Hudson v Lee

[1993] HCATrans 201

~

.

.,.

•

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SITTING AS THE COURT OF

DISPUTED RETURNS

Office of the Registry

Sydney No S60 of 1993

B e t w e e n -

ROBERT JAMES NEILSON

HUDSON (JNR)

Petitioner

and

MICHAEL JOHN LEE, MP

First Respondent

and

THE AUSTRALIAN ELECTORAL

COMMISSION

Second Respondent

Hudson 1 7/7/93

Application for waiver of

requirements for publication of

Petition

GAUDRON J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT SYDNEY ON WEDNESDAY, 7 JULY 1993, AT 10.03 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

MR R.J.N. HUDSON:  I seek leave of the Court to represent

myself due to financial hardships.

MR J.A. McCARTHY, QC:  May it please Your Honour, I seek the

Court's leave to appear for the first respondent in

this matter. (instructed by McClellands)

HER HONOUR:  Yes. Is there any opposition to leave being

granted to Mr McCarthy?

MR HUDSON:  Yes, there is an objection, Your Honour, under

High Court Rules - Court of Disputed Returns,

s 370(1), where it states:

No party to the petition shall -

be rapresented by counsel or a solicitor except

with the leave of the Court or consent of all

parties. Well, at this stage, Your Honour, I

cannot, because of hardships, be able to afford
legal counsel in the future and I would ask that

the Court - objection would be upheld, that no

legal counsel be involved in this hearing and

future hearings.

HER HONOUR:  Yes. Yes, Mr McCarthy, what do you say to

that?

MR McCARTHY:  I would say three things. First of all,

Your Honour, that the operative principle is that

of the discretion of the Court and the intention of

the Act. The party that I represent is the sitting

member, the successful candidate in this election.

He has a series of propositions that he would wish

to put to the Court and he wishes to have that put
through the usual device of most citizens which is

to have counsel available.

In those circumstances, Your Honour, I would P~ve thought it was appropriate to allow counsel in

the case. These are not matters in which parties,

as a matter of choice or practice, invariably or

even usually, represent themselves.

HER HONOUR:  Just at this stage, is there any appearance for

the second respondent?

MR R. McCLURE: Yes, Your Honour. If the Court pleases, I

seek leave to appear for the second respondent, the

Australian Electoral Commission. (of the Australian

Government Solicitor)

HER HONOUR:  Yes. Now, what do you say. Is that objected

to, too?

MR HUDSON:  Yes.

Hudson 2 7/7/93

HER HONOUR:	Now, what do you say to that?
MR McCLURE:	Your Honour, I put forward similar submissions as to Mr McCarthy. That is that the Commission
under section 359 of the Commonwealth Electoral
Act - it is recognized by the legislation that the
Commission should have the opportunity, by leave of
the Court, to appear in matters where an election
is disputed.

The Commission, as the body which administers

the conduct of elections, has obviously a vital interest in any challenges to an election often

which will affect the legislation, and

constitutional issues have arisen similarly. I

therefore submit that it is quite reasonable for

the Commission to be legally represented.

HER HONOUR: Yes. At this stage, Mr Hudson, I think it

would be advisable for representation in these

proceedings. I see no reason - - -

MR HUDSON: For today?

HER HONOUR:  Yes. What happens hereafter will be a matter

for the person then presiding.

MR HUDSON:	Can I say anything else?
HER HONOUR:	Yes, Mr Hudson, it is now for you to make your

application.

MR HUDSON: Firstly, I would like to tender a document, and

I have given a copy to the learned counsel on my

right. It is a copy of a prior advertisement of

the petition. It was incorrectly advertised and I

then asked the paper to reprint it and they did it

this week and, unfortunately, the paper was in

print when I asked for a copy of it and I am

tendering a draft copy of that.

HER HONOUR: Yes. There is no objection to - - -

MR McCARTHY: There is no objection.

HER HONOUR:	Yes, that will be received.
EXHIBIT:	Exhibit A ..... Affidavit plus attachments
MR McCLURE:	Your Honour, if I may note, copies have not

been provided to me as yet.	If they may be done in
due course.

HER HONOUR:  Yes.

Hudson	3	7/7/93
MR HUDSON:	I will provide a copy immedia	-Y we have

finished if that is quite all ri - by Your Honour.

HER HONOUR: Yes. Well, I have received together - I

should make this clear - an affidavit sworn by

Robert James Neilson Hudson in which he deposes

that he:

stood for election in the Federal Seat of

Dobell on 13th March, 1993.

That he has:

complied with the Commonwealth Electoral Act

of 1918 in that -

he has:

Advertised in the Tuggerah Lakes News of the

14th June, 1993, page 14, as a Public Notice

as a Petitioner in the matter but through a

printer's error -

his name did not appear on it. And that is

annexed, marked A to the affidavit. He further

deposes that he has lodged a further advertisement

in the Terrigal Times to be published on 5 July,

and annexed to that is a draft advertisement.

I think, perhaps, counsel for the respondents

should actually have a look at these.

MR HUDSON: This counsel has one here and, unfortunately, I

only obtained one copy.

HER HONOUR:  Yes. Well, perhaps he should see it at this

stage.

MR McCARTHY:  Your Honour, I am passing him mine.

HER HONOUR:	Very well, thank you.
MR HUDSON:	And I will get another copy and give it to the

respective gentleman.

What I am seeking leave of today, on the basis

that this is a community matter - whatever the

outcome of this at the end of the day is not going

to benefit me greatly in any way, shape or form.	I
just ask that the waiving of having to print that
particular - in the State Gazette and the Federal Gazette, due to financial hardships.

I would also ask of the Court that as I am not

a learned counsel re the law, that Your Honour not

dismiss this matter because of incorrect legal

terminology or legal procedures that - - -

Hudson 4 7/7/93

HER HONOUR:  There is no application before me to dismiss

this matter, is there? There is no application

before me at this stage?

MR McCARTHY:  Not at this moment, Your Honour. There might

be in about two minutes times, but at the moment

there is no such application.

HER HONOUR:	To dismiss what, this present application?
MR McCARTHY:	To dismiss this present application and the

petition as a whole. There are some matters that I

would wish to refer Your Honour to.

HER HONOUR: Well, I think you will have to make a proper

application.

MR McCARTHY:  Of course, Your Honour. This matter was not -

we have come to notice of this matter only at a

very late stage and we were not in a position to

have the documentation in order. Your Honour, we

would not be seeking that any such orders be made

today. I am really foreshadowing some submissions

I was about to make.

HER HONOUR:  Yes. Well, all I am concerned with today is

waiving the advertisement in the gazettes.

MR McCARTHY:	Yes, that is true, Your Honour.
MR HUDSON:	In the State Gazette and the Federal Government

Gazette, and that is all I am basically asking for today, is that that be waived due to hardships.

HER HONOUR:  One could appreciate the hardship situation,

but there seem to be other considerations involved,

do there not, Mr Hudson, in an application of this

kind? As you rightly point out, there is a

community interest involved and there is some

necessity that the matter be brought to the

attention of the community.

MR HUDSON: Well, through the paper and according to the

Electoral Act, you must print that petition in one

of the local papers. Now, it has been printed but

incorrectly with my name left off it, on the 14th,

and then it is printed in yesterday's paper, which

I have not yet received a copy of, and the reason I

have only got a - - -

HER HONOUR: 

They are different papers, I understand.

MR HUDSON: 

They are the same paper, only one comes out one

week under the Tuggerah Lakes News and the next one
comes out as the Terrigal Times. It is the same

newspaper, in other words.  And I am just

asking - - -

Hudson 

7/7/93

HER HONOUR: 

But I have no information about their

circulation? Do you provide - - -

MR HUDSON: Well, I was not informed that those sorts of

things were required.	I am just a layman at this,
I can assure you.

HER HONOUR:  Yes. Well, that may be so but I cannot just

waive the rules unless I can be satisfied that

compliance with the rules is not necessary; not

that you cannot afford it but that, in the

circumstances, it is not necessary, really.

MR HUDSON:  It is a local paper and it goes in all around up

round Lake Macquarie, all the whole area of the

seat of Dobell.

HER HONOUR:	Where is the evidence of this?
MR HUDSON: Well, that I do not have at this stage.	I did

not know that I had to bring that. I was hoping to

have a copy of the actual newspaper to bring down and present today but I was unable to obtain that. I would gladly get that and send it down by

security post tomorrow for you.

HER HONOUR:  I do not think we can do things just like that.

This is your application which I think - - -

MR HUDSON: Well, the evidence - that newspaper there, as I

said, one week they publish under the name of

Tuggerah Lakes News and that does the northern area

of Dobell, and then the next week they publish

under the Terrigal Times and that does the southern

end of Dobell, and that is how this particular

paper works its circulation, and that is the best I

can explain on this. I would not have a clue how

many papers they actually print; somewhere in the

order of about 50,000 or 60,000 papers.

HER HONOUR: Well, you see, I would have to have - at the

very least, I need that sort of information.

MR HUDSON: Well, could I move that this be held over to

another date for me to collect that sort of

information now that I know that that is the sort

of information -

HER HONOUR:  It has to be that sort of information and it

has to be connected up with the electorate as such;

the numbers of the electoral rolls and matters of

that kind.

MR HUDSON: There are 72,000-odd people there.

HER HONOUR: There has to be proper evidence, Mr Hudson.

Hudson 6 7/7/93

MR HUDSON: Well, I could bring a copy of the actual

electoral roll down which the Electoral Commission

supplied to all candidates at the time.

HER HONOUR:  It is a matter for you how you present your

case but at the very least, if you wish to make

your application in this regard, you will have to

convince me that there is no necessity for further

publication.

MR HUDSON:  I could go another way, Your Honour. This was

publicized in all the papers - not the actual

petition, but the matter was spoken about in all

the local papers up there: the Sun - and that is

about the only way I could do that today. It was
in the Sun, the Wyong Shire Advocate and in the

Express and there is only - I have got three copies

of that. That is just where I made a formal
complaint and one of the local papers picked up on

it - "Mr Lee says he considers legal action" and

"Lee faces a challenge", and that was published.

It was also published in the Canberra Times, the

Sydney Morning Herald which I do have a copy of

here.

HER HONOUR:  I cannot just take these statements from the bar table, just statements to that effect.

MR HUDSON: Well, can I present copies of these particular

papers that I have got here that show that it was

not a legal petition put in but has been widely

speculated? Could I do that? Could I move the

Court's indulgence?

HER HONOUR: Well, is there any objection?

MR McCARTHY:  Your Honour, I would have to have an

opportunity to read these.

MR HUDSON: Well, the thing was put in by Mr Lee.
MR McCARTHY:	Your Honour, could I just perhaps raise this

matter as just a part of the objection - and it may

be that Mr Hudson could clarify where this is

going. Your Honour, could I refer Your Honour to

the notice of motion that Mr Hudson has taken out

in this matter? As I understand Mr Hudson's order

in order 1, what Mr Hudson is seeking - and if

Your Honour could have open Order 68 of the High

Court Rules, what I understand Mr Hudson is seeking

today is to be excused from the requirements of

rule 3 in so far as he would be required to

advertise the petition in the Commonwealth Gazette.

I do not understand Mr Hudson to be saying

that he wants to be excused from advertising the

petition in the electorate of Dobell, and if it is

Hudson 7 7/7/93

the case that he has not properly advertised the

petition, as I understand Mr Hudson, he intends to

rectify that. In other words, Your Honour, he has

come here today with material to show that he is

attempting - - -

HER HONOUR:  I have led him on to this path.

MR McCARTHY: That is why I thought I would raise the matter

with Your Honour.

HER HONOUR:  I have led him on to this path because it does

not seem to me that one could even consider waiving
compliance with rule 3 unless it was established
that the matter had been brought to the notice of

those persons whom one might expect it to be

brought to the notice of by publication in the

Gazettes and in much the same way.

