French CJ Hayne J Crennan J Kiefel J Bell J 17. Castlemaine Tooheys Ltd v South Australia 66 were found to be the conservation of energy resources and the amelioration of litter problems. In Betfair Pty Ltd v Western Australia 67, it was not doubted that the provisions addressed perceived problems relating to the integrity of the racing industry in Western Australia. The legislation failed in that case because a complete prohibition was not necessary to achieve its objects. 49 In ACTV, which concerned the freedom here in question, members of the Court were prepared to assume that the purpose of the provisions was to safeguard the integrity of the political process by reducing pressure on political parties and candidates to raise substantial sums of money, thus lessening the risk of corruption and undue influence 68. Likewise, the similar anti-corruption purposes of the EFED Act are not doubted. 50 In Monis v The Queen 69, the approaches to the identification of the purpose and scope of the statutory provision there in question, which made the use of postal services for the purpose of offensive communications an offence, differed somewhat. Nevertheless, the discussion in the reasons in Monis as to the provision's purpose serves to confirm the importance that the identification of statutory purpose has to the resolution of the second limb of the Lange test. And as Hayne J observed 70, the identification of the statutory purpose in connection with the application of that test is arrived at by the ordinary processes of statutory construction. Where, as here, the general purposes of the EFED Act are relied upon to justify the restrictive measures of s 96D, that section must be understood, by a process of construction, to be connected to those purposes and to further them in some way. 51 The plaintiffs accept that it is the legitimate aim of the EFED Act to regulate the acceptance and use of political donations in order to address the 66 (1990) 169 CLR 436 at 472, 479; [1990] HCA 1. 67 (2008) 234 CLR 418; [2008] HCA 11. 68 Australian Capital Television Pty Ltd v The Commonwealth (1992) 177 CLR 106 at 144 per Mason CJ, 154-155 per Brennan J, 188-189 per Dawson J. 69 (2013) 87 ALJR 340; 295 ALR 259. 70 Monis v The Queen (2013) 87 ALJR 340 at 370 [125]; see also at 403 [317] per Crennan, Kiefel and Bell JJ; 295 ALR 259 at 294, 338-339.