Cusack, Patrick Leo v Australian Electoral Commissioner

Re: PATRICK LEO CUSACK
And: AUSTRALIAN ELECTORAL COMMISSIONER
No. QLD G122 of 1984
Administrative Law

COURT

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION
Spender J.

CATCHWORDS

Administrative Law - applicant seeking review of decision not to accept applicant's nomination for House of Representatives Election unless accompanied by deposit of $250.00 - decision in accordance with precise terms of Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 - provisions of Act said to be in conflict with Magna Carta and therefore invalid - no error of law.

Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977

Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 ss.170, 172, 173, 327

HEARING

BRISBANE

#DATE 6:11:1984

ORDER

1. Application be dismissed.

2. The applicant pay the respondent's costs to be taxed, including reserved costs, if any.

JUDGE1

This is an application for an order of review under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 by Patrick Leo Cusack.

1. The decision which he seeks to have reviewed is that made by Mr P. Taylor, who is the Divisional Returning Officer for the Division of Ryan. The decision is that Mr Cusack's nomination for the 1 December 1984 House of Representatives Election would not be accepted unless a deposit of $250.00 in legal tender or by banker's cheque was lodged with that nomination. That decision was made by Mr Taylor on 30 October 1984 and was confirmed by a letter dated 30 October handed to Mr Cusack yesterday, 5 November 1984.

2. Mr Taylor in that letter makes it quite clear that he would not accept a nomination for the 1 December House of Representatives Election unless a deposit of $250.00 in legal tender or banker's cheque was lodged with the nomination. In so acting, Mr Taylor would be acting in accordance with the precise terms of sub-s. 170(c)(ii) of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 ("the Act"), and it is also important to bear in mind that s.172 of the Act provides in sub-s. (1) that the nomination shall be rejected by the officer to whom it is made if, and only if, the provisions of, inter alia, s.170, have not been complied with in relation to the nomination.

3. Mr Cusack in his material concedes that the decision has been taken in accordance with the particular provisions of s.170 and on its face would appear to be correct.

4. His submissions essentially are four, the first of which is that in some way, which is by no means clear to me, there has been a breach of the rules of natural justice. In that respect none of the material before me indicates any such breach. I need not trouble myself any further with that particular ground.

5. In relation to the three other grounds, they are that there has in some way been an improper exercise of power by Mr Taylor; alternatively, his decision involved an error of law, not immediately apparent; or that the decision was otherwise contrary to law. Each of these aspects of Mr Cusack's argument involve the same general thrust; namely, that the requirements of…