Ban on Labor preselections for federal election to be scrapped

A court ban that prevented Labor preselections for the federal election in Victoria will be scrapped, but there’s a major catch.

Opposition Leader Anthony Albanese moved to rush through preselections in the state.

Labor has moved to push through preselections for its safe Victorian federal seats and for a brand new electorate just a day after a court win gave them the greenlight to choose candidates.

It comes as a bruising legal battle between powerbrokers in the party continues, with affiliated unions suing Labor in the Supreme Court to end a federal takeover of the Victorian branch.

They want voting rights returned to members, with tensions centered around the yet to be created federal seat of Hawke which has been proposed between Melbourne’s western suburbs and Ballarat.

The seat is likely to be safe for Labor and former state secretary Sam Rae emerged last month as a frontrunner to be nominated by the party’s national executive, who currently control the process.

Opposition Leader Anthony Albanese moved to rush through preselections for safe Victorian seats over three days at the start of May, sparking factional infighting and a legal challenge that could take weeks to be resolved.

He was handed a win earlier this week when Justice Tim Ginnane, who is hearing the full case against Labor, ruled it was unfair to ban the party from kicking off the preselection process.

In a meeting to be held at 11am Friday, Labor’s national executive is expected to endorse all current federal Labor MPs unopposed.

They are also expected to kick off a contentious ballot for the seat of Hawke, which includes nominations from Mr Rae and two other female candidates.

Groups within Labor have been pushing for a woman to be preselected because the seat has been carved up for the right wing of the party and they argue this faction does not contribute enough to ensuring equal representation.

LABOR GETS EARLY WIN IN BITTER COURT BATTLE

The move comes after a court ban that prevented Labor preselections for the federal election in Victoria was scrapped on Wednesday.

But the party could be asked to wind back its choices for each seat and start over if it loses the Supreme Court battle overall later in the month.

A group of affiliated unions have taken Labor to court after Mr Albanese moved to rush through preselections in the state, including the newly-created seat of Hawke.

He was able to do so because the Victorian Labor branch is still under the control of the federal wing by the party, triggered by a long-running branch stacking scandal that led to the loss of three Andrews Government ministers.

But Mr Albanese’s push was met with a backlash in May when he asked the Labor’s national executive to quickly begin the first stage of the preselection process over three days.

The unions immediately challenged the legality of the federal takeover in the Supreme Court and have argued they should be given a say on candidates along with rank-and-file members.

Marlene Kairouz. Picture: Ellen Smith

Justice Tim Ginnane agreed there was a case to try and placed a temporary ban on preselections in Victoria.

He also agreed to hear the legal battle alongside a case with former minister Marlene Kairouz that also challenges the federal intervention.

But after a gruelling 10 days in court, Justice Ginnane on Wednesday said it would take a significant amount of time to come to a decision and would order that the ban be lifted.

Parts of the court case are now set to continue into next week and Justice Ginnane acknowledged that the freeze on preselections may disadvantage Labor if it continues.

“This is at a time when other political parties are free to nominate candidates,” he said.

“There is some force in the defendant’s submission that campaigning is best associated with the promotion of the preselected candidate.”

The decision could create headaches for the party later in the year, with any preselections likely to be overturned the unions win the court case.

Justice Ginnane acknowledged that this was a risk and the court would have the power to rule these candidates invalid.

“There is a lower risk of ultimate injustice, with no injunction in place,” he said.

“If the plaintiffs succeed, some confusion may occur if different candidates are thereafter pre- selected.

“But if on the other hand the plaintiffs do not succeed, the defendants and their political party have been politically prejudiced … Unable to commence campaigning in electorates.”