Mulholland v Australian Electoral Commission

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
Melbourne No M155 of 2003

B e t w e e n -
JOHN VINCENT MULHOLLAND
Applicant
and
AUSTRALIAN ELECTORAL COMMISSION
Respondent
Application for expedition

HAYNE J

(In Chambers)

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT MELBOURNE ON WEDNESDAY, 11 JUNE 2003, AT 9.30 AM

MR J.B.R. BEACH, QC: If your Honour pleases, I appear with MR B.F. QUINN for the applicant. (instructed by Robert Semmel)

MR P.R.D. GRAY: May it please your Honour, I appear for the respondent. (instructed by Australian Government Solicitor)

HIS HONOUR: Yes, Mr Beach. I have read the papers.

MR BEACH: There does not seem to be much more that can be said, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: The next leave day that would be available in Melbourne is not until October. Do you seek any further expedition than that?

MR BEACH: Your Honour, our position is in part reactive to the Australian Electoral Commission’s position. It is fair to say that we have sought as much expedition as we can get in the courts below.

HIS HONOUR: It would be Melbourne on 3 October. The alternative would be – and I do not know whether we could even achieve this – to look, if there is an earlier date, interstate and that would require everybody to travel. So for the moment I have been working on the assumption that 3 October here would be the date to which you would work. Do you want to be heard to say anything against that?

MR BEACH: No, your Honour, I do not.

HIS HONOUR: Mr Gray, what do you say?

MR GRAY: If your Honour pleases, of course the Commission, like anybody else, has no idea when an election may be called, and it is for the reasons ‑ ‑ ‑

HIS HONOUR: I certainly do not, Mr Gray.

MR GRAY: For the reasons set out in the submissions, it is urged most strongly that it is in the public interest that the matter be heard promptly. That said, all I would add, your Honour, is that the Commission would be prepared to travel were it the Court’s view that it would be appropriate to allocate this matter to a special leave day in another office of the Registry.

HIS HONOUR: The difficulty I think is that the pressures on leave days at the moment are very large. What I would be minded to do is to say that subject to any contrary order of a Justice, the application for special leave to appeal be expedited. I would not order expedition to a specific date; I would simply say that we would be looking towards Friday, 3 October in Melbourne. The parties should therefore order their affairs on the basis that they should prepare their papers as promptly as may be.

I do not propose to give any direction to the parties about timetabling, but the parties should get on with it. If the papers are ready earlier and if, for example, a late vacancy occurred in another list, it may be – I do not say it would be – that some consideration could be given to slotting the matter in at relatively short notice. But for the moment, if I simply order that subject to any contrary order of a Justice, the application for special leave to appeal be expedited and the costs of this application be costs in the application for leave and certify for the attendance of counsel, is there anything further that counsel would wish?

MR BEACH: No, if your Honour pleases.

MR GRAY: No, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: Then I will make those orders.

AT 9.35 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In *Mulholland v Australian Electoral Commission*, the applicant, Mr Mulholland, sought judicial review of a decision by the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) to refuse his application to register as a political party. The matter came before Hayne J in chambers.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the AEC had erred in law in refusing to register Mr Mulholland's proposed political party, the "Citizens Electoral Movement". Specifically, the Court was required to consider the interpretation and application of the *Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918* (Cth) concerning the requirements for party registration, particularly the provisions relating to the party's name and the number of members required.

Hayne J considered the provisions of the *Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918* (Cth) governing the registration of political parties. His Honour noted that the AEC's refusal was based on the applicant's failure to demonstrate that the proposed party had at least 500 members, as required by section 129(1)(c) of the Act. The applicant had argued that the AEC had misinterpreted the membership requirements and that the name "Citizens Electoral Movement" was not misleading or deceptive. However, Hayne J found that the AEC had correctly applied the statutory requirements and that the applicant had not provided sufficient evidence of the requisite membership. The Court affirmed the principle that the AEC has a duty to ensure that all statutory requirements for party registration are met before approving an application.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established