Lawyer for former cabinet minister Marlene Kairouz slams ‘knee-jerk’ ALP intervention over branch stacking

An investigation by The Age and 60 Minutes in June last year revealed then Labor ministers Adem Somyurek, Ms Kairouz and Robin Scott were allegedly involved in the largest branch stacking scandal to engulf the ALP.

Soon after, Mr Andrews wrote to Labor’s national executive calling for administrators to be appointed and voting rights of members to be suspended for three years.

“The resolution to appoint administrators, in our respectful submission, had all the hallmarks of being a knee-jerk reaction to the Premier’s emotive letter around Mr Somyurek, without proper consideration,” Mr Karkar said.

“It’s a farce, with respect.”

Ms Kairouz has denied branch stacking. Mr Karkar told the court the definition of branch stacking had been “invalidly amended” in September last year, and internal party charges had been retrospectively applied to Ms Kairouz.

If the party’s internal disputes tribunal finds Ms Kairouz guilty of branch stacking offences, she could be expelled from the ALP, which could end her parliamentary career after the next election.

The court must determine whether the internal disciplinary action taken against Ms Kairouz is “justiciable” – or subject to trial in a court of law.

Peter Willis, SC, barrister for some of the defendants, said internal ALP disputes and disciplinary action were not within the court’s jurisdiction.

“The matters that are really of importance are that, so far, as nothing from the plaintiff identifies what interest of hers is at stake,” Mr Willis said.

“What legal right or equitable right, proprietary right is imperiled? The answer is there is none. This is a domestic dispute … There’s no contract, there’s no breach of contract, there’s no property interest or right.

Loading

“No legal right has been identified as being infracted.”

Earlier in the hearing, Mr Karkar addressed the defendants’ submission that the internal charges were a “domestic” dispute, saying “The defendants’ answer … effectively is that the ALP is above the law”.

“The effect of this admission is that the organs can do what they like and are not answerable to the law. This is because it is said in the submissions at paragraph one, your honour … in the defendants’ submission, the proceeding concerns are domestic dispute within a voluntary unincorporated association,” Mr Karkar said.

The hearing continues.