MR McCARTHY:	Your Honour, I think that is absolutely correct in the way that it has been approached by
the Court and by Mr Hudson, but I do not understand Mr Hudson to be arguing with Your Honour that if he
has not properly advertised it in the electorate,
he was not proposing to do so.
HER HONOUR:	No, no.

MR HUDSON: It is actually advertised in today's paper. It

came out yesterday and, unfortunately, I was not

able to bring the copy down. For the benefit of me

going and getting that affidavit sworn, they sent

me down that draft copy. Now, that is a draft copy

that is in the paper and it is circulating at

present.

HER HONOUR:  Let me make it quite clear: I would not think

that it would be appropriate for me to make an

order dispensing with compliance with Order 68

rule 3 unless I could be satisfied that other steps

had been taken by you which had substantially the

same effect as would have been had if the rule had

been complied with. In that regard, I would need
proper evidence and not statements from the bar

table.

MR HUDSON: Well, I tendered that affidavit as evidence

that, in good faith, I have already started and it

was through a printer's error that my name and that

was left off it and I went back to the newspaper

and I asked them to reprint it, as they have done

according to that draft copy and as actually

happened. The papers are out as of yesterday.

HER HONOUR:  Yes, but that is not dealing with the point of

your application. What I am saying to you - and I

will try it again, Mr Hudson - is that unless I can

Hudson 8 7/7/93

be satisfied by evidence in proper form that steps

have been taken or will be taken which have

substantially the same effect as compliance with

rule 3, I do not see that it would be appropriate

for me to dispense with it.

MR HUDSON: Well, may I ask a question, Your Honour?

HER HONOUR:  Yes.

MR HUDSON: For a mug like myself, in layman's terms, what

sort of evidence do you require?	Do you require a
physical copy of the paper?

HER HONOUR:	No.
MR HUDSON:	Or actual accounts where it has been paid for

and all that sort of thing?

HER HONOUR:  No. Are you proposing to do anything which

would have the effect or much the same effect as

advertising in the gazettes?

MR HUDSON:  What other avenues are there open to me in that

way?

HER HONOUR:  I do not know. I do not know, it is your - - -

MR HUDSON:  The only ways of doing that is in the newspaper

and that is what I have done within the electorate

of Dobell, the area that is in que$tion. Nowhere

in the Act does it ask me to do it anywhere else.

I would be quite happy to put it in the Sydney

Morning Herald if that would - because that is a

paper that gets more widely spread around the

State. I would be quite happy to do that if that

is what would be -

HER HONOUR:  I do not know. It is a matter for you, if you

have some proposal, but at the moment I have not

even got evidence to suggest that it has been

widely brought to the attention of people within

the electorate, let alone the State or the

Commonwealth. That is the problem.

MR HUDSON:  Yes. So, what you are wanting is the

circulation of the present paper that has published

it?

HER HONOUR:  I am just trying to alert you, Mr Hudson, to

the nature of the case you must make before you

even get to a position where I can really consider
whether or not there should be a waiver of

compliance with the rule.

MR HUDSON:  I can rest assure you that the community up

there well and truly knows about it.

Hudson 9 7/7/93

HER HONOUR:	Yes, but I need evidence.
MR HUDSON:	You need physical evidence of that.
HER HONOUR:	I need evidence.
MR HUDSON:	By way of a statutory declaration - stat decs

from a few of the people that live up there? Would

that suffice?

HER HONOUR:  No, certainly not. It is not even a question

of it being brought to the attention of people in

the electorate. I mean, that much is not satisfied

but, clearly, the purpose of rule 3 Order 68 is to
bring the fact of the petition to a very wide

audience.

MR HUDSON:  This was mentioned, as you would be well aware,

in the Parliament and I have a copy of the Hansard

here somewhere that it was mentioned in Parliament.

That is about the only thing I would have here

today that may help. I can tender that. I would

tender that, as it is, with copies of where it went

in the Sydney Morning Herald and a copy where it

went in the Canberra Times, but that is the only

other thing I would have that it has been widely

spoken about and the AAP picked up on it, and I can

assure you it went from there.

HER HONOUR:  Yes. Well, all of that would have to be, at

the very least, annexed to an affidavit and so

forth.

MR HUDSON:  Can I make an amendment to that affidavit you

have got in front of you in any way, shape or form

that you could accept it?

HER HONOUR:  Mr Hudson, perhaps I should find out, in any

event, the basis on which your application is

opposed and then we will take it from there.

Mr McCarthy, could you just give a brief indication

of the basis on which this application is opposed?

MR McCARTHY:  Certainly. Your Honour, it may help to just

focus this. This issue has been considered in the

recent past in the Supreme Court.

Chief Justice Gleeson has given a decision on this

very issue in relation to an aspect of the

proceedings concerning The Entrance in the 1991

elections, and I have brought along a copy of that

judgment for Your Honour's information, and I

provide a copy to Mr Hudson also. Might I hand

this up to Your Honour?

HER HONOUR:  Yes, thank you.

Hudson 10 7/7/93

MR McCARTHY:  Your Honour has, in effect, already stated the

purpose of the rule. There is a similar rule in

relation to advertising and a similar rule to

Order 68 rule 2 in the Court of Disputed Returns

rules under the State Act.

The three points that Chief Justice Gleeson

made in 1991 were these: firstly, that the rules

whereby the petition was regulated could only be

varied for reasons, in effect, within the rules

themselves and that the power to vary, if found

outside Order 68 - which is the case here and was

the case in the Supreme Court - would have to be

read subject to the Court of Disputed Returns rules

themselves and, in those circumstances, it was

doubtful whether there was a power to order a
relaxation of any of the particular rules within

the order. That was point one.

Point two: at the time that this notice of

motion was received, Your Honour, we were not aware

of any publication within the electorate at all -
at least, had not been brought to our attention.

The context of the Irving dispute was that the

petition went over 40 pages and obviously the cost

involved in an advertisement within the electorate

was just out of the question and only summations

under what would be the equivalent of rule 3(b)

were proposed there. Therefore, there was a very

important issue as to having a public place where
the whole of the petition was published.

I notice in this case, Your Honour, that in actual fact Mr Hudson can publish his petition

virtually in a small notice form and have it

circulated, so that to that extent there is a
distinction between what was being sought in the

Supreme Court and what is being sought here.

In any event, Your Honour, our position is

this: firstly, that the Court would want to be

satisfied of something greater than just rule 3(b)

and that is that there had been a summation

circulated within the electorate that there was in
actual fact a wide distribution within the Debell

electorate of some form of public notice which I do

not think has been really put forward in the way

that Your Honour has described today. That would be our first objection, if Your Honour was minded

to do anything on the discretionary front.

Secondly, our objection would be, Your Honour,

that this is a matter in which the respondent

submits the petition is so fundamentally defective

that Your Honour would consider adjourning any such

application; that the respondent be given an

opportunity to put a notice of motion in order for

Hudson 11

the dismissal of the petition and to have that

brought on at a time that would be convenient to

the Court and convenient to Mr Hudson.

In support of that further proposition,

Your Honour, I would put this at the moment.

Your Honour, the petition, in terms of the

requirements of the Act under section 355, does
not, in our submission, allege the facts on which a

petition must be based. All that it has done is

set out a series of allegations of law, that is,

that Mr Lee, the respondent, is said to have acted

in a certain way that did not comply with the

postage requirements of the schedule of benefits

under the Parliamentary Entitlements Act. There is

nothing in terms of time, place, circumstance,

amount, that has been pleaded whatsoever in this

matter.

MR HUDSON:	Can I object to something there?
HER HONOUR:	I think, Mr Hudson, if I could give you some

advice, it would be just to listen because

Mr McCarthy is telling you the basis on which,

ultimately, he will make various applications. It

is to put you on notice. It is not to assert the

fact, it is to put you on notice.

MR HUDSON:  My objection was that - I appreciate what

Mr McCarthy is doing there, but is what he is doing

what is intended for this Court?

MR McCARTHY:	Not today.
HER HONOUR:	Not today; certainly not today.

