Getup Ltd v Electoral Commissioner

Last updated

Getup Ltd v Electoral Commissioner
Coat of Arms of Australia.svg
Court Federal Court of Australia
Decided13 August 2010
Citation(s) [2010] FCA 869
Court membership
Judge(s) sitting Perram J

Getup Ltd v Electoral Commissioner (2010) was a landmark decision made by the Federal Court of Australia on 13 August 2010 allowing Australians to enrol online in future elections. The Federal Court ruled in favour of GetUp! in their challenge of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918, [1] that rejected first-time voter, Sophie Trevitt’s electronic enrolment application after her electronic signature was deemed invalid. [2]

Contents

The case

In June 2010 it was estimated that more than 1.4 million Australians were not enrolled to vote. [3] in the lead up to the Australian Federal election on 21 August 2010, political activists group GetUp developed a strategy to capture this market by providing an online enrolment facility, OzEnrol, which enabled users to enter the required details into an electronically submittable form, using a digital pen, mouse or laptop trackpad to sign their name. [4] On 22 July 2010, the Australian Electoral Commission disallowed Sophie Trevitts's use of the OzEnrol tool to apply for enrolment in the electorate of Granydler, NSW

Arguments

The Commissioner claimed he acted under Section 102(1)(c) of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 [5] granting him the discretion in judging whether Ms Trevitt’s enrolment application was “in order”. The criteria for reaching such a decision are outlined in Section 98(2) in particular:

A claim:
(a) must be in the appropriate form; and
(b) must be signed by the claimant; [6]

As a result, the Commissioner ruled Ms Trevitt’s application was not in order- citing a breach of Section 336 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918:

Every electoral paper which by this Act or the regulations has to be signed by any person shall be signed by that person with his or her personal signature.

The Electoral Commissioner claimed that the Act implied enrolments were to be signed by hand.

GetUp argued the electronic signature provided by Trevitt was legitimate in accordance with Section 8(1) of the Electronic Transactions Act 1999:

For the purposes of a law of the Commonwealth, a transaction is not invalid because it took place wholly or partly by means of one or more electronic communications. [7]

The Act is applicable to transactions including those “of a non-commercial nature” like that of the enrolment application.


The Commissioner also expressed concerns over the quality of electronic signatures, noting their tendency to become pixilated in comparison to those that were hand-written. In response, GetUp highlighted the Commissioner’s frequent acceptance of enrolment forms via facsimile and scanned documents sent through email, recommending applicants do so using the lowest resolution at 100 dots per inch (DPI), thus rendering the signature quality to that comparable to one electronically produced.

Federal Court decision

Justice Perram agreed with GetUp regarding the acceptability of electronic signatures noting that it resembled one which had been faxed or emailed and thus would have been accepted by the Commissioner. [2] :at [16]

The case subsequently became a technical debate over how the Commonwealth Electoral Act and Electronic Transactions Act were to be interpreted together considering the present context. Perram J disagreed with the Commissioner’s interpretation of Section 102(1) of the Commonwealth Electoral Act allowing him the discretion to form an opinion regarding the validity of Ms Trevitt’s application. He stated that such freedom was limited to determining whether the claimant was entitled to be enrolled - which she was having fulfilled the criteria of being over 18 years of age and an Australian citizen. [8]

As a result, Perram J ruled that Ms Trevitt’s enrolment claim was “in order” due to the fact that the Electronic Transactions Act was applicable to the meaning of Section 102(1)(b) of the Commonwealth Electoral Act and therefore a digital signature fulfilled the necessary enrolment requirement. The respondent was ordered to pay the applicants’ costs and Ms Trevitt’s online claim was added to the electoral roll.

Implications

The Federal Court made its ruling in a context where the Electoral Commissioner was already accepting signatures in forms (such as facsimile, JPEG image) that were susceptible to a degree of manipulation. Perram J’s decision offers no reflection on the reliability or appropriateness of using electronic signatures; it merely discounts any form of discrimination in favour of non-electronic signature methods thus enforcing the concept of ‘technology neutrality’ as a key principle of the Electronic Transactions Act. As such, the success of this test case sets a precedent for future matters relating to the legitimate use of digital signatures as a means of identity verification - an issue likely to become more prevalent as dependence on technology continues to escalate. The outcome of the case does not however consider issues such as security and fraud detection which need to be addressed before the use of electronic signatures can be safely used in e-commerce practices.

The result paves the way for a review of the electoral process and will encourage Federal and State governments to use the online medium in attempts to capture the estimated 6% of the Australian population who are not enrolled to vote. With an increased number of voters in each election, and the vast majority of them being young people (70% of those not on the electoral roll are aged between 19 and 39, [3] ) the Australian political circuit will become more competitive with policies likely to be more progressive in order to attract their votes.

