Court set to rule on Scott Morrison’s federal election picks

The NSW Court of Appeal will decide on Friday whether Scott Morrison can have the final say over which candidates are selected in 12 seats.

Scott Morrison has for months attempted to bypass his state division and local Liberal Party branches to install candidates into vital seats. Picture: Michael Klein

The NSW Court of Appeal will on Friday decide whether Scott Morrison can have the final say over which candidates are selected in 12 seats across NSW – shielding three of his senior MPs from preselection challenges – just days out from the federal election being called.

High Court Chief Justice Susan Kiefel rejected an attempt by the Prime Minister’s legal representatives to move the case ­directly to the nation’s highest court, remitting it back to the NSW Court of ­Appeal. But she said the High Court could hear an appeal as soon as Tuesday.

During a special leave hearing on Thursday afternoon, ­the Attorney-General Michaelia Cash made an extraordinary ­application in support of Mr Morrison’s right to pick his own candidates in the face of factional warfare inside the NSW division.

State executive member Matt Camenzuli has challenged the Liberal federal executive’s ­appointment of a temporary committee comprising Mr Morrison, NSW Premier Dominic Perrottet and former federal president Christine McDiven, to endorse Immigration Minister Alex Hawke, Environment Minister Sussan Ley and North Sydney MP Trent Zimmerman.

Any ruling on the validity of their endorsement will likely have major ramifications on Mr Morrison’s ability to select candidates in nine other seats, including the battleground electorates of Parramatta, Hughes and Eden-Monaro.

Mr Morrison has for months attempted to bypass his own state division and local Liberal Party branches to install candidates into vital seats, despite resistance by factional warlords and a resolute contingent of the state executive.

During the hearing, Mr Morrison’s counsel, Guy Reynolds SC, said the Solicitor-General, ­Stephen Donaghue, would like to make a request on behalf of Senator Cash. Mr Donaghue argued the case involved a constitutional question about whether courts could rule on party matters.

Mr Donaghue conceded he was in a “weak position” because the Attorney-General hadn’t decided whether to intervene in the matter. Mr Reynolds also argued that there was a “need for finality” – which the NSW Court of Appeal “cannot deliver”.

“The difficulties that present themselves today are going to be far more difficult in a few days’, or weeks’, time. So urgency and purpose towards the matter are remaining … to suggest otherwise, with respect, carries no weight at all,” Mr Reynolds said.

But Chief Justice Kiefel said: “You’re not scaring me, Mr Reynolds. Urgency is a matter that the court deals with all the time. And you shouldn’t assume that an ­application for special leave would be granted.”

With the case already scheduled for Friday morning, Scott Robertson, Mr Camenzuli’s barrister, said the matter was one of “extraordinary urgency” which couldn’t be delayed beyond the weekend, as the utility of the legal challenge “diminishes hour by hour, day by day”.

The constitutional question posed by Mr Donaghue was “very tenuous”, Chief Justice Kiefel said, and while compelled to accept the request under section 40 of the ­Judiciary Act, she remitted the case directly back to the NSW Court of Appeal – for “urgency, ­efficiency and utility”.

Opposition legal affairs spokesman Mark Dreyfus blasted the decision to involve the nation’s most senior legal office to “resolve his internal Liberal Party brawls”.

“Why are taxpayers paying for the commonwealth’s most senior lawyer, the Solicitor-General, to go to the High Court today to take sides in a NSW Liberal Party faction war?” he said.

A spokesman for Senator Cash said she had not “intervened” in the matter, asserting the Attorney-General’s application for removal to the High Court was “merely in recognition of the fact a serious constitutional issue was raised that needs to be determined”.

“It is not uncommon for the ­Attorney-General to be involved in section 78(b) notices,” he said.

Mr Camenzuli’s legal challenge argues the appointed committee has no legal authority to appoint or endorse candidates. “The words at the foot of cl 12.3(b) of the federal constitution make clear neither the federal executive nor an administrator or committee appointed by them shall have the power to amend a divisional constitution,” written submissions read. “It follows that those resolutions were not effective to endorse any person as the Liberal candidate.”