Roll playing games

In a stunning repudiation of the Howard government’s electoral law “reforms” of 2006, the High Court has today upheld by majority a GetUp!-sponsored legal challenge against the closure of the electoral roll on the day the writs for the election were issued. Until 2006 this routinely occurred seven days later, which allowed voters time to enrol or amend existing enrolments, and the Australian Electoral Commission time to advertise the urgency of doing so. The current government introduced legislation to reinstate the seven-day period, but it was still before parliament when the election was called. The ruling will allow the 100,000 prospective voters who did in fact enrol in the seven day period after the issue of the writs to vote at the August 21 election, which presumably falls far short of the number that would have enrolled if the value of doing so had been known in advance. The High Court has yet to publish its reasons, but the GetUp! case sought to build on an earlier ruling that invalidated another aspect of the 2006 act which denied the right to vote to all prisoners. This established a test whereby restrictions on the exercise of the vote had to involve a proportionate response to a legitimate problem. It appears the court has agreed that the amendment lacked the requisite foundation in evidence to meet such a test, the AEC having consistently maintained that a later closure of the rolls posed no threat to the “integrity” of the roll, as had been claimed by the Howard government. The AEC now has the onerous task of informing the 100,000 affected voters that they are now eligible to vote.

UPDATE: The Australian Electoral Commission advises that since the voter lists for use on August 21 have already been printed, the affected voters will have to lodge declaration votes. I take this to mean what are classified as “provisional” votes, where prospective voters who present at the polling booth and find they are not listed can lodge a vote that is withheld from the count unless and until it is established that they ought to have been on the roll. Unlike other voters, provisional voters are required to provide identification. Prior to 2007 the success rate for such votes being admitted was about 50 per cent, which in most cases involved voters who had moved within the electorate and been removed from the roll when it was found they were not at their listed address. However, the 2006 act was to prevent such votes being admitted to the count which, as Peter Brent calculates, cut the admission rate to 14 per cent. This is going off not-quite-final figures of 24,212 out of 168,767 provisional votes received. Presumably both figures will be quite a lot higher this year.

UPDATE 2: As well as being delightfully informative in this post’s comments thread, electoral law expert Graeme Orr gives the best available overview of the decision in Inside Story.

Author: William Bowe

William Bowe is a Perth-based election analyst and occasional teacher of political science. His blog, The Poll Bludger, has existed in one form or another since 2004, and is one of the most heavily trafficked websites on Australian politics.

64 comments on “Roll playing games”

Comments Page 1 of 2
1 2
  1. Why didn’t the ALP deal with this proeperly in their first term? Because as incompetent time servers and placemen they only care for their own votes. ALP = Another Liberal Party.

  2. Silly comment Albert. It’s commonly known that Labor tried a few times to pass laws reversing the Howard deforms. The Liberal Party and Steve Fielding blocked them in the Senate each time.

  3. [Why didn’t the ALP deal with this proeperly in their first term? Because as incompetent time servers and placemen they only care for their own votes. ALP = Another Liberal Party.]

    I believe they tried, but were blocked in the Senate.

  4. The reason it didn’t come to a vote is because the Government knew they didn’t have the votes to pass it. The Government eventually split their ‘close of rolls’ bill into a number of bills, proceeding with the bills that had support and leaving the ones that didn’t.

  5. Albert Ross @ 1

    [Why didn’t the ALP deal with this proeperly in their first term? Because as incompetent time servers and placemen they only care for their own votes. ALP = Another Liberal Party.]

    The Labor Government did propose to amend the relevant sections of this Act in February of this year in time for the election, but these amendments were defeated by the Opposition and the minor parties, so gets your facts straight before shooting your mouth off, you fool.

  6. It’s good to have 100,000 extra voters on the roll. even if every single one of them vote for the other side, it is still good for democracy.

    Your post title is deceiving! Here I was hoping that we were going to do a little role playing. I was going to play Mark Arbib. “Mwahahaha! I try to control everything and am faceless! I’m like Cobra Commander!” (I can laugh at my own side)

  7. This has many benefits to the Labor campaign. As well as the direct benefit, Labor can try to engage with young voters more, some of whom are undoubtedly disenchanted by Labor’s cynical backflip on climate change.

