Rowe v Electoral Commissioner

Last updated

Rowe v Electoral Commissioner
Coat of Arms of Australia.svg
Court High Court of Australia
Full case nameRowe & Anor v Electoral Commissioner & Anor
Decided6 August 2010 (order only)
15 December 2010 reasons and further orders
Citations [2010] HCA 46
(2010) 243 CLR 1
Transcripts4 Aug [2010] HCATrans 205
5 Aug [2010] HCATrans 205
Orders [2010] HCATrans 207
Court membership
Judges sitting French CJ, Gummow, Hayne, Heydon, Crennan, Kiefel and Bell JJ
Case opinions
(4:3) 2006 amendments restricting the enrolment of voters once an election has been called were invalid. per French CJ, Gummow, Bell and Crennan JJ; Hayne, Heydon and Kiefel JJ dissenting

Rowe v Electoral Commissioner [1] [2] 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 [3] 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.

Contents

Background

The Constitution is silent as to many aspects of the democratic process, leaving these details to be provided by Parliament. The Constitution does however require that the members of Parliament be "directly chosen by the people". For members of the Senate section 7 of the Constitution provides :

The Senate shall be composed of senators for each State, directly chosen by the people of the State, voting, until the Parliament otherwise provides, as one electorate. [4]

Similarly for members of the House of Representatives section 24 of the Constitution provides:

The House of Representatives shall be composed of members directly chosen by the people of the Commonwealth, and the number of such members shall be, as nearly as practicable, twice the number of the senators. [5]

The High Court had previously held in that that voting in elections lies at the heart of the system of representative government established by the Constitution and that disenfranchisement of a group of adult citizens without a substantial reason would not be consistent with it. A 2006 prohibition on prisoners voting was held to be invalid. [6]

A person must be on the electoral roll to vote. Prior to 2006 there was a window between the announcement of the election and the closing of the rolls and the Electoral Commission processed enrolment and transfer claims for hundreds of thousands of voters between the announcement of the election and the close of the rolls. [7] The amendments arose from recommendations of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters following the 2004 federal election. [8]

The case concerned the 2006 amendments in the context of the 2010 federal election. On Saturday 17 July 2010 it was announced that there was to be an election, [9] and the Governor General issued a writ of election on Monday 19 July, [10] for an election to be held on Saturday 21 August. [9] The reason for the late challenge is that a person would not have standing to challenge the validity of the legislation unless they sought to have their rights or interests clarified by the orders sought. [11] Both of the Plaintiffs had their enrolment directly affected by the 2006 amendments.

The Electoral Commission indicated to the High Court that if the Court's decision was available by 6 August, it could process claims from the plaintiffs and people in a like position in time for the 2010 election. [7]

Enrolling to vote

Prior to 2006, a person could enroll to vote up to seven days after the issue of the writs for an election. After the 2006 amendments a person could only enroll to vote prior to issue of the writs for an election. [3] In the context of the 2010 election, under the previous system a person could enroll to vote by Monday 26 July. After the 2006 amendments a person only had until 8 pm, Monday 19 July AEST to enroll to vote. [9] The first plaintiff, Shannen Rowe, could have enrolled to vote once she turned 18 on 16 June 2010 but had not done so at the time the election was announced. Her enrolment form was lodged on Friday, 23 July 2010. Under the old system Ms Rowe would have been enrolled to vote. Under the 2006 amendments however she was too late and would be unable to enroll in time for the 2010 election. [12]

Changing voter enrolment

Under the old provisions, a person could change their enrolment up to seven days after the issue of the writs for an election. After the 2006 amendments a person could only change their enrolment 3 days after the issue of the writs for an election. [3] In the context of the 2010 election this was Thursday 22 July. [9] The second plaintiff, Doug Thompson, was enrolled as a voter in the Division of Wentworth. However, in March 2010 he had moved to a new address in the Division of Sydney. His change of enrolment form could have been lodged at any time prior to the announcement of the election, however it was not lodged with the AEC until after 8 pm on 22 July. Under the old system Mr Thompson would have been able to change his enrolment. Under the 2006 amendments however he was too late and would be required to vote in the Division of Wentworth. [12]

Decision

The Court heard argument on 4 and 5 August, [13] before announcing its decision on 6 August 2010. [14] The Court, by a bare majority (4:3), ruled that the restrictions imposed by the 2006 amendments were invalid. However, as this case was decided urgently (with the federal election to be held on Saturday, 21 August 2010), the Court did not publish reasons until 15 December 2010. [2]

In separate judgments, Chief Justice French, Justices Gummow and Bell, and Justice Crennan held that these provisions contravened the requirement, contained in sections 7 and 24 of the Constitution, that members of both Houses of the Commonwealth Parliament be "directly chosen by the people". The Chief Justice considered that the adverse legal and practical effect of the challenged provisions upon the exercise of the entitlement to vote was disproportionate to their advancement of the requirement of direct choice by the people. [15] Justices Gummow and Bell, with whom Justice Crennan broadly agreed, held that the provisions operated to achieve a disqualification from the entitlement to vote and that the disqualification was not reasonably appropriate and adapted to serve an end compatible with the maintenance of the system of government prescribed by the Constitution. [16] Justice Crennan held that the democratic right to vote is supported and protected by the Constitution. [17]

In separate dissenting judgments, Justices Hayne, Heydon and Kiefel each held that the provisions did not contravene any limitation imposed by the Constitution on the legislative power of the Commonwealth to fix the date and time after which claims for enrolment or transfer of enrolment may not be considered before an election. Their Honours considered that the requirement of direct choice by the people was not infringed by the provisions challenged. [18]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Australian Electoral Commission</span> Agency responsible for federal elections in Australia

The Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) is the independent statutory authority and agency of the Australian Government responsible for the management of federal Australian elections, by-elections and referendums.

Australian constitutional law is the area of the law of Australia relating to the interpretation and application of the Constitution of Australia. Legal cases regarding Australian constitutional law are often handled by the High Court of Australia, the highest court in the Australian judicial system. Several major doctrines of Australian constitutional law have developed.

The separation of powers in Australia is the division of the institutions of the Australian government into legislative, executive and judicial branches. This concept is where legislature makes the laws, the executive put the laws into operation, and the judiciary interprets the laws; all independently of each other. The term, and its occurrence in Australia, is due to the text and structure of the Australian Constitution, which derives its influences from democratic concepts embedded in the Westminster system, the doctrine of "responsible government" and the United States version of the separation of powers. However, due to the conventions of the Westminster system, a strict separation of powers is not always evident in the Australian political system, with little separation between the executive and the legislature, with the executive required to be drawn from, and maintain the confidence of, the legislature; a fusion.

<i>Re Wakim; Ex parte McNally</i>

Re Wakim; Ex parte McNally was a significant case decided in the High Court of Australia on 17 June 1999. The case concerned the constitutional validity of cross-vesting of jurisdiction, in particular, the vesting of state companies law jurisdiction in the Federal Court.

<i>New South Wales v Commonwealth</i> (2006) Judgement of the High Court of Australia

New South Wales v Commonwealth is a landmark decision of the High Court of Australia, which held that the federal government's WorkChoices legislation was a valid exercise of federal legislative power under the Constitution of Australia. In essence, the majority found the Constitution's corporations power capable of sustaining the legislative framework, while the conciliation and arbitration and territories powers were also seen as supporting parts of the law. Furthermore, the majority also held that the legislation permissibly limited State powers and did not interfere with State constitutions or functioning. A minority dissented.

<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.

<i>Sue v Hill</i> Australian High Court case

Sue v Hill was an Australian court case decided in the High Court of Australia on 23 June 1999. It concerned a dispute over the apparent return of a candidate, Heather Hill, to the Australian Senate in the 1998 federal election. The result was challenged on the basis that Hill was a dual citizen of the United Kingdom and Australia, and that section 44(i) of the Constitution of Australia prevents any person who is the citizen of a "foreign power" from being elected to the Parliament of Australia. The High Court found that, at least for the purposes of section 44(i), the United Kingdom is a foreign power to Australia.

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.

<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 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, sitting as that state's court of disputed returns.

<i>Harriton v Stephens</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

Harriton v Stephens, was a decision of the High Court of Australia handed down on 9 May 2006, in which the court dismissed a "wrongful life" claim brought by a disabled woman seeking the right to compensation for being born after negligent medical advice that resulted in her mother's pregnancy not being terminated.

<i>Pape v Federal Commissioner of Taxation</i> Judgment of the High Court of Australia

Pape v Federal Commissioner of Taxation is an Australian court case concerning the constitutional validity of the Tax Bonus for Working Australians Act 2009 (Cth) which sought to give one-off payments of up to $900 to Australian taxpayers. The decision of the High Court of Australia was announced on 3 April 2009, with its full reasons released on 7 July 2009.

<i>Roach v Electoral Commissioner</i> Australian court case

Roach v Electoral Commissioner is a High Court of Australia case, decided in 2007, dealing with the validity of Commonwealth legislation that prevented prisoners from voting. The Court held that the 2006 amendments were inconsistent with the system of representative democracy established by the Constitution. Voting in elections lies at the heart of that system of representative government, and disenfranchisement of a group of adult citizens without a substantial reason would not be consistent with it. The three-year criterion in the 2004 amendments was held to be valid as it sufficiently distinguished between serious lawlessness and less serious but still reprehensible conduct.

<i>Plaintiff S157/2002 v Commonwealth</i>

Plaintiff S157/2002 v Commonwealth, also known as 'S157', is a decision of the High Court of Australia.

Section 116 of the Constitution of Australia precludes the Commonwealth of Australia from making laws for establishing any religion, imposing any religious observance, or prohibiting the free exercise of any religion. Section 116 also provides that no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth. The product of a compromise in the pre-Federation constitutional conventions, Section 116 is based on similar provisions in the United States Constitution. However, Section 116 is more narrowly drafted than its US counterpart, and does not preclude the states of Australia from making such laws.

