Cusack, Patrick Leo v Australian Electoral Commissioner [1984] FCA 400

The decision which he seeks to have reviewed is that

made by Mr P. Taylor, who is the Divisional Returning Officer for the Division of Ryan. The decision is that Mr Cusack's nomination for the 1 December 1984 House of Representatives Blection would not be accepted unless a deposit of $250.00 in legal tender or by banker's cheque was lodged with that

nomination. That decision was made by Mr Taylor on 30 October 1984 and was confirmed by a letter dated 30 October handed to Mr

Mr Taylor in that letter makes it quite clear that he would not accept a nomination for the 1 December House of Representatives Election unless a deposit of $250.00 in legal tender or banker's cheque was lodged with the nomination. In so acting, Mr Taylor would be acting in accordance with the precise

terms of sub-s. 170(c)(ii) of the Commonwealth Flectoral Act 1918

("the Act"), and it is also important to bear in mind that s.172 of the Act provides in sub-s. (1) that the nomination shall be rejected by the officer to whom 1t is made if, and only if, the

provisions of, inter alia, s-170, have not been complied with in

Mr Cusack in his material concedes that the decision has been taken in accordance with the particular provisions of 3.170

His submissions essentially are four, the first of which 13 that in some way, which is by no means clear to me, there has been a breach of the rules of natural justice. In that respect none of the material before me indicates any such breach. I need

not trouble myself any further with that particular ground.

In relation to the three other grounds, they are that there has in some way been an improper exercise of power by Mr Taylor; alternatively, his decision involved an error of law, not immediately apparent; or that the decision was otherwise contrary to law. Each of these aspects of Mr Cusack's argument involve the same general thrust; namely, that the requirements

of 3.170, boosted as they are by the forfeiture provisions of

83.173, are in conflict with either rights conferred or at least recognised by 8.327 of the Act, or cardinal, old-established inherent rights which derive from the Magna Carta, or other

In respect, for instance, of his argument in relation to an improper exercise of power, Mr Cusack says that the making of a decision not to accept a nomination on the basis stated is an improper exercise of the power insofar as it fails to take relevant consideration into account in the exercise of the power, namely s.327, which is in conformity he says with cardinal, old-established and inherent statutes, particularly Cap. 29 of the Great Charter of Liberties. He says further that the decision, while appearing to be correct, involves a conflict between the provisions of ss. 173 and 327, and that the more general provision, 3.327 of the Act, should prevail; and finally, that in relation to the decision being contrary to law, that the making of a decision which would involve conflict of the deposit and forfeiture provisions on the one hand with the

electoral offences provisions and with the old-established and inherent statutes, in particular Magna Carta, on the other, is

such that a decision based on 3.170 would be unlawful.

Involved in all of those submissions is the suggestion that a legislative provision that is in conflict with Magna Carta

I think it is necessary to make it as clear as I can to

Mr Cusack and perhaps others that there has been involved in this

whole approach a misconception of the constitutional provisions that apply to legislation passed by the Australian Parliament.

Sir Samuel Griffith made it clear in Chia Gee v. Martin (1906) 3

C.L.R. 649 that it is not open to argument that a law of the Commonwealth is invalid because it is not in conformity with Magna Carta. In that particular case, it was argued on behalf of Chinese immigrants, who had been charged with offences of being

unlawful immigrants, that the language test requirement under the

Immigration Restriction Act 1901 was invalid as being contrary to

the convictions in this case, all of which are unsubstantial. ... The first point made by Mr Le Mesurier was that the Immigration Restriction Act 1901 was unconstitutional, because its provisions were contrary to the provisions of Magna Charta, and the Statues which had since confirmed it, and also inconsistent with certain treaties. The contention that a law of the Commonwealth is invalid because it is not in conformity with Magna Charta is not one for serious refutation. As to the objection that the provisions of the Act are invalid as being in conflict with treaties, it is sufficient to say that some day perhaps that question may be raised for decision, but it is not raised now."

His Honour makes it clear that an argument that a law is invalid because it is in conflict with Magna Carta is not a substantial one. His Honour then deals with the other point that it may be inconsistent with certain treaties in this manner: as_ to the objection that the provisions of the Act are invalid as being in conflict with treaties, it is sufficient to say, some day perhaps

that question may be raised for decision but it is not raised

now, and it may be the case that some Commonwealth legislation is

So that at the core of the argument that has been addressed to me by Mr Cusack is a misconception as to the basis upon which Commonwealth legislation may be declared invalid, and the primary submission by Mr Cusack that Magna Carta is in some sense a guarantee that no legislation can be enacted in conflict

As to the other aspect of the grounds to which I have referred in some detail, that is, that there is some invalidity attached to ss. 170 and 173 by virtue of the existence of the provisions contained in s.327; I say simply that no such conflict appears, and in any event, on ordinary principles of statutory interpretation, the provisions of ss. 170 and 173 are

It therefore follows that Mr Taylor was right to reject the nomination that did not comply with the requirements of

sub-s. 170C(ii) of the Act. The decision that Mr Taylor made is

not reviewable within the powers that are given to this Court

pursuant to the provisions of the Administrative Decisions

(Judicial Review) Act. No error of law of any sort has been

demonstrated in respect of that decision and the application 15

I have no doubt as to the Applicant's genuineness but on

ordinary and proper principles this is a case where I think the

I order that the applicant pay the respondent's costs,

those costs to be taxed, including reserved costs, if any. Leertify Hoe cy S$