This case relied heavily on litigation funding from GetUp supporters and was a major success in the realm of public interest lawsuits. Further, the courts have historically played a minimal role in shaping the Australian electoral process. Getup Ltd v Electoral Commissioner (2010) was a breakthrough success as it proved the ability of the Australian community to fuel legal and political debate over issues of public interest. The court’s ruling also encourages the public to identify potential areas for change in Australian legislation and challenges the traditional assumptions of the law in a manner that reflects the 21st century and the advancements it offers.

Related Research Articles

The Australian electoral system comprises the laws and processes used for the election of members of the Australian Parliament and is governed primarily by the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918. The system presently has a number of distinctive features including compulsory enrolment; compulsory voting; majority-preferential instant-runoff voting in single-member seats to elect the lower house, the House of Representatives; and the use of the single transferable vote proportional representation system to elect the upper house, the Senate.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Australian Electoral Commission</span> National election commission

The Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) is the independent federal agency in charge of organising, conducting and supervising federal Australian elections, by-elections and referendums.

Elections in Australia take place periodically to elect the legislature of the Commonwealth of Australia, as well as for each Australian state and territory and for local government councils. Elections in all jurisdictions follow similar principles, although there are minor variations between them. The elections for the Australian Parliament are held under the federal electoral system, which is uniform throughout the country, and the elections for state and territory Parliaments are held under the electoral system of each state and territory.

Australian constitutional law is the area of the law of Australia relating to the interpretation and application of the Constitution of Australia. Several major doctrines of Australian constitutional law have developed.

In Australia, one vote, one value is a democratic principle, applied in electoral laws governing redistributions of electoral divisions of the House of Representatives. The principle calls for all electoral divisions to have the same number of enrolled voters, within a specified percentage of variance. The electoral laws of the Commonwealth for the House of Representatives and all states follow the principle with some exceptions. The principle does not apply to the Senate, as each state is entitled under the constitution to the same number of senators irrespective of the population of the state.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">1967 Australian referendum (Aboriginals)</span> 1967 constitutional referendum on the legal status of Indigenous Australians

The second question of the 1967 Australian referendum of 27 May 1967, called by the Holt Government, related to Indigenous Australians. Voters were asked whether to give the Federal Government the power to make special laws for Indigenous Australians in states, and whether in population counts for constitutional purposes to include all Indigenous Australians. The term "the Aboriginal Race" was used in the question.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Commonwealth Franchise Act 1902</span> Australian suffrage law

The Commonwealth Franchise Act 1902(Cth) was an Act of the Parliament of Australia which set out who was entitled to vote in Australian federal elections. The Act established, in time for the 1903 Australian federal election, suffrage for federal elections for those who were British subjects over 21 years of age who had lived in Australia for six months. However, consistent with the White Australia policy, the Act excluded natives of Australia, Asia, Africa and the Pacific Islands (other than New Zealand) from the federal franchise, unless they were already enrolled to vote in an Australian state. The Act gave Australian women the right to vote and stand for parliament at the federal level unless they fell into one of the categories of people excluded from the franchise.

Australian family law is principally found in the federal Family Law Act 1975 and the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Rules 2021 as well as in other laws and the common law and laws of equity, which affect the family and the relationship between those people, including when those relationships end. Most family law is practised in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia and the Family Court of Western Australia. Australia recognises marriages entered into overseas as well as divorces obtained overseas if they were effected in accordance with the laws of that country. Australian marriage and "matrimonial causes" are recognised by sections 51(xxi) and (xxii) of the Constitution of Australia and internationally by marriage law and conventions, such as the Hague Convention on Marriages (1978).

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918</span> Australian suffrage law

The Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 is an Act of the Australian Parliament which continues to be the core legislation governing the conduct of elections in Australia, having been amended on numerous occasions since 1918. The Act was introduced by the Nationalist Party of Billy Hughes, the main purpose of which was to replace first-past-the-post voting with instant-runoff voting for the House of Representatives and the Senate. The Labor Party opposed the introduction of preferential voting. The Act has been amended on several occasions since.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Federal Court of Australia</span> Australian superior federal court

The Federal Court of Australia is an Australian superior court of record which has jurisdiction to deal with most civil disputes governed by federal law, along with some summary and indictable criminal matters. Cases are heard at first instance mostly by single judges. In cases of importance, a Full Court comprising three judges can be convened upon determination by the Chief Justice. The Court also has appellate jurisdiction, which is mostly exercised by a Full Court comprising three judges, the only avenue of appeal from which lies to the High Court of Australia. In the Australian court hierarchy, the Federal Court occupies a position equivalent to the supreme courts of each of the states and territories. In relation to the other courts in the federal stream, it is superior to the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia for all jurisdictions except family law. It was established in 1976 by the Federal Court of Australia Act.