    It also reminds people what John Howard was like in office once he got the Senate majority, jsut as he is coming out of the woodwork to support Tony Abbott. The Liberals still hold more Senators than Labor. Imagine if Abbott got in with a Senate majority – what would he do with it?

  8. A good decision. What will the AEC do now? They will contact the newly enfranchised 100,000 of course. But precisely how will these electors vote? As ordinary voters on updated certified lists or as declaration voters of some kind? Or…? Please tell us clearly AEC.

  9. [Imagine if Abbott got in with a Senate majority – what would he do with it?]

    It’s highly unlikely at this election. At the 2007 election, the Coalition fell short of 3 senators in 2 states (South Australia and Tasmania). This means that to get the half + 1 that they’d need for a majority in the Senate, they’d need to get 4 seats in at least 3 states and 3 in the rest.

  10. [Imagine if Abbott got in with a Senate majority – what would he do with it?]

    I know what I’d be doing…

  11. Dam good stuff. Hopefully we will get online enrollment and a parliament that stops trying to disenfranchise voters. Pretty sad when it’s the high court that has to stop this rot.

  12. How many here put their hand in their pocket to support the getup effort? Or was support limited to claiming labor did all they could.

  13. [Pretty sad when it’s the high court that has to stop this rot.]

    Not really. It shows our judicial system is functional.

  14. “Not really. It shows our judicial system is functional.”

    Yes, but given the rot they have had to deal with over the last few years it pretty much underlines the fact that our political system is in deep trouble.

  15. GetUp is running a second action in the Federal Court on online enrolment and the use of digital signatures for this election. It has not had much coverage but could be significant too. Does anyone know where this is at?

  16. And labor as have the liberals support the removal of refugees from our legal system so they don’t get the full benefit of the Australian system of governance.

  17. Very good news and congratulations to GetUp! for having the courage to carry this through and to those who donated to the worthy cause.

    Also, kudos to Billy for making a gamer joke.

  18. While I agree it would have been good for Labor to get this through parliament, it is better that it has been tested in a court of law. It would now require any change to re-implement it to bear the burden of proof that there is this so call widespread ‘electoral roll rorting’. Closing the rolls early stops the AEC of doing it’s job to advertise about getting on the roll to vote, with the government of the day having the power to call an election at any time it’s hard for the AEC to do an effective advertising campaign.

    Anyway here’s to democracy, because it won today.

  19. TSOP,

    “Roy Orbison, did you like Midnight Oil’s music? If so, do you still?

    I’m not picking on you. I’m just curious if those who, for one reason or another, dislike Peter Garrett MP have changed their opinion of him as a musician in the process.”

    Nothing to do with his music, which I can take or leave. It is to do with his performance as a local member, which is abysmal. Almost as bad as our state counterpart, the fragrant KKK. But that’s another story.

  20. Ladies and Gents: Channel 9 is promoting some supposed shock poll to be revealed on their news tonight.
    A new Galaxy, I presume.

  21. [Nothing to do with his music, which I can take or leave. It is to do with his performance as a local member, which is abysmal. Almost as bad as our state counterpart, the fragrant KKK. But that’s another story.]

    I knew it had nothing to do with his music. I was just curious if it affected your opinion of his music.

  22. [Ladies and Gents: Channel 9 is promoting some supposed shock poll to be revealed on their news tonight.
    A new Galaxy, I presume.]

    Well, Australia. It was lovely to know you.

  23. This is one of the most significant Court actions re the electoral system in recent years

    Along with the case allowing prisoners in certain categories to vote,and McKinlay’s Case
    in 1975 it will have a great influence in the future on electoral enrollment..

    In McKinlay’s Case ,the Court ruled that state re-distributions for the H .o. R MUST take place when required,not after the Census,which is held every 7th year.
    That is the reason we now have regular Federal re-distributions in single states,as has just happened in N.S.W and Q’Land,when the population figures have shown that this is needed.
    McKinlay’s case changed this practice forever.!

  24. A number of you are posting stuff on the wrong thread – this one is specifically about the enrolment issue.

    Tom, it wasn’t possible for a challenge to be conducted until an aggrieved party could be identified who had been rendered unable to vote by the law, so basically it couldn’t be done until the campaign was under way. They probably could have done it during the 2007 campaign though.

  25. [A number of you are posting stuff on the wrong thread – this one is specifically about the enrolment issue.]

