Smith v Douglas

[2015] QSC 17

[2015] QSC 17

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CIVIL JURISDICTION

DAUBNEY J

SC No 992 of 2015

SMITH and OTHERS  Applicant

v

TRISTAN DOUGLAS  Respondent

BRISBANE

SATURDAY, 31 JANUARY 2015

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT

HIS HONOUR: The respondent is a representative of the organisation “GetUp”.  GetUp describes itself as being “an independent grassroots organisation that receives no government or political party funding”.

In the course of today’s election, GetUp has been distributing in a number of seats documents which in part, at least, can objectively be seen to be how-to-vote cards.  Clearly enough, the documents represent an expression of opinion, and indeed a recommendation, by the organisation as to how voters should cast their ballots in today’s election.

The applicants are candidates in a number of the seats in which these documents are being distributed.  It is sufficient to note that the how-to-vote cards or documents being distributed by the GetUp organisation are not in favour of the interests of any of the applicants.  The applicants have therefore applied for an injunction, the effect of which would be to restrain GetUp from distributing these documents in the course of the election.

The contention advanced by the applicants is that these documents are how-to-vote cards which should have been, but which were not, lodged with the Electoral Commission and subjected to the requirements of section 183 of the Electoral Act 1992 (Qld).

Section 183(1) of the Electoral Act commences with the words:

The person who authorised a how-to-vote card for a registered political party, or for a candidate endorsed by a registered political party, for an election must ...

There then follows requirements for lodgement in respect of how-to-vote cards.

The contentions advanced on behalf of the applicants focussed on the word “for” and submitted that when the section refers to a how-to-vote card “for a registered political party” and refers to a how-to-vote card “for a candidate endorsed by a registered political party”, the word “for” means “in favour of” or “on the side of”.  In other words, the argument is that if a how-to-vote card points to, or is favourable to a particular political party, then it is a how-to-vote card “for” that political party.

For the reasons that follow, I cannot accept that there is a serious argument to be advanced in relation to that construction of the section.

Section 183 imposes obligations on particular people. The particular people on whom the obligations are cast are persons “who authorise a how-to-vote card for a registered political party or for a candidate endorsed by a registered political party”. In my view, the obvious and common understanding of the word “for”, particularly in the context of it being coupled with the word “authorised”, clearly connotes that the word “for” means and bears the common meaning of the how-to-vote card in question being one which was “on behalf of” or “intended to belong to” the relevant political party. It would, in my view, be a considerable strain on the language of section 183 (1) to construe the word “for” as merely indicating a preference, as was the case put on behalf of the applicants.

As I have said, the word “for” needs to be read in the context of it being used in conjunction with the word “authorised”.  Again, authorisation is a commonly understood notion.  It connotes the giving of authority or legal power.  It does not, despite the best efforts of counsel for the applicants to argue the point in reliance on the heading to section 181 of the Act, mean “wrote”.  A subsidiary argument advanced by the applicants in that regard was that an author “authorises” an article when he or she writes it.

As I have said, these are words of common meaning and just as the word “authorised” has a well-received and commonly understood meaning, so, too, the phrase:

authorised a how-to-vote card for a registered political party –

in my view bears the clear and obvious connotation that reference is being made to a how-to vote-card on behalf of – or belonging to – a political party.

Other arguments were addressed to me in relation to section 182 and also section 181 of the Act in an attempt to persuade me that there is a good argument that the word “for” in this context has the meaning advanced on behalf of the applicants. It is sufficient for me to say simply that nothing said on behalf of the applicants in relation to sections 182 and 181 persuade me that there is any serious argument to be advanced in relation to the meaning of the word “for” where it appears in section 183. In those circumstances, I am not satisfied that the applicants have raised a sufficiently serious question for the grant of injunctive relief. The application is refused.