The High Court of Australia has ruled in favour of a Western Australia (WA) law that specifically prevents mining billionaire, Clive Palmer, from suing the state, sparking anger from legal experts.
Emeritus professor of law at the University of Queensland, Gabriël Moens, said the outcome went against the fundamental rules of law.
“It’s an abuse of legislative power—there’s no doubt about that,” Moens told The Epoch Times on Oct. 13. “If the government or a parliament adopts a law, a law must be generally applicable—but not used for the purpose of punishing or penalizing a particular person.”
In this instance, WA Attorney-General John Quigley had himself admitted the legislation was “unprecedented,” but had defended the move due to the exceptional circumstance.
But Moens said the High Court’s verdict effectively enshrined the power of the WA government at the cost of citizens.
“The High Court, in upholding the legislation, is basically upholding the absolute sovereignty of the WA parliament, even in circumstances where a particular citizen has been targeted by the legislation,” Moens said.
WA Premier Mark McGowan took to social media to celebrate the ruling.
McGowan had previously told reporters that the outcome would have left WA bankrupt.
“The potential financial consequences could be dire, absolutely dire,” Mr McGowan said. “A payment to the tune of $30 billion would cripple, cripple the state … we had no choice but to take this course of action to protect every West Australian.”
Quigley outlined the costs would exceed those in the state’s coffers.
“To put that in context, the total net debt of the state of Western Australia is in the order of $35 billion to $40 billion, and the budget of the state of Western Australia is approximately $30 billion,” Quigley said.
“If the cost of Mr Palmer’s claim was shared equally amongst all Western Australians, it would cost every man, woman, child and baby in Western Australia more than $12,000.”
However, Palmer argued against the ability of the WA government to formulate laws that prevents citizens from challenging the state.
“You can’t do that. You can’t attack your opponent and your litigant just to try to stop them from exercising their normal rights.”