Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 (Cth) s 134

1. On 20 July 1984, on the application of John Mulholland and others, the Democratic Labor Party (DLP) of Australia was registered with the Australian Electoral Commission as a political party. At all times subsequently, until 8 January 2010, Mr Mulholland remained the registered officer of the DLP.
2. The joined party, Anthony Zegenhagen, and three other members of the party made an application on 9 December 2009 to change the Register of Political Parties held by the Electoral Commission by substituting Mr Zegenhagen for Mr Mulholland as the registered officer.
3. On 8 January 2010 a delegate of the Electoral Commission decided to change the Register by substituting the name of Mr Zegenhagen for that of Mr Mulholland as the registered officer of the DLP. The delegate's decision was affirmed by the Commission on 28 May 2010. Mr Mulholland is seeking review of the Commission's decision.
4. For the reasons which follow we have decided that the decision under review is correct. It will be affirmed.

1. Subsection 134(1) of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 (Cth) (the Act) provides in part:

Where a political party is registered under this Part, an application may be made to the Electoral Commission, by:

...

(b) in the case of a political party other than a Parliamentary party - 3 members of the party;

to change the Register by:

...

(g) substituting for the name of the registered officer entered in the Register the name of a person specified in the application.

1. Subsection 134(3) of the Act provides:

Upon receipt of an application under subsection (1) or (1A), the Electoral Commission shall deal with the application in accordance with this Part and determine whether the change requested in the application should be made.

1. On the basis of the evidence of Mr Zegenhagen we are satisfied that the DLP is "an unincorporated association of volunteer members who share a common political purpose and a desire to work through the DLP to contribute to the democratic process in Australia and its constituent states."[1] The party is governed by its Constitution and Rules.[2]
2. Clause 34 of the Constitution provides:

Federal Conference: The supreme governing body of the Democratic Labor Party (DLP) of Australia shall be the Federal Conference, meeting at the earliest practicable opportunity in the period between each federal election or as otherwise required by the Federal Executive or requested by a majority of the State Branches. The Federal Executive may convene a Federal Conference by way of correspondence or by postal vote in the same manner applicable to a State Conference. Any questions resolved in this manner shall have the full effect of Federal Conference decisions.

Until the reconstitution of a Branch of the Democratic Labor Party (DLP) of Australia in a State other than Victoria, decisions of the State Conference and the State Executive of the Victorian Branch shall have respective standing as Federal Conference and Federal Executive decisions, to the extent of their relevance to the federal context. At any time, the effect of this rule shall apply, mutatis mutandis_, to any single remaining State Branch._

1. Prior to the mid-nineteen seventies the DLP was a party with up to five Senators in the Australian Parliament. In the mid-seventies the organisation of the party collapsed in all States except Victoria. The Victorian Branch continued to operate at both the State and Federal levels. The DLP was registered as a political party under the Act in 1984. At the time of the registration of the party, Mr Mulholland was the Victorian secretary and the Federal secretary of the party and on registration he became the registered officer.[3]
2. Mr Mulholland gave evidence that on 1 July 2007 a meeting of the Victorian State Conference was held.[4] Mr Mulholland claims that this meeting was also a meeting of the Federal Conference and that at the meeting he was elected as Victorian and Federal secretary of the DLP.
3. Mr Mulholland referred us to a document headed Resolutions of Victorian/Federal Conference of the DLP 2007.[5] This document is undated and unsigned and makes no reference to the election of Mr Mulholland to a position within the party.
4. At the hearing of this application Mr Zegenhagen produced a minute book entitled[6]

Democratic Labor Party (DLP) of Australia

Minutes of meetings of the Victorian State Executive [Acting Federal Executive]

Mr Mulholland identified the entries in the book as being his handwriting.

1. There are no minutes of meeting in the book dated 1 July 2007. There are minutes of a meeting recorded as being held on 6 July 2007.[7] The minute book was included in material ordered to be released to Mr Zegenhagen by the Supreme Court of Victoria.[8] The minutes immediately preceding this entry are dated 1 June 2007; the entry immediately following is dated 3 August 2007. Stapled to the second page of the minutes of 6 July 2007 is a copy of the document headed Resolutions of Victorian/Federal Conference of the DLP 2007 referred to previously.[9]
2. The minutes of 6 July 2007 are headed Democratic Labor Party Executive Meeting held 6 July 2007 at East Richmond Library. There is no record in the minutes of the election of Mr Mulholland as either the Victorian secretary or the Federal secretary.
3. Mr Mulholland argues that as the minutes record that he delivered the Executive Report it should be inferred that he was elected secretary. We do not agree that this is an inference which can be validly made. There is no factual basis to make the inference nor is there any basis in law for so doing.
4. On the evidence before us it would seem that Mr Mulholland was not elected Federal secretary of the DLP on or about 1 July 2007 and there is no evidence to suggest that he was elected to this position at any time after that date. In addition to the lack of any record of such an election, we have taken into account that the Constitution requires that the Federal Executive be elected by the Federal Conference.[10] Even if the meeting was properly constituted as a State and Federal meeting (and we do not find that it was so constituted), the minutes upon which Mr Mulholland relies record that the meeting was a meeting of the Executive.

1. By the middle of 2008, a Federal Conference had not been held following the Federal Election in November 2007.
2. At the Victorian State Conference held on 13 September 2008 Mr Mulholland was defeated in a contested ballot for the position of Victorian State secretary. Mark Farrell was elected secretary of the Victorian State Branch. Kevin Butler was elected as the president. Mr Mulholland subsequently called a meeting of the members of the State Executive. This meeting was scheduled for 28 September 2008. At the meeting it was resolved that a further conference be convened on 15 November 2008 "at which the members would have the opportunity to resolve the issue in dispute in accordance with rule 42 of the Rules."[11] The dispute concerned the eligibility of persons to vote at the State Conference held on 13 September 2008.
3. On 17 October 2008 the Victorian Electoral Commission recognised Mr Farrell as the secretary of the Victorian Branch of the DLP. On 18 December 2008 the Victorian Electoral Commission also recognised him as the registered officer of the Victorian Branch.
4. On 12 November 2008, Hollingworth J made Interlocutory Orders in the Victorian Supreme Court restraining Mr Mulholland from "describing himself or holding himself out as the Secretary of the DLP, Victorian Branch", from cancelling monthly meetings of the State Executive of the DLP, Victorian Branch, from convening a conference proposed for 15 November 2008 and from signing cheques on behalf of the Victorian Branch of the DLP.[12] Mr Farrell and Mr Mulholland were parties to these proceedings.
5. Terms of Settlement were subsequently agreed between the parties on 23 February 2009 and the proceedings were dismissed on 6 March 2009 with a right of reinstatement if there was any breach of the agreement. One of the terms of settlement was for the convening of a jointly supported conference for 9 May 2009.[13]
6. The parties failed to agree on the arrangements for the conference proposed for 9 May 2009. Mr Mulholland then resumed representing himself as the Victorian secretary. Both parties to the dispute held separate conferences on 9 May 2009. Mr Mulholland claims that he was re-elected Victorian secretary of the DLP at the conference he attended. Thereafter, his supporters and the supporters of Mr Farrell separately held themselves out as constituting the Victorian Branch of the DLP.
7. Mr Mulholland applied to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal to review the decision of the Victorian Electoral Commission, which changed the Register of Political Parties by accepting the application of Mr Farrell as the Victorian State secretary of the DLP (G837/2008). On 3 December 2009 Deputy President Macnamara affirmed that decision. Mr Mulholland appealed this decision to the Supreme Court of Victoria. The decision was affirmed by Williams J on 18 March 2011 (Mulholland v Victorian Electoral Commission & Anor [2011] VSC 89). Mr Mulholland has appealed to the Victorian Court of Appeal. At the date of the hearing of the application before us the appeal had not been finalised.
8. On 28 November 2009 a meeting was held in Brisbane. Mr Zegenhagen claims that this meeting was the Federal Conference of the Democratic Labor Party (DLP) of Australia and that this meeting validly declared him to be the Federal secretary and Registered Officer of the party for the purposes of dealing with the Electoral Commission. Mr Mulholland denies that this was a properly constituted meeting of the party and denies that Mr Zegenhagen was validly appointed as the registered officer. We must consider the competing arguments in determining the issues in this application.

