Fraud and the election: High Court challenge

Who will represent the public interest?

While there will be an opportunity for the states to intervene, only the Western Australian Attorney, Christian Porter, would be likely to argue strongly for the constitutional validity of the Howard amendment.

So who will present the case for electoral propriety and against electoral fraud? Should an appropriate body, say the HS Chapman Society, seek leave to intervene? Should they at least seek leave to file an amicus curiae (friend of the court) brief?

If they were to intervene it would be important, as in the Pape case, that it be understood that each party and intervenor pay its own costs. This I understand was agreed by the Commonwealth in the Pape case after the Chief Justice, Robert French, to his credit, intervened. (Brian Pape was a party not an intervenor, and the rules may well cover this)

In the unlikely event that this challenge is upheld and upheld without firm conditions, it is likely to open the door to electoral fraud, or rather more fraud than is currently possible.

Wide open to fraud

Common sense will tell you that the present system is open to fraud. Let me illustrate this challenging proposition - that government should involve a good dollop of old fashioned common sense and a good degree of scepticism about political motives - with some examples.

When I recently went to the post office to send a DVD overseas, I had to make a declaration as to the contents and show my driver’s licence. When I last opened a bank account I had to show not only my passport but other documents including my birth certificate.

But when I vote in elections or indeed referendums at anyone of the many polling stations in my electorate I just say my name. The clerk usually then reads aloud my full name and my address, merely seeking my assent.

It is assumed with good sense that without identification there will be fraud or something worse in financial transactions and even in posting materials overseas. But when it comes to exercising that democratic right, voting, it is apparently assumed by those paragons of virtue, the politicians - or some of them- that a minority will not seek to fraudulently engineer the result.

This came to mind when I learned about this curious case which is being rushed through the High Court.

The British experience

When Richard Mawrey QC was asked recently about this and other practices ostensibly designed to “make voting easier” he replied they what they did was to make made fraud easier. He was speaking at a seminar held at Parliament House Sydney on Thursday, February 25, organised by the HS Chapman Society and co-hosted by ACM.

He would know. What he said would disgrace a banana republic, Richard Mawrey QC, sitting as a High Court judge, found six Labour councillors guilty of electoral fraud in the British 2004 Birmingham Council election. This made news not only in the UK, but around the world.

In a splendidly bipartisan approach, he subsequently found that Conservative councillors had engaged in fraud in the Slough Council election.

There was evidence of massive postal vote rigging in the last British general election, according to a report in the Daily Mail on May 4, 2010, by Sam Greenhill and Tim Shipman, “Postal vote fraud: 50 criminal inquiries nationwide amid fears bogus voters could swing election”. vote fraud: 50 criminal inquiries nationwide amid fears bogus voters could swing election They say that British police have launched 50 criminal inquiries nationwide amid widespread cases of electoral rolls being packed with “bogus” voters.

What the Constitution says

If we create the opportunity for fraud, common sense will tell you that someone will take that up.

Let’s hope the High Court doesn’t fall for this, and if it finds the Constitution says rolls must stay open for seven days, it also finds the Constitution says voting must be honest.