MR HUDSON: Fair enough. Thank you.

HER HONOUR:  And perhaps not at all, but it is to put you on

notice.

MR HUDSON: All right, thank you.
MR McCARTHY:	Your Honour, it is our submission that there

have been a series of decisions by this Court in

its period as the Court of Disputed Returns, that

is, going back to the earliest days of this

century, as to the requirements of petitions and

that, broadly, the requisites under section 355 are

such that if the facts on which a petitioner relies

are not set out in the petition, if there is just

allegations of law either by way of statement of

the Act or of paraphrasing of the Act, that has not

been regarded in the jurisprudence of this Court as

compliance with the Electoral Act.

Hudson 12 7/7/93

There have been recent amendments that, if

anything, in our submission, suggest that a

petitioner has to be even more explicit about the

facts on which they rely. That would be the first

area in which we would be taking the Court to. We
say that that would be sufficient in itself for the

Court to make an order under section 358 that because the -

HER HONOUR: Well, I do not think we need to go into that in

that detail. If you could just - - -

MR McCARTHY:  No. Your Honour, that is just for the benefit

of saying - and we go on to say that there is no -

the second point is, I suppose again, in terms of

Mr Hudson's information:  we say that there is

simply no substance at all in his allegation.

Thirdly, Your Honour, in terms of the way that he

has pleaded the matter, he has not shown - and,

again, this is a requirement of the Act - how

whatever it is that is alleged has affected the

result of the election.

Now, Your Honour, we were only brought into the matter in the last 48 hours. What had been

happening is that a letter had been prepared for

Mr Hudson, which was sent to Mr Hudson yesterday.

It was anticipated that it would go some time this

week. That letter set out in as plain a language

as possible, along with a series of annexures, the

response of the first respondent to this petition.

This has been incorporated, Your Honour, within an

affidavit of my instructing solicitor,

Donald Kirby.	I would seek to hand up that
affidavit.	I have had - - -

HER HONOUR:  I am not entirely sure that that is necessary

to do that at this stage.

MR HUDSON:  I would like to raise a point on that particular

letter that was sent yesterday.

HER HONOUR:	I have not seen it.
MR McCARTHY:	Your Honour, it recounts the substance of what

has been said here.

HER HONOUR:	I have not seen it; I may never see it.
MR HUDSON:	What I am trying to say, if I be permitted just briefly, is that Mr McCarthy did send a letter
through yesterday and I accepted it off the
gentleman at the door without looking at the name
on it and the name is not my name.  It is an
incorrect name on that document. So, as far as the
document is concerned, I would declare it invalid,
if that is the word.

Hudson 13 7/7/93

MR McCARTHY:  Your Honour, Mr Hudson had said that to me

earlier - - -

HER HONOUR:  Look, I am not going to spend the Court's time

on silly details.

MR McCARTHY:  Your Honour, we, as I said, were only made

aware a little while ago that this matter was
coming before Your Honour today and that there

would be a mention in this matter. Your Honour,

we would seek, first of all, to inform the Court

and seek any leave in terms of time that

Your Honour might regard as necessary. A draft

notice of motion has been prepared for the purpose

of putting in formal order an application that

there be no further proceedings on this petition.

HER HONOUR:  I will tell you what it seems to me at the

moment should be done and it may accord with what

is happening. It seems to me at the moment that

Mr Hudson should be given seven days in which to

put forward any further evidence that he wishes in

relation to his application and to serve it on

everybody concerned; that there should be a further
seven days for the respondents to make whatever

application they wish or to provide any answering material they wish, and in the course of so doing to make it plain to the petitioner the basis of

their application and the points on which they will

rely. Now, would that satisfy - I have not heard

from you yet, Mr McClure, but would that satisfy

your interest in the matter?

MR McCLURE:  Yes, Your Honour. Very shortly and for the

record, let me say that the Commission had formed,

in some respects, similar views to Mr McCarthy and

we forecast that we would be challenging any

application to waive rule 3 Order 68 and we also

had draft material prepared in relation to

challenging the petitioner, in substance, under the

grounds set out in 355(a) and (aa) of the Electoral

Act.

