SA Labor Party’s electoral boundaries challenge to be heard by full court of Supreme Court
AN unprecedented challenge to a radical redraw of the state’s electoral boundaries will be heard by the full court of the Supreme Court in a case of “utmost importance” to South Australia.
- Labor Party launches challenge to new electoral boundaries
- Electoral boundaries redraw favours Liberals in key seats
- SA’s new electoral boundaries — the reaction
AN unprecedented challenge to a radical redraw of the state’s electoral boundaries will be heard by the state’s highest court, in a case of “utmost importance” to South Australia.
A rare sitting of five judges of the Supreme Court will next month hear the Australian Labor Party’s landmark appeal against the Electoral Districts Boundaries Commission’s radical redraw of the political landscape.
The boundaries shake-up, announced last month, shifted almost 400,000 South Australians into different seats and placed the Liberals Opposition into pole position to form the next government.
The ALP has, for the first time, appealed the commission’s findings after a decision by the party’s state secretary Reggie Martin, who argue some voters will have more influence than others.
On Monday, the state’s Chief Justice, Chris Kourakis, ruled that five judges would sit on the Full Court bench for the hearing that he ordered would commence next month.
It has not been revealed which judges will sit.
Supreme Court Judge Ann Vanstone, the sister-in-law of former federal Liberal minister Amanda Vanstone, was head of the commission’s panel.
The court heard that while the “state’s highest court” would rule on the case — which will debate complex legal arguments on Australia’s constitution — it was likely that whichever party lost would appeal to the High Court.
The state’s next election is due on March 17 next year, which Labor would need a swing of more than three per cent to secure a historic fifth term.
His judicial ruling came after Adrian Tisato, for the ALP, argued for the “gravitas” rare sitting as the case “strikes at the heart of what it means to be a democratic society”.
“The court is being asked to determine a question of utmost importance to the people of South Australia — namely how they elect their (politicians) and thereby who governs,” he said.
Neither the commission, nor the Liberal party, opposed the application.
The Liberals, who are fighting the court action, have long complained the state’s electoral system is biased against them but, under the redraw, notionally gained on paper four seats currently occupied by Labor MPs.
The Opposition has labelled the challenge as a desperate attempt by Labor to “cling to power”.
Tom Duggan SC, for Liberal state director Sascha Meldrum — who attended court alongside Opposition frontbencher Vickie Chapman — told the court the ALP’s appeal was “vague”.
Mr Martin, who also attended Monday’s hearing, has told party members that his appeal was centred on a belief that a “one vote, one value” rule was ignored and the commission “departed from the principle that (its) aim should be to have the same number of voters in each electorate”.
At the past two state elections, the Liberals have secured more than 50 per cent of the statewide vote but failed to win Government.
The party did not, however, launch a court appeal against redistributions ahead of those polls.
The state’s electoral laws state that any redraw should be based on the principle that the number of voters in each electoral district “must not vary from the electoral quota by more than the permissible tolerance” of 10 per cent.
The commission’s final report for the latest redistribution shows no electorate falls outside that level.
There are fears the court row could delay the selection process for candidates for the state election.
The Liberal Party has opened nominations for some seats but Labor is yet to open preselections.
Neither party commented outside court.