Former ALP Member Shane Cuthbert's Action Against Party
Decided In The Cairns Supreme Court
26th May, 2022
The Court determined the preliminary issue of Justiciability in the Cairns Supreme Court, ultimately deciding in favour of the ALP finding that, matters concerning the internal decisions and inner working of political parties were not justiciable and that the Supreme Court does not have the jurisdiction to hear Shane Cuthbert's matter.
The Decision of Cuthbert v Abbott & Ors follows other similar decisions in Australia, following the Cameron v Hogan decision of the High Court in 1932.
In reaching his decision Justice Bradley considered and accepted the public importance of political parties stating 'they have been, to certain extents, the subject of legislation in the Commonwealth Electoral Act and the Electoral Act 1992 (Qld).' However provides further that 'Although questions about the person who holds a particular position with a statutory function or duty may be justiciable, neither Act provides that a registered party’s rules or constitution may be legally enforced.
This reasoning goes against that of Baldwin v Everingham [1993] 1 Qd R 10 (followed in several subsequent decisions), where Justice Dowsett distinguished Cameron v Hogan based on the recognition and registration of political parties. Ultimataly concluding that 'following Camenzuli, it must now be accepted that the statutory changes have not put registered political parties in a different position from that which prevailed at the time of Cameron v Hogan in respect of internal disputes.' and further 'Neither the law as it is to be applied by courts nor any statute enacted by Parliament has altered the import of Cameron v Hogan to bring about the situation for which Mr Cuthbert contends.'
You can access the full decision here.
The Decision of Cuthbert v Abbott & Ors follows other similar decisions in Australia, following the Cameron v Hogan decision of the High Court in 1932.
In reaching his decision Justice Bradley considered and accepted the public importance of political parties stating 'they have been, to certain extents, the subject of legislation in the Commonwealth Electoral Act and the Electoral Act 1992 (Qld).' However provides further that 'Although questions about the person who holds a particular position with a statutory function or duty may be justiciable, neither Act provides that a registered party’s rules or constitution may be legally enforced.
This reasoning goes against that of Baldwin v Everingham [1993] 1 Qd R 10 (followed in several subsequent decisions), where Justice Dowsett distinguished Cameron v Hogan based on the recognition and registration of political parties. Ultimataly concluding that 'following Camenzuli, it must now be accepted that the statutory changes have not put registered political parties in a different position from that which prevailed at the time of Cameron v Hogan in respect of internal disputes.' and further 'Neither the law as it is to be applied by courts nor any statute enacted by Parliament has altered the import of Cameron v Hogan to bring about the situation for which Mr Cuthbert contends.'
You can access the full decision here.