McClure v Australian Electoral Commission

McClure (the applicant) sought judicial review of a decision by the Australian Electoral Commission (the AEC) to refuse to register his political party, the "Australian Protectionist Party". The applicant contended that the AEC's decision was based on a misinterpretation of the *Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918* (Cth) (the Act) and that the AEC had failed to consider relevant matters and had taken into account irrelevant matters. The application was heard by Hayne J in chambers.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the AEC had erred in law in its interpretation of section 42(1)(a) of the Act, which requires that the name of a political party seeking registration must not be the same as, or substantially similar to, the name of another registered political party. The applicant argued that his party's name was not substantially similar to any existing registered party, while the AEC had concluded it was substantially similar to the "Protectionist Party", a party that had been deregistered. The Court was also required to consider whether the AEC had properly exercised its discretion under the Act, including whether it had failed to consider relevant factors or had considered irrelevant ones.

Hayne J found that the AEC's interpretation of "substantially similar" was too broad and that the AEC had erred in law by failing to properly consider the differences between the applicant's proposed name and the deregistered party's name. His Honour held that the AEC had placed undue weight on the common word "Protectionist" and had not adequately considered the distinctiveness of the applicant's full party name. The Court applied the principles of administrative law, including the requirement for decision-makers to correctly interpret the governing legislation and to exercise their discretion lawfully.

The Court ordered that the AEC's decision be set aside and remitted to the AEC for reconsideration according to law.