<i>Williams v Commonwealth</i> 2012 Australian constitutional law case

Williams v Commonwealth of Australia is a landmark judgment of the High Court. The matter related to the power of the Commonwealth executive government to enter into contracts and spend public moneys under section 61 of the Australian Constitution.

<i>Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZMDS</i> Case in Australian High Court regarding judicial review

Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZMDS, is a landmark Australian judgment of the High Court. The matter related to immigration law, jurisdictional error and illogicality as a ground of judicial review.

Jurisdictional error is a concept in administrative law, particularly in the UK and Australia. Jurisdiction is the "authority to decide", and a jurisdictional error occurs when the extent of that authority is misconceived. Decisions affected by jurisdictional error can be quashed by judicial review. Examples of jurisdictional errors include asking a wrong question, ignoring relevant material, relying on irrelevant material, and breaching natural justice.

<i>Australian Boot Trade Employees Federation v Whybrow & Co</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

Australian Boot Trade Employees Federation v Whybrow & Co, commonly known as Whybrow's case or the Boot Trades case, was the third of a series of decisions of the High Court of Australia in 1910 concerning the boot manufacturing industry and the role of the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration in preventing and settling industrial disputes. In doing so the High Court considered the constitutional power of the Federal Parliament to provide for common rule awards and the jurisdiction of the High Court to grant prohibition against the Arbitration Court. The majority held in Whybrow that the Arbitration Court could not make an award that was inconsistent with a State law, but that different minimum wages were not inconsistent as it was possible to obey both laws. In Whybrow the High Court established the doctrine of ambit, with the emphasis on the precise claim made and refused, and the practice with respect to "paper disputes" being treated "prima facie as genuine and real", with the majority holding that the High Court had power to order prohibition to correct jurisdictional error as part of its original jurisdiction. Finally in Whybrow the High Court unanimously held that the Federal Parliament had no constitutional power to provide for common rule awards.

<i>McGinty v Western Australia</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

McGinty v Western Australia was a significant case decided in the High Court of Australia in 1996. The plaintiffs sought to enshrine the principle of ‘one vote, one value’ in the Australian Constitution, and has had a significant impact on how the High Court approaches matters of the franchise, as well as malapportionment. The plaintiff's submissions were unanimously rejected by the court, who found that the interpretation of sections 7 and 24 of the Australian Constitution did not require that all votes hold the same value. The High Court exercised its original jurisdiction in hearing the matter, meaning that the case did not need to proceed as an appeal from the Supreme Court of Western Australia.

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. ↑ Rowe v Electoral Commissioner [2010] HCA 46 , (2010) 243 CLR 1.
  2. 1 2 Rowe v Electoral Commissioner: Judgement summary at High Court of Australia Website.
  3. 1 2 3 "Electoral and Referendum Amendment (Electoral Integrity and Other Measures) Act 2006 (Cth)". Commonwealth of Australia. July 2007.
  4. ↑ section 7 Commonwealth of Australia Constitution.
  5. ↑ section 24 Commonwealth of Australia Constitution.
  6. ↑ Roach v Electoral Commissioner [2007] HCA 43, Judgement summary at High Court of Australia Website.
  7. 1 2 George Williams; Sean Brennan; Andrew Lynch. Blackshield & Williams: Australian Constitutional Law and Theory (PDF) (5th ed.). Archived (PDF) from the original on 1 April 2015.
  8. ↑ recommendations 4 and 5 of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters "Report of the Inquiry into the Conduct of the 2004 Federal Election". The Parliament of Australia. September 2005.
  9. 1 2 3 4 "8pm Monday is the deadline to get on the electoral roll for the 2010 federal election". Australian Electoral Commission. 17 July 2010. Archived from the original on 20 July 2010.
  10. ↑ "Special Gazette No. S139" (PDF). Commonwealth of Australia. 20 July 2010. Archived from the original (PDF) on 19 January 2012.
  11. ↑ see Croome v Tasmania [1997] HCA 5 at 127; Murphy v Electoral Commissioner [2016] HCA 36 at [49] per Kiefel J, [171]-[174] per Keane J; [229] per Nettle J.
  12. 1 2 Rowe v Electoral Commissioner [2010] HCA 46 , (2010) 243 CLR 1 at [33] per French CJ and [399]-[402] per Kiefel J.
  13. ↑ Transcript 4 August [2010] HCATrans 204, 5 August [2010] HCATrans 205
  14. ↑ Orders made 6 August 2010 [2010] HCATrans 207
  15. ↑ Rowe v Electoral Commissioner [2010] HCA 46 , (2010) 243 CLR 1 at [2] per French CJ.
  16. ↑ Rowe v Electoral Commissioner [2010] HCA 46 , (2010) 243 CLR 1 at [160]-[167] per Gummow & Bell JJ.
  17. ↑ Rowe v Electoral Commissioner [2010] HCA 46 , (2010) 243 CLR 1 at [368] per Crennan J.
  18. ↑ Rowe v Electoral Commissioner [2010] HCA 46 , (2010) 243 CLR 1 at [264] per Hayne J; [314] per Heydon J and [488-[489] per Kiefel J.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.