Clive Palmer takes fight to re-register United Australia Party before federal election to High Court 

Feb 7 2025
ABC News




Clive Palmer will take his fight to the High Court in Canberra today, as he seeks to re-register his United Australia Party (UAP) ahead of the next federal election.   

In short:
Clive Palmer is seeking to re-register his United Australia Party (UAP) ahead of the next federal election.

The High Court challenge is necessary because the UAP voluntarily gave up its registration after the 2022 election, citing "administrative reasons".

What's next?
The court will hear from lawyers for the UAP, as well as lawyers from the Commonwealth, today.


Clive Palmer will be in the High Court in Canberra today, as he fights to re-register his United Australia Party (UAP) ahead of the next federal election.

The bid has some urgency, with predictions the next poll could be imminent.

The High Court challenge is necessary because the UAP voluntarily gave up its registration after the 2022 election, citing "administrative reasons".

But when the party went to register for the 2025 election, the application was rejected, because of a law that says a de-registered party cannot re-register at the next election, but must wait until the poll after that.

The party's single senator, Ralph Babet, from Victoria, is leading the case in the High Court, backed up by Mr Palmer.

They will tell the court the electoral law is invalid because it breaches the constitution, including impairing the implied right to freedom of political communication.


Victorian United Australia Party senator Ralph Babet was the only UAP candidate elected in 2022. 

What is at stake?
In a word — votes.

Their lawyers' submissions to the High Court maintain that voting practices have changed, with fewer people using party "how-to-vote" cards.

"The vast majority of voters at federal elections give their first preference in the House of Representatives to a candidate who has a party affiliation on the ballot paper; and the vast majority of voters in the Senate elections cast their vote 'above the line'," the submissions said.

The submissions maintain that logos now printed on the ballot papers assist voters to recognise party affiliations.

"Those facts taken together, make it highly likely that at the forthcoming election a substantial proportion of voters will be looking to identify candidates of different parties on the ballot paper; and that registered parties will communicate their affiliation with endorsed candidates to voters by requesting the inclusion of the party name or abbreviation, and the party logo, on the ballot paper," they read.

Without registration, the party said its candidates will be at a disadvantage.


Mr Palmer will take his case to the High Court today.

Today, UAP lawyers will ask the High Court to rule on whether that constrains the ability of voters to make an informed choice, and whether it interferes with the constitutional right for senators and MPs to be directly chosen by the people.

The High Court will also be told the ruling discriminates against candidates wanting to affiliate with UAP as a party.

But the key issue raised in the case is whether the law burdens the "implied right to freedom of political communication"'.

The UAP maintains it does, and that burden is not legitimate or appropriate in the face of the constitution saying:

"…the inability of candidates endorsed by the UAP to identify themselves on the ballot paper as UAP candidates imposes a practical burden upon their ability to communicate their affiliation."


Lawyers for the Commonwealth say even if the law places a burden on the implied right to political communication, it is justified and appropriate. (ABC News)

What does the federal government say?
Not surprisingly, the Commowealth has taken aim at the UAP's claim, saying even if the law places a burden on the implied right to political communication, it is justified and appropriate.

The Commonwealth says registration does carry the benefit of having a logo on a ballot paper, but it also carries obligations including disclosure of donations.

"In assessing whether (the provision) burdens political communication, the relevant counterfactual is not an unconditional right to receive the benefits of registration without the corresponding obligations", the Commonwealth submissions said.

Their submissions argued the UAP submissions offer no explanation for why a party might de-register only to seek re-registration within the same electoral cycle.

"Yet a possible explanation for a political party behaving in this way would be that it sought to obtain the benefits of registration (including the ballot paper benefits) whilst avoiding … the funding restrictions and transparency obligations that apply to registered political parties," the Commonwealth submissions said.

The Commonwealth says there are other reasons for the provisions, including to prevent confusion for voters when there is de-registering and re-registering of parties with a similar name.

Palmer should do as Holmes a Court has done with the Teals: stay in the background, get some photogenic totty to do the talking and the photo ops and Bingo!
He bought 6 seats in the Reps.

Palmer will get nowhere putting himself and other gammon faced blokes on the ticket.