1. To decide whether the Register of Political Parties should be changed by substituting Anthony Zegenhagen for John Mulholland as the Registered Officer of the DLP as at 9 December 2009, we have to decide the issues set out below.
   • (a) Had a branch or branches of the DLP been reconstituted in a State or States (other than Victoria) prior to 28 November 2009, and if so, when?
   • (b) Was a Federal Conference of the DLP requested by a majority of the State Branches of the DLP prior to 28 November 2009?
   • (c) Was a properly constituted meeting of the Federal Conference of the DLP held in Brisbane on 28 November 2009?
   • (d) If so, was Mr Zegenhagen validly appointed to be the registered officer of the DLP for the purposes of the Act?
   • (e) Was a meeting of the Federal Conference of the DLP held in Sydney on 23 July 2011 and if so, was any decision made relevant to the registration of Mr Zegenhagen as the registered officer of the party for the purposes of the Act?

1. Mr Zegenhagen filed an affidavit in these proceedings and gave evidence. We are satisfied that he gave his evidence truthfully and to the best of his recollection. Unless otherwise stated, additional findings of fact made in considering the issues are based on his evidence.

Issue 1: Had a Branch or Branches of the DLP been reconstituted in a State or States (other than Victoria) prior to 28 November 2009, and if so, when?

1. Mr Zegenhagen gave evidence that by July 2009 there were four active State branches of the DLP, namely New South Wales, Queensland, Victoria and Western Australia.[14] He was conscious of this date as he had been advised by the Commission that a Federal Conference should be called at least four months prior to its being held. This is a requirement of cl 65 of the Constitution. By "active State branches" he meant that the branches were recognised by the Electoral Commission, were filing returns with the Electoral Commission, had functional executives, were holding regular meetings and were supporting and promoting the rules, principles and policies of the DLP.[15] Michael O'Donohue was secretary of the New South Wales branch, Mr Zegenhagen was secretary of the Queensland branch and Eric Miller was secretary of the Western Australian branch.
2. In relation to the South Australian branch, Mr Zegenhagen said that it had not been reconstituted by the time the meeting of the Federal Conference was called, which was sometime in July 2009. He said that it was reconstituted shortly after the meeting was called and David McCabe was appointed secretary.[16]
3. Mr Zegenhagen said also that Mr Farrell was secretary of the Victorian branch, although Mr Mulholland disputed this at the time and still does. At that time the dispute in the Victorian branch (to which we have already referred) was continuing with competing meetings being held by a group led by Mr Mulholland and a group led by Mr Farrell. There were no similar disputes in the other States.
4. On 20 October 2008 the Registrar of Political Parties at the Electoral Commission wrote to "Mr O'Donohue DLP NSW" thanking him for his advice of 16 October 2008 "that the NSW State Branch of the Democratic Labor Party (DLP) of Australia has reformed..."[17] The letter referred also to the branch having reformed on 26 July 2008.
5. On 8 October 2008 Mr Mulholland sent an email to Mr Zegenhagen advising him of the need for each State branch to lodge an annual return with the Electoral Commission. The email included the following statement:

As the Queensland branch of the DLP has been formally established or re-established, an Annual Return is required from the Party Agent appointed by the Queensland branch - probably yourself, as Secretary and Agent.[18]