MR HUDSON: This was served on me about 4.30 last - - -

HER HONOUR: Yes. Everybody can make points about when

things were served.

MR HUDSON:	Can I just make one further point, Your Honour?
HER HONOUR:	Yes, certainly.
MR HUDSON:	Mr McCarthy has stated that my petition is not

worth the paper it is written on, in a sense, but

at the time of my lodging this petition, it was

getting close to the end of the 40 days and I did

make application through the Court's Registry and I

Hudson 14 7/7/93

stated to them I did not have the evidence that I

was requested which I wanted and that I had written

off to the Freedom of Information people and since

that time I have received all of the information

that I should be putting in with the original

petition, and with other material from the

Australian Department of Administrative Services
too, to go with it. So, I would just like to make

it clear that the only thing - the reason there was nothing put in there, and the only thing that I had

sent up from them was the Parliamentary

Entitlements No 28, and that was what I worked on and that was the only information they ever sent to

me until a bit later on.

HER HONOUR: That may be so. There may be reasons for it

but that does not alter the fact that there were

certain - I have not considered what Mr McCarthy

says, but the reasons are irrelevant save in so far

as they might entitle you to some discretionary

relief, but they do not excuse you from compliance

with mandatory requirements.

MR HUDSON:  I can appreciate that. But I just felt that I

should raise that matter just in case - for the

Court's own knowledge, thinking that I have just

blatantly put just that in and was running on that.

It was just that the time constraints at the time

were totally against me and under the Act, the

Freedom of Information Act, they have got to give

Mr Lee 30 days in which to respond. He did that

and then he was given another exten_sion to respond

to that. That is the reason why there was never

anything put in with that actual petition, yet the

Registrar accepted it as was, on those terms.

HER HONOUR:  Mr Hudson, you are quite clear, are you, that I

cannot - - -

MR HUDSON:  Today?

HER HONOUR:  - - - waive rule 3 just on the basis of your

financial position?

MR HUDSON:	Mm mm.
HER HONOUR:	And that I have to be satisfied, at the very

least - I should tell you though, Mr McCarthy in

fact says I cannot waive it anyway which is an

argument we will have to face but, at the very

least, I would have to be satisfied that steps have

been taken or are to be taken which will have

substantially the same effect. So, I will give you

seven days from today, which - - -

MR HUDSON:  Could I ask for - - -

Hudson 15 7/7/93

HER HONOUR:	A longer time?
MR HUDSON:	- - - 14 days, if you do not mind, because I do

everything on my own and getting around up where we

live is - pretty lengthy period - places and that,

by the time you talk to people and get things done.

If I could ask the two gentlemen on either my side that they would agree to 14 days.

HER HONOUR: Well, it does not matter, I will decide it. r

will give you until Friday week.	I do not know
what day that is.

MR McCLURE: That is the 16th, I think.

HER HONOUR:  The 16th, is it? To file and serve whatever

other affidavit material you wish to advance in

support of your application.

MR HUDSON:	Mm mm.
HER HONOUR:	And to take any other steps that seem to you to

be appropriate. By the 23rd, the respondents

should file and serve whatever applications they

wish to make, setting out in them, or providing in some other form to the petitioner, precise details

of the grounds on which they rely. And the matter

will then come before me on the following Friday

for full argument.	You will be able to respond to
any evidence.

MR HUDSON:  When you say, "full argument", just on this

issue?

HER HONOUR: Well, if there is an application by the

respondents, that will be dealt with.

MR HUDSON:	At that time?
HER HONOUR: Yes, on the following Friday. That will be

then the 30th, will it not? Now, is there any

insuperable inconvenience associated with that

course?

MR HUDSON:	I do not think so, Your Honour.
MR McCARTHY:	No.
MR McCLURE:	No, Your Honour.

HER HONOUR: Well, that is the course that we will - at

10 am.

AT 10.43 AM THE MATTER WAS ADJOURNED

UNTIL FRIDAY, 30 JULY 1993

Hudson 16 7/7/93