Login
Powered by
MOMENTUM
MEDIA
Powered by MOMENTUM MEDIA
With a federal election looming, barrister-turned-party-leader Victor Kline has put his legal skills to the test in order to hold fast to his argument that the name of his political party sufficiently differs from the Liberal Party of Australia, after the latter accused him of attempting to “piggyback” on the brand for votes.
In documents shared with Lawyers Weekly, Victor Kline outlined his argument for why the AEC should uphold the decision that The New Liberals’ name was “sufficiently visually and aurally distinct” from the Liberal Party of Australia, following a highly publicised argument that the former was creating widespread voter confusion.
However, the Liberal Party federal director Andrew Hirst told media he would be seeking a review by a three-person panel in the AEC, which prompted the new submissions from both parties to clarify their positions. Failing that, he does have the option to pursue merits review by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.
Mr Kline submitted that it “borders on the absurd” that the Liberal Party could draw a conclusion that the reasonable voter “would think The New Liberals are part of the old Liberals and so confuse them on the ballot paper”. He said the voter, having considered the difference in the names, could not conclude a link between the two.
Specifically, Mr Kline has argued that unlike The Liberal Party of Australia and the Liberal Democratic Party, The New Liberals does not have “party” in their name, consists of only three words and the word “Liberals” is placed at the end. He said that because of the “Liberal” and “Party” words in the former two, the “overall sound is guttural” and, in contrast, The New Liberals has no common words.
“[The Liberal Party] cannot expect to simply eliminate that other party by taking away its name and preventing it bearing a name which accurately reflects its political philosophies. Any decision which allowed that to happen would, with respect, be one which would be highly improper, dangerous and anti-democratic,” Mr Kline said.
The New Liberals is also seeking the recusal of Tom Rogers from AEC’s three-person panel. Mr Kline argued that Mr Rogers – who was appointed by the Abbott government in 2014 and again by Scott Morrison in 2019 – “owes his position and his livelihood to the parties which now seek to make the Liberal applications”.
“It is at the core of the LNP case that the continued existence of The New Liberals as a political party will threaten their ability to stay in power. Thus, it is crucial to the LNP that Mr Rogers finds in their favour. And it is crucial to Mr Rogers that he also finds in their favour so that they remain predisposed to re-appoint him, and so that they remain in power so they are able to do so,” Mr Kline argued.
Mr Kline has recently announced that he has put together a legal team that would be launching private action against former attorney-general Christian Porter over historic rape allegations outlined in a recently released public dossier. Mr Porter has strenuously denied the allegations.
We're evolving — and so should your insights. Heads up — Lawyers Weekly is going premium from 1 May for just $5 a month. Stay informed without missing a beat. More information coming soon.
Naomi Neilson is a senior journalist with a focus on court reporting for Lawyers Weekly.
You can email Naomi at:
Get breaking news
Naomi Neilson