1. Also on 8 October 2008 Mr Mulholland sent emails in similar terms to that referred to in the preceding paragraph to Mr O'Donohue, referring to the New South Wales branch[19] and to Brian Peachey, referring to the Western Australian branch.[20]
2. Mr Mulholland admits that he sent these emails but argues that they do not indicate that the branches had been reconstituted under the Constitution as there had been no acceptance of their reconstitution by the Federal Executive. He said that his intention in sending the emails was to refer only to the obligations of any committees or groups involved in fund-raising within the States. He contended that at the time and at all times from 2009 onwards, the only validly constituted State branches of the DLP have been those of Victoria and New South Wales. We do not accept this argument. There is nothing in the Constitution to support the contention that to be reconstituted a State branch must be recognised by the Federal Executive. The three emails are evidence of the reconstitution of each of the State branches by 8 October 2008.
3. As at 6 April 2009 the Commission's Funding and Disclosure Register of Party Agents recorded Mr Zegenhagen, Mr Peachey and Mr O'Donohue as the agents of the Queensland, Western Australian and New South Wales branches of the DLP respectively.[21]
4. On 9 July 2009 a letter was written to the Electoral Commission on DLP letterhead concerning the Registered Officer of the DLP. The letter was signed by Mr Zegenhagen as "DLP Qld State Secretary" and Mr Farrell as "DLP Vic State Secretary". The letter was signed also by Mr McCabe as "Convenor of the DLP in SA".[22]
5. On 9 July 2009 Peter Kavanagh, the Member for Western Victoria in the Legislative Council of Victoria, sent an email to Mr O'Brien of the Electoral Commission. He stated, in part:

There are now (recently reformed) DLP state branches in each mainland state of Australia. There is no DLP branch in Tasmania. ... I have been in contact with the secretaries of DLP state branches...[23]

1. On the basis of the evidence of Mr Zegenhagen and the documents we have referred to, we are satisfied that the following State branches were reconstituted as follows:
   • New South Wales on 26 July 2008;
   • Queensland and Western Australia no later than 8 October 2008;
   • South Australia during or shortly after July 2009.

Issue 2: Was the holding of a Federal Conference of the DLP requested by a majority of the State branches of the DLP prior to 28 July 2009?

1. Mr Zegenhagen gave evidence that prior to July 2009 he spoke to the secretaries of the Victorian, West Australian and New South Wales branches and that they emailed him requesting a meeting of the Federal Conference be called. The Queensland branch (of which Mr Zegenhagen was secretary) also required that a meeting of the Conference be held.[24]
2. Mr Zegenhagen said also that he spoke to the secretary of the South Australian branch at the same time. However he said later that the South Australian branch was reconstituted shortly after the meeting of the Federal Conference was called. We accept that Mr Zegenhagen probably spoke to Mr McCabe concerning the proposed conference but at a time when the process of reconstituting the South Australian branch was in progress and before Mr McCabe was elected secretary.
3. In the letter dated 9 July 2009 from Mr Kavanagh to the Commission, to which we have already referred, Mr Kavanagh also stated:

I have been in contact with the secretaries of the DLP state branches and proposed that:

(a) A DLP federal conference be called asap, and

(b) That Mr. Tony Zegenhagen, state secretary of Qld, be asked to convene this conference at his earliest convenience, and

...

I have since received explicit, in writing (email) agreements, from three of the DLP's five state branches (being Victoria, Queensland and South Australia) to all of my proposals. Western Australia has accepted the first proposal in writing... New South Wales is yet to respond.[25]

1. On the basis of the evidence of Mr Zegenhagen, supported by the letter from Mr Kavanagh, we are satisfied that the meeting of the Federal Conference was requested by the State branches of Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria and Western Australia. As we have decided that at the time the meeting was called these were the only State branches in existence, we are satisfied that by early July 2009 a majority of the State branches of the DLP had requested that a meeting of the Federal Conference be held.
2. Even if we accepted Mr Mulholland's argument that the Victorian branch which participated in this process was "bogus" (which we do not) the request would still have been made by three out of the four State branches.

Issue 3: Was a properly constituted meeting of the Federal Conference of the DLP held in Brisbane on 28 November 2009?

What are the requirements for a properly constituted meeting?

1. For ease of reference we again set out cl 34 of the Constitution:

Federal Conference: The supreme governing body of the Democratic Labor Party (DLP) of Australia shall be the Federal Conference, meeting at the earliest practicable opportunity in the period between each federal election or as otherwise required by the Federal Executive or requested by a majority of the State Branches. The Federal Executive may convene a Federal Conference by way of correspondence or by postal vote in the same manner applicable to a State Conference. Any questions resolved in this manner shall have the full effect of Federal Conference decisions.

Divisions: A reference in the Constitution and Rules to a "division" of the Democratic Labor Party may include a State Branch, a Local Branch, a Support Group or an Affiliated Organisation, as appropriate.

1. Clause 35 provides for representation at the Federal Conference, in part as follows:

Representation at Federal Conference: Each State Branch of the party shall be represented at Federal Conference by delegates of the State Branch in proportion to its membership...and each Federal/State Secretary, or a proxy from the respective Executives, and the Democratic Party leader and deputy leader in each House of the Federal Parliament shall be ex officio delegates.

The respective Federal/State Executive shall set a date for any Federal/State Conference required to be held. As near as practicable to four months before Conference, the Federal/State Executive shall notify the respective divisions of the Federal/State organisation and request that any motions for inclusion on the official agenda be submitted within two months, or such other period as to allow reasonable time for the compiling of composite motions that may be required for effective and expeditious proceedings.

1. The only sections of the party structure which are referred to as having representation at the Federal Conference are the State branches. It follows that the "divisions" requiring notification under cl 65 are the State branches only and not other parts of the organisation or individual members. This interpretation is consistent with the wording of cl 35 and cl 26. It is also consistent with the DLP being a federation of constituent State or Territory branches with only one branch from each State and Territory.[26]
2. Clauses 34 and 65 appear to be the only provisions of the Constitution which refer to the manner of calling a meeting of the Federal Conference, as distinct from the procedure at the meeting itself. Clause 27 which relates to State Conferences does not provide any further guidance as to the manner in which the meeting is to be called.
3. In accordance with the clauses referred to, the requirements for the calling of a meeting of the Federal Conference are:
   • (a) the meeting be required by the Federal Executive or requested by a majority of the State branches;
   • (b) notice of the meeting be given to the State branches as near as practicable to four months before the meeting.

1. We have already decided that the meeting was requested by a majority of the State branches.
2. Mr Mulholland argued that the correct interpretation of cl 34 is that a meeting of the Federal Conference can only be called by the Federal Executive and that those who gave notice of the meeting did not constitute the Federal Executive. He contended that, in accordance with cl 148,[27] notice of the meeting had to be given by the Victorian State Executive which was also the Federal Executive for this purpose.
3. We do not agree with this argument. First, by the time the Federal Conference was convened, branches of the DLP had been reconstituted outside Victoria so that the clause no longer operated. Secondly, putting aside the question of who constituted the Victorian State Executive at the time, cl 34 does not mean that only the Federal Executive can issue the notices to call a meeting of the Federal Conference. To determine otherwise would mean that the Federal Executive could negate the request of the State branches which are the divisions of the Conference itself.
4. Mr Mulholland's argument would also have the effect of making the Constitution unworkable as it is the Federal Conference which elects the Federal Executive (see cl 37). Clearly the Constitution envisages that a meeting of the Federal Conference can be called by its divisions, being the State branches, prior to the election of a Federal Executive.

1. Once the requests for the meeting were received Mr Zegenhagen again spoke to the State secretaries and it was agreed that the meeting would be held in Brisbane on 28 November 2009.
2. Mr Zegenhagen said that when the venue was agreed the following steps were taken to convene the meeting:
   • each State branch was advised to place an advertisement of the proposed meeting in the Public Notices section of a newspaper; the Queensland branch placed a Notice in the Courier Mail;
   • notices were mailed to all known members in every State using a database which had been kept by Mr Mulholland and ordered to be released by him by the Supreme Court of Victoria; this database was added to by the State branches;
   • the notices were sent in early July 2009, being more than four months before the date of the proposed meeting.
3. The minutes of the Brisbane meeting show that the Victorian, Queensland, South Australian and Western Australian branches were all represented at the meeting.[28] The New South Wales branch was aware of the meeting but withdrew less than 48 hours before the meeting was to be held.[29]
4. We are satisfied, on the basis of the evidence of Mr Zegenhagen, that all of the State branches were notified of the proposed meeting at least four months before the date on which it was proposed to be held. Under cl 65 this is all the notice required.
5. However, during the hearing of this application Mr Mulholland applied to call a number of witnesses who had been present in the hearing room whilst he and Mr Zegenhagen had been giving evidence. The witnesses called were Mr Patrick Crea, Ms Frances Murphy, Mr Patrick Keelan, Mr Gerard Flood and Mr Paul Bennet.
6. Mr Crea said that he was a member of the DLP and appointed as a delegate to attend the Federal Conference. He said that he became aware of the proposed meeting in Brisbane "at a very late date" as a result of a conversation with Mr Mulholland but that he did not attend as he regarded it as a "bogus conference". Mr Crea denied receiving any written notice of the proposed meeting.[30]
7. Ms Murphy said that she did not receive written notice of the meeting and learned of it from Mr Mulholland.[31]
8. Mr Keelan said that he did not recall receiving notice of the meeting, but that he learned of it in conversations between Mr Mulholland or other members of the party.[32]
9. Mr Flood said that he did not receive notice of the meeting and that he learned of it through telephone conversations and conversations at Victorian State executive meetings.[33]
10. Mr Bennet could not recall if he had been notified of the meeting, but before it was held he became aware that it had been called.[34]
11. Having considered the evidence of these witnesses we are satisfied that they all were aware of the proposed meeting to be held in Brisbane. There is no evidence to suggest that anyone was prevented from attending the meeting had he or she wished to do so. We are satisfied that each of the witnesses was a supporter of Mr Mulholland in the dispute within the Victorian branch.
12. Mr Mulholland admits that he was invited to attend the Brisbane meeting. He did not attend as he was of the view that it was a "bogus" conference and that "as Federal Secretary of the DLP [he] had no alternative but to regard such an "invitation" as confronting the constitutional authority of the Federal Executive and in defiance of the Rules."[35]
13. On the basis of the evidence of Mr Zegenhagen and the representation of the various State branches at the Brisbane meeting recorded in the minutes, we are satisfied also that reasonable steps were taken by the State branches to notify members of the DLP of the proposed meeting. We cannot be satisfied that every member of the DLP was notified, particularly in the light of the dispute that was continuing in the Victorian branch where most of the members resided. However, we have decided that there was no requirement that all members of the DLP receive notice in any event. We are satisfied that Mr Zegenhagen and others who were organising the meeting took all reasonable steps to publicise the meeting and in so doing they went beyond what the Constitution required.

Issue 4: Was Mr Zegenhagen validly appointed to be the Registered Officer of the DLP for the purposes of the Act?

1. On the basis of the evidence of Mr Zegenhagen we are satisfied that the document which is exhibit ACZ-2 to his affidavit sworn 17 October 2011 is a true copy of the minutes of the meeting of the Federal Conference of the Democratic Labor Party (DLP) of Australia held on 28 November 2009. There is no evidence before us, nor was it argued, that the procedures carried out during that meeting were other than in accordance with the requirements of the Constitution of the party. We note that it is recorded that the delegate and proxy holder credentials were declared legitimate by members of each State Executive.
2. The minutes record that, so far as is relevant to this application, the following motion was carried unanimously:

That this Federal Conference appoints Tony Zegenhagen as agent and Registered Officer for the DLP when dealing with the AEC.

