Hudson v Lee (No 2) [1993] HCA 58

High Court of Australia Gaudron J. Hudson v Lee (No 2) [1993] HCA 58

ORDER Petition dismissed. Liberty to the first and second respondents to file in this Court and serve on the petitioner within seven days written submissions with respect to costs. Liberty to the petitioner to file and serve on the first and second respondents within seven days of such service written submissions in reply. Order that the Commonwealth pay to Michael John Lee the amount of costs incurred by him in the proceedings with respect to Petition No. S60 of 1993, including the costs of this application.

Cur. adv. vult.

Aug. 6 Gaudron J. delivered the following written judgment:—

Robert James Neilson Hudson (Jnr) ("the petitioner") lodged a petition in this Court, sitting as the Court of Disputed Returns, pursuant to s. 353(1) of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 (Cth) ("the Act"), disputing the election of Michael John Lee ("the respondent") as the member for the Commonwealth Electoral Division of Dobell, at the House of Representatives elections held on 13 March 1993. The ground asserted in the petition is that the respondent "use[d] [taxpayer funded] Benefit/Entitlements directly for his and the Australian Labor Party's campaign". That, according to the petition, is illegal because it was use "for Party Political Business".

It appears from the petition and a subsequent affidavit of the petitioner that his complaint is restricted to the use by the respondent of his parliamentary or electorate postal allowance to post letters dated 3 March 1993 to electors for the Division of Dobell which, amongst other things, referred to the commitment of the Australian Labor Party to certain policies and objectives. It was asserted that this was use of the allowance for party/political business.