<i>R v Pearson; Ex parte Sipka</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

R v Pearson; Ex parte Sipka, was a landmark Australian court case decided in the High Court of Australia on 24 February 1983. It concerned section 41 of the Australian Constitution, and the question of whether four people eligible to vote in New South Wales could be prevented from voting at the federal level by a federal law which closed registration to vote on the day that the writs of election were issued. The court decided that they could, adopting a narrow interpretation of section 41, and therefore finding that there is no express constitutional right to vote in Australia.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Federal Circuit Court of Australia</span> Australian justice court

The Federal Circuit Court of Australia, formerly known as the Federal Magistrates Court of Australia or the Federal Magistrates Service, was an Australian court with jurisdiction over matters broadly relating to family law and child support, administrative law, admiralty law, bankruptcy, copyright, human rights, industrial law, migration, privacy and trade practices.

A Langer vote was a style of voting in the Australian electoral system designed to avoid the requirement to express preferences for all candidates without the vote being rejected as informal. The title is a tribute to Albert Langer, an Australian political activist, who advocated for the use of this style as a de facto method of optional preferential voting for making a valid vote for the voter's preferred candidates while the deliberate "error" avoided the vote being counted for one of the major political parties.

The voting rights of Indigenous Australians became an issue from the mid-19th century, when responsible government was being granted to Britain's Australian colonies, and suffrage qualifications were being debated. The resolution of universal rights progressed into the mid-20th century.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Court of Disputed Returns (Australia)</span> Special electoral jurisdiction of the High Court of Australia

The Court of Disputed Returns in Australia is a special jurisdiction of the High Court of Australia. The High Court, sitting as the Court of Disputed Returns, hears challenges regarding the validity of federal elections. The jurisdiction is twofold: (1) on a petition to the Court by an individual with a relevant interest or by the Australian Electoral Commission, or (2) on a reference by either house of the Commonwealth Parliament. This jurisdiction was initially established by Part XVI of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1902 and is now contained in Part XXII of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918. Challenges regarding the validity of State elections are heard by the Supreme Court of that State as the State's Court of Disputed Returns.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Australian corporate law</span>

Australian corporations law has historically borrowed heavily from UK company law. Its legal structure now consists of a single, national statute, the Corporations Act 2001. The statute is administered by a single national regulatory authority, the Australian Securities & Investments Commission (ASIC).

<i>Rowe v Electoral Commissioner</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

Rowe v Electoral Commissioner is a High Court of Australia case dealing with the requirement of the Australian Constitution that members of Parliament be "directly chosen by the people". The High Court held that Commonwealth legislation that sought to restrict the time in which a person may seek to enroll in an election or alter their enrolment details after the writs for an election have been issued was invalid.

Section 99 of the Constitution of Australia, is one of several important non-discrimination provisions that govern actions of the Commonwealth and the various States.

Australian insolvency law regulates the position of companies which are in financial distress and are unable to pay or provide for all of their debts or other obligations, and matters ancillary to and arising from financial distress. The law in this area is principally governed by the Corporations Act 2001. Under Australian law, the term insolvency is usually used with reference to companies, and bankruptcy is used in relation to individuals. Insolvency law in Australia tries to seek an equitable balance between the competing interests of debtors, creditors and the wider community when debtors are unable to meet their financial obligations. The aim of the legislative provisions is to provide:

In Australia, voter registration is called enrolment. Enrolment is a prerequisite for voting at federal elections, by-elections and referendums, as well as all state and local government elections; and it is generally compulsory for enrolled persons to vote unless otherwise exempted or excused. Enrolment is compulsory for Australian citizens over 18 years of age who have lived at their current address for at least one month. Enrolment is not compulsory for persons with no fixed address who are not already enrolled. Residents in Australia who had been enrolled as British subjects on 25 January 1984, though not Australian citizens, continue to be enrolled, and cannot opt out of enrolment. For local government elections, an elector generally does not require to be an Australian citizen. Once enrolled, a person cannot opt out of enrolment. Enrolment is optional for 16- or 17-year-olds, but they cannot vote until they turn 18, and persons who have applied for Australian citizenship may also apply for provisional enrolment which takes effect on the granting of citizenship.

References

  1. Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 (Cth).
  2. 1 2 Getup Ltd v Electoral Commissioner [2010] FCA 869 (13 August 2010), Federal Court (Australia).
  3. 1 2 "Media Release 2010: Famous Australians are doing it ... so why aren't you?". Australian Electoral Commission. 8 June 2010.
  4. Sharp, A (22 July 2010). "Activists to pursue online enrolment". The Sydney Morning Herald . Retrieved 28 May 2017.
  5. Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 (Cth) s 102(1)(c).
  6. Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 (Cth) s 98(2).
  7. Electronic Transactions Act 1999 (Cth) s 8(2).
  8. Enrolment eligiblility - Australian Electoral Commission