NSW Liberals faction row ‘extremely dangerous’

Extraordinary meeting called for NSW Liberal executive amid fears of a federal power grab.

NSW Liberal Party state director Chris Stone. Picture: AAP

NSW Liberal Party president Philip Ruddock proposed a federal intervention into his own division during an extraordinary state executive meeting on Wednesday – a move branded “extremely dangerous” in legal advice ­obtained by those opposing it.

During the midday Zoom call, state executive members were presented with a proposal by lawyers representing the Liberal Party arguing that the power of the state executive would extinguish on February 28.

This would then require the federal executive to extend the term of the body to ensure it could continue to function.

If federal intervention was to proceed, Mr Ruddock would need to go to the Liberal federal executive meeting this Thursday and secure its support for the current terms of state executive members to be extended beyond the cut-off date. It was proposed the terms be extended until the NSW Liberal Party’s next annual general meeting on March 27.

If unsuccessful, any decisions made by the state executive after February 28 could potentially be invalid and open to legal challenge, according to legal advice from Robert Newlinds SC presented at the meeting.

Opposing legal advice sought by state executive member Matthew Cammenzuli said the argument presented by the lawyers representing the NSW Liberal Party was flawed and did not even conclude that the term of state executive members would expire by February 28.

“There are numerous other flaws with what is being proposed by Ruddock/Stone, not least that the proposal does not achieve the very thing they say it is designed to achieve,” the advice said.

Seen by The Australian, the opposing legal advice argued the federal executive could intervene only if it determined there was an immediate threat that had the potential to “substantially prejudice the ability of the party to effectively contest or win a federal ­election”.

Even if that conclusion was reached, the opposing legal advice questioned why the federal executive would proceed to extend the term of the same state executive that had presided over the creation of the problem itself.

It also said there was a “very real risk” the proposal could lead to appointment of an administrator. “It is therefore extremely dangerous to request such an intervention and there would be ­little that could be done to oppose any terms of an intervention in court,” the advice said.

One senior Liberal source said accepting the proposal was akin to “asking for your own execution”.

A source on the state executive said: “Legal advice I’ve seen clearly demonstrates that part nine of the constitution provides for times like this, and allows the executive and division to continue as is”.

The legal advice obtained by Mr Cammenzuli noted that Mr Ruddock had neither sought nor received written assurance that the federal executive would intervene on the terms as asked of them. Mr Ruddock rejected the notion his proposal would lead to dissolution of the state executive.