1. Prior to this the Conference had elected Mr Zegenhagen as the Federal secretary of the DLP.
2. We are accordingly satisfied that at a meeting of the Federal Conference of the Democratic Labor Party (DLP) of Australia held at Brisbane on 28 November 2009, Mr Zegenhagen was appointed the registered officer for the party for the purposes of the Act.

Issue 5: Was a meeting of the Federal Conference of the DLP held in Sydney on 23 July 2011 and if so, was any decision made relevant to the registration of Mr Zegenhagen as the Registered Officer of the party for the purposes of the Act?

1. Mr Zegenhagen gave evidence that following the Federal election held on 21 August 2010, at which the party's candidates contested seats in every State, a meeting of the Federal Conference was held in Sydney on 23 July 2011.[36] He said further that at that time all States had active branches which had executive meetings every month and which supported the current Federal Executive. All States were represented at the Sydney meeting. Victoria and New South Wales were represented by State Executives. Groups supporting Mr Mulholland in Victoria and a local government branch of which Mr O'Donohue is the secretary in New South Wales, are opposed to the Executives represented at the meeting.[37]
2. Senator John Madigan, the party's representative in the Federal Parliament, attended the Sydney meeting.[38] We note that under cl 37 the DLP leader in each House of the Federal Parliament is ex officio a delegate to the Federal Conference.
3. Mr Mulholland made the same argument against the validity of this meeting as he did against the Brisbane meeting. As stated previously we do not accept his argument.
4. On the basis of the evidence of Mr Zegenhagen we are satisfied that the meeting held in Sydney on 23 July 2011 was a meeting of the Federal Conference of the DLP. We are satisfied also that the document which is exhibit ACZ-11 to his affidavit is a true copy of the minutes of that meeting.
5. The minutes record that Mr Zegenhagen was elected Federal secretary of the party unopposed. There was no motion moved in relation to Mr Zegenhagen's position as registered officer of the party. On this basis we conclude that the Federal Conference accepted that Mr Zegenhagen continued in this role following his appointment at the meeting in Brisbane in November 2009.

1. We are satisfied that on 28 November 2009 a valid meeting of the Federal Conference of the Democratic Labor Party (DLP) of Australia appointed Mr Anthony Zegenhagen as the registered officer of the party for the purposes of the Act.
2. We are satisfied also that on 3 December 2009 an application was properly made to the Commission to change the Register of Political Parties by substituting the name of Anthony Zegenhagen for that of John Mulholland as the registered officer of the party. It is to be noted that Mr Mulholland did not dispute that the application was made in accordance with correct procedures.
3. For these reasons the decision of the Commission made on 28 May 2010 will be affirmed.

I certify that the preceding seventy-nine (79) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of the Honourable Justice Downes, President, Deputy President J W Constance and Mr John Handley, Senior Member.

.................[sgd].......................................................

[1] Affidavit of Anthony Zegenhagen 15 October 2011.

[2] Section 37 Documents T3 and Exhibit ACZ-1 to the Affidavit of Mr Zegenhagen 15 October 2011.

[3] Statement of John Mulholland 30 September 2011.

[4] Statement of John Mulholland 30 September 2011.

[11] Statement of John Mulholland 30 September 2011.

[13] Exhibit JVM-D to statement of John Mulholland 30 September 2011.

[14] Transcript 21 October 2011 pp 46-48.

[15] Transcript 21 October 2011 p 50.

[16] Transcript 21 October 2011 p47.

[24] Transcript 21 October 2011 pp 46-48.

[29] Affidavit of Anthony Zegenhagen 15 October 2011 para 12.

[30] Transcript 21 October 2011 pp 72-73.

[31] Transcript 21 October 2011 pp 73-75.

[32] Transcript 21 October 2011 pp 75-76.

[33] Transcript 21 October 2011 pp 76-77.

[34] Transcript 21 October 2011 pp 77-78.

[35] Statement of John Mulholland 19 October 2011.

[36] Affidavit of Anthony Zegenhagen 17 October 2011 para 24.

[37] Transcript 21 October 2011 p 48.

[38] Transcript 21 October 2011 p 48.