might entail the recognition by the Court of some discretion in the State legislature. 34 Neither the approach suggested by Gaudron J to the characterisation of a State law 51 nor the allowance of what is sometimes called the grant to the legislature of a margin of appreciation 52 has been accepted by a majority of this Court 53. The latter is a large question and has not been seriously debated since the decision in Lange. In any event, there is a more fundamental difficulty with the argument which draws upon the Melbourne Corporation principle in an 50 (1996) 186 CLR 352 at 376; [1996] HCA 52. 51 See also Cunliffe v The Commonwealth (1994) 182 CLR 272 at 339, 388; [1994] HCA 44; Langer v The Commonwealth (1996) 186 CLR 302 at 318, 334; [1996] HCA 43. 52 Australian Capital Television Pty Ltd v The Commonwealth (1992) 177 CLR 106 at 158-159; Cunliffe v The Commonwealth (1994) 182 CLR 272 at 325. 53 Levy v Victoria (1997) 189 CLR 579 at 598; Coleman v Power (2004) 220 CLR 1 at 48 [89], 78 [196], 82 [212].