Martin v Electoral Districts Boundaries Commission

The appellant, Martin, appealed to the Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia against a decision of the Electoral Districts Boundaries Commission. The dispute concerned the Commission's finding that there was no evidence before it to support the proposition that the Liberal Party's strategically poor placement of resources during the 2014 election campaign had elevated its two-party preferred vote without increasing the number of seats won. The appellant contended that evidence from Mr Hamilton-Smith and Professor Macintyre did support this proposition.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the evidence provided by Mr Hamilton-Smith and Professor Macintyre, when considered in its proper context, actually constituted evidence of the specific proposition relied upon by the appellant. This involved an analysis of whether their testimony demonstrated, first, the placement of resources by the Liberal Party in marginal versus safe electorates, secondly, that this placement was strategically poor, thirdly, that it inflated the two-party preferred vote, and fourthly, that it did not lead to an increase in seats won.

The Court reasoned that the passages cited by the appellant from Mr Hamilton-Smith's testimony, when read in their full context, did not support the complex proposition. Mr Hamilton-Smith's remarks, particularly those concerning campaigning strategies and representation in marginal seats, were part of a broader discussion about why the Liberal Party struggled to win a majority of seats despite winning a majority of votes. The Court found that his testimony identified several reasons for this struggle, including a lack of party platform, a "low target, small profile strategy," and insufficient diversity, but these were distinct from and outside the scope of the Commission's specific finding concerning the "poor placement of resources." The Court concluded that the testimony, when properly understood, did not provide evidence for the four components of the proposition as required.

Given that the Court found no error in the Commission's initial finding regarding the absence of evidence, it determined that it was neither necessary nor appropriate to consider the appellant's further contentions. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.