Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.

 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate


On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.


RSS 2.0

Fraud and the election: High Court challenge

By David Flint - posted Monday, 9 August 2010

A last minute challenge to a 2006 Howard government amendment to the Electoral Act, which closed the rolls one day after the election writs are issued, is being rushed to a High Court hearing before the election.

Legislation in the 80s allowed for a generous seven-day period, ostensibly to make voting easier. But critics said this latitude opened the door to more fraud. Some even alleged that this was its very purpose. They said the Electoral Commission was inundated in the seven days with an unmanageable flood of registrations, many of which would be removed well after they had cast their secret ballots when it was found they were unknown at the place registered. In one celebrated Queensland instance registrations were found to have been made for electors residing on both sides of a very long road one side of which was a waterfront without dwellings.

2020 Summit: a citizens’ assembly gerrymander

The High Court case, inspired by the well endowed American-style political activist organisation GetUp!, came before Justice Hayne on July 29. His Honour directed that the case be heard by the Full Court this Wednesday, August 4. This should allow a decision to be made in time for the election on 21 August.


Readers may recall the remarkable representation given to GetUp! at the 2020 Summit. The governance panel recorded a 98 per cent vote in favour of a politicians’ republic, and this was adopted by a standing ovation at the plenary session. All of which was reminiscent of the best days of the Supreme Soviet.

The motion for this, if you could dignify with a touch of procedural propriety what was no more than a vague suggestion based on a thought bubble, was “moved” by some GetUp! grandee.

Pity the resolution adopted was legal gibberish, calling on the ending of constitutional links with the UK. These went almost a quarter of a century before the Summit, but none of the celebrities there had noticed.

Although this debacle demonstrated that the 2020 Summit must have been the most gerrymandered “citizens assembly” (to use the mot de jour) in the history of the nation, there wasn’t a peep out of GetUp! complaining about this travesty.

At least republican Robert Manne called it for what it was, a mad hatter’s tea party

Is this a stunt?

Now it seems that 100,000 people, who couldn’t be bothered to get on to the roll in time for an election which has been endlessly talked about in the media for most of the year, curiously waited until the rolls closed then rushed the AEC to register, and then meticulously did so before the seven days had expired. This is curious behaviour indeed.


Not one of these registrations is of course designed to manipulate the vote in any marginal electorate. Nor was this some stunt dreamed up to hoodwink Their Honours on the High Court.

It would be surprising if the High Court were to find the amendment unconstitutional, because I can’t seem to find the clause in the Constitution which says it’s alright to close the roll seven days after the writs but not one day after.

WorkChoices again

But you never know - I thought the reliance of the Howard government’s “big bang” WorkChoices legislation on the corporations power would obviously be found to be unconstitutional, after all what has industrial relations legislation to do with the corporations power since there was a perfectly good conciliation and arbitration power there. But nobody asked me and only Justice Kirby and Justice Callinan thought so. I have no doubt that our Founding Fathers would have agreed with us, if I may put myself in the Their Honours company.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All

First published on the Australians for Constitutional Monarchy site on August 2, 2010.

Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

25 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

David Flint is a former chairman of the Australian Press Council and the Australian Broadcasting Authority, is author of The Twilight of the Elites, and Malice in Media Land, published by Freedom Publishing. His latest monograph is Her Majesty at 80: Impeccable Service in an Indispensable Office, Australians for Constitutional Monarchy, Sydney, 2006

Other articles by this Author

All articles by David Flint

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Photo of David Flint
Article Tools
Comment 25 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy