An application to have the election of three Georges River councillors dismissed and a fresh by-election called due to irregularities in their nomination forms has been refused by the Civil and Administrative Tribunal.
The application was brought against Con Hindi, Lou Konjarski and Warren Tegg, all councillors in Georges River Council’s Mortdale Ward.
Mr Briscoe-Hough alleged that there were errors in the contents of the nomination forms completed by the councillors which, in the circumstances, would constitute an irregularity in the manner in which they had been elected.
Mr Briscoe-Hough further alleged that he had nominated to participate in the same election in the same ward as a councillor, and that his nomination had been incorrectly rejected by officers of the Electoral Commission.
The irregularity asserted against Mr Tegg concerned the manner in which he completed his nomination form, using crosses instead of ticks, contrary to the instructions on the form.
“Whether or not this conduct constitutes an irregularity arguably depends upon whether or not the instruction to place a tick in a box was merely an instruction or a mandatory requirement,” the Tribunal’s judgement stated..
“We shall assume that the placing of crosses rather than ticks constituted an irregularity. The question then arises whether there is any appropriate factual basis for determining that the result of the election was rendered uncertain.”
The tribunal dismissed the application.
Mr Briscoe-Hough’s application to have Con Hindi’s election invalid was based on the assertion that Mr Hindi indicated in his nomination form that he was not a property developer nor a close associate of a corporation that is a property developer.
Mr Briscoe-Hough asserted that this was an irregularity based on a number of newspaper reports which referred to Mr Hindi as a”55 year old property developer.”
The Tribunal’s judgement said the articles contained no reference to any underlying material or any basis which would justify the assertions made. “It is possible that they may constitute ‘fake news’”, the judgement said.
“We are not prepared to consider this matter only on the basis of the newspaper reports relied upon by the applicant as proof of such an irregularity.
“Mr Hindi denied for the purpose of these proceedings that he was either a property developer or a close associate of a corporation that was a property developer.
“We cannot conclude on the basis only of newspaper reports which make unsubstantiated and bald assertions that cannot be satisfied. On this basis the application must fail and be dismissed.”
Mr Briscoe-Hough’s appeal to have Mr Konjarski’s election declared invalid was based on the fact that he was a member of the Liberal Party in the election while claiming to be an independent.
“He indicated in the candidate information sheet that he was not a member of any political party.
Nevertheless, he indicated on the statistics part (second page) of the nomination form he was a member of the Liberal Party.
“Only the candidate information sheet was generally available to electors.In completing the nomination form, he asked that the word “independent” to be printed below his name on the ballot paper.
“In these circumstances there was clearly an irregularity,” the judgement stated.
Cr Konjarski has subsequently said that this was an oversight.
Mr Briscoe-Hough’s belief was that membership of the Liberal Party would have “altered the standing” of Mr Konjarski in the eyes of the electorate because “nearly 18 per cent of all votes cast within the relevant Local Government Area were for independent candidates”.
The Tribunal was not prepared to accept that it was demonstrated the “result of the election were rendered uncertain by this irregularity” and dismissed the application.
Concerning Mr Briscoe-Hough’s argument that he had been inappropriately excluded as a candidate, there was no specific allegation that his withdrawal was directly caused either by the rejection of his nomination form. No irregularity has been identified.
The Tribunal found “his assertions, at best, are based on a number of rhetorical questions, with no specific substance.”
The Tribunal admitted it had “encountered difficulty” in understanding the basis for Mr Briscoe-Hough’s case.
“This is because the applicant expressed himself in cryptic language, making it difficult to difficult to comprehend and deal” with his argument.