    Sorry. I hadn’t noticed until it was too late. I saw those posts about the upcoming poll and Peter Garrett, got confused and assumed it was the general thread.

  26. The Australian Electoral Commission advises that since the voter lists for use on August 21 have already been printed, the affected voters will have to lodge declaration votes. I take this to mean what are classified as “provisional” votes, where prospective voters who present at the polling booth and find they are not listed can lodge a vote that is withheld from the count unless and until it is established that they ought to have been on the roll. Unlike other voters, provisional voters are required to provide identification. Prior to 2007 the success rate for such votes being admitted was about 50 per cent, which in most cases involved voters who had moved within the electorate and been removed from the roll when it was found they were not at their listed address. However, another feature of the 2005 act was to prevent such votes being admitted to the count which, as Peter Brent calculates, cut the admission rate to 14 per cent. This is going off not-quite-final figures of 24,212 out of 168,767 provisional votes received. Presumably both figures will be quite a lot higher this year.

  27. Confession: Despite donating some of the hard earned folding stuff to them for other campaigns previously, I didn’t put money in for GetUp’s challenge on the close of the rolls (simply because I wrongly thought it wasn’t a goer: have just put in $400 for their womens ad to make up for that and because it is a really good ad, others please consider doing likewise.)

    I did however put some time (can’t say in what capacity) in trying to add support to their challenge about electronic signature. Still hoping for a good result on that one too.

    Well done GetUp. (And please cheer up TSOP, all will be well.)

    I am looking forward to reading the reasons when available from the Court. I wonder if the betting sites are running a book on which justices went which way? I would love to put a bet on Gummow being in the majority … At my own (left-ish) workplace I was the sole member of the “Gummow was a good appointment by a Labor Government” club (he’s too conservative, too black letter, represents the big end of town, has terrified generations of Sydney law students etc etc): until he came through in the Wik case with a scorcher of a pro-land rights judgment. Well worth a read, but in summary: “I know a property right when I see one (unlike some of you clueless wimps on the bench with me, starting with the CJ, who I will proceed to diss in detail). The black guys win.” Woohoo!

    Bill is too intelligent to be predictable but I’m hoping on this one.

  28. TT @37 – well the Justices and their associates do, but I’m guessing they’re not allowed to place bets on it …

  29. What’s the betting this will slow down the vote count on Aug 21, especially in tight finishes, with countless possible disputes over who was actually eligible and who was not. Hope I’m wrong.

  30. The High Court has ruled that Howard was a cheat who breached the Constitution to try and cling to power. Well done GetUp, sucked in Howard.

  31. More than a few people on this site have sought to justify:
    a) over 78% of stimulus money going to Unionised Labor (14% of workers in the private sector)
    b) The BER as a program, citing that “There is always some waste and complaints were minimal”
    c) That the ALP can manage public money effectively

    Then this is a little hard to explain:

    [According to the figures, provided as part of a government submission to a state parliamentary inquiry into the $16.2 billion scheme, the government expects to pay an average of $4842 per square metre for 390sq m halls delivered under the scheme, and $5575/sq m for 160sq m buildings.

    By contrast, the Catholic Church is delivering school halls to its schools for an average of $2221/sq m.

    The Victorian data provides average cost breakdowns for each of the 17 template designs built in more than 1200 state primary schools as part of the BER stimulus program. As many of the projects are still being built, the figures are described as an “anticipated final cost”.]

    Neither State nor federal Labor seem to have managed this blowout. With proper management, costs in state schools could have been halved and the money used to bring us to surplus now. I just don’t know how, in anyone’s language, this goes to excellent economic management.

  32. That IS a shock poll – a 2.8% swing would give the Coalition 78 seats to Labors 69. Shows this is going to be so tight!!!

  33. [Rudd led-Government would be polling higher according to the poll]

    Surprised I haven’t heard about this Channel 9 Crystal Ball. They would’ve promoted that, surely?

  34. This is excellent. Chris Pyne is on a hiding to nowhere though with his ranting about rorts in the BER because I did the costings based on the report and they are quite stunning.

    Catholic schools – averaged $1.81 million per project,
    Independent schools – averaged $167 million
    Government schools – averaged $1.16 million

    And they are 95% on schedule with no extra costs.

    How can Catholic ed be 700,000 on average over the state schools?

    If Pissy Pyne wants to tell us that I will be happy?

Comments Page 1 of 2
1 2

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *