That is a very good question.

Pushing all the buttons David:
"the well endowed American-style political activist organisation GetUp!"

GetUp! is funded by its members, of whom there are over 300,000. Many small donations, as distinct from the political mainstream, prostituting itself to the big end of town. It's called grass-roots democracy David.

Scary, I know, for a monarchist, but there's really no need for the Stalinist bogey-man to be invoked.

Why wait? Because in order to have a plaintiff with an actionable claim then that person needed to be aggrieved by the close of the rolls. This means waiting until this election. GetUp simply need to find two people aggrieved and willing to have GetUp assist with their claim. There is nothing in realm of a stunt as regards to this. It was, if anything, out of procedural necessity.

After having read the HCA transcript - and even without having read it - it is reasonably clear that closing the rolls only 1 day after the issuing of the writs is hardly of much anti-fraud effect. GetUp, given they've won the case, must have proven to the HCA's satisfaction that the early close the rolls has no (or little) "prophylactic" benefit against fraud on the rolls because it's really ID checks that does that. Or even if it did, that it didn't outweigh the requirement of the Constitution that the Parliament be "chosen by the people".

I quite enjoy receiving David's emails on the monarchy but on this issue I think he's well off the mark.

Well said Geoff.

Of course it is alright for the Oz Christian lobby to put "moral" pressure on politicians and to tell porkies, half-truths and to engage in the politics of fear and mis-representation.

I wonder which law school this chap used to teach at?

It used to be once upon a time that lawyers were supposed to be able to think clearly and really examine the FACTUAL evidence--and not re-lie on either hearsay or their own delusions. I have yet to read anything by this chap that has any evidence of clear thinking, or respect for facts.

Mister Magoo has spoken therefore it must be troo

I joined GetUp! in its very early days. Their initial campaigns were apolitical.

It didn't take them long to reveal their true socialist bias.

I left them.

What is so wrong with allowing a seven day period? Why is this man so upset?

Is he suggesting the High Court is a stacked panel of socialists?

What a waste of space this is.

On yer bike Mr Flint.

tbc - I think David's point is that if you leave the period at 7 days instead of an immediate cutoff, then the system is less open to fraud - that would not be discovered until after the election.

Then if it is discovered, what do you do? Tip people out of office? I understand that at the election these 100,000 will have to show up with proof they live where they say and are who they say, but this gives them what .. 5 weeks or so to get that together.

If you reach voting age or move or just can't be bothered to enroll, that's your choice, to have some lobby group trying to round up and harvest votes by enrolling potential voters of a particular bent, for a particular outcome smells of deceit.

Do they also go out looking for disenfranchised voters outside the political neighborhood they inhabit?

Is it just ALP voters they are looking for?

I doubt they'd p*ss on a conservative voter if they were on fire, from what I've seen and heard of geddup.

Sorry, maybe I just have doubts about a lobby group that is so obviously politically biased. I guess it's a way for the ALP to have yet another angle, like unions, out there working on their behalf but not so easily identifiable.

Why did they leave it till this election and not do this at the last .. well there's the crux of the matter, it's because they know this time there is a serious chance the ALP will be tipped out, and that is the motivation, to try to tip the scales.

Whatever it takes eh.

Did your special friend Alan Jones inspire this diatribe against the integrity of the High Court? As for Get Up! being 'American-style', the concept of message boards originated in the US, so Online Opinion is American-style - which begs the question: Why do denigrate Online Opinion?

Why did GetUp! wait until now?
I would assume that GetUp, which is one of the few entities which
look after our interests, had to wait until it had sufficient support
from the community to go ahead with the challenge.

Is this article by David Flint another attempt by vested interests to get rid of Australian Democracy? What's left of it, that is.

Amicus... I find GetUp both particularly shrill at times, and very quiet throughout the Rudd years, and have no interest in defending them at all.

I sometimes elect to support some of their campaigns though.

Mainly because they seem to fulfil the role that politicians might once have thought was theirs, but now have no idea what they are there for, beyond the super and pigsnout feeding frenzy.

Rather like I am looking forward to the Dick Smith TV special, something that Tony 'have as many children as you like' Bourke should be doing, but has singularly failed to make any attempt at so far.

Now, you say this "I understand that at the election these 100,000 will have to show up with proof they live where they say and are who they say"... indeed, I understand that too.

And I would have no problem with producing my ID before voting to help prevent fraud... the ALP mantra of 'vote early-vote often' being at the forefront of my mind.

If we all did that, and were struck off the roll as we voted, by some electronic means, how hard would that be to organise?

Geoff Davies might be kidding himself, but few people would believe that GetUp!is anything but another branch of the ALP Left.

urr... ALP Left? What's that?

You mean the pro-development Tanner, the pro-NSCP Senator Jones, the deep red socialist Gillard?

Please, spare the funny jokes.

There is no ALP Left left.

Voting Green is the only way Left now.

Everybody knows that the tories closed the rolls early to disenfranchise young people who overwhelmingly vote progressively and are most likely to be tardy in their enrollment.
If abbott wins expect the introduction of electronic voting machines (and the fraudulent right wing use of them) as the libs import the best(sic) of the septic political game to Australia.

Flint you have offered no justification for your stance other than visceral hatred of getup (why? did they call you names or something) and an assertion, not backed by a single shred of evidence mind you, that there may possibly be some opportunity for fraud.
If there were courts filled with voting rorters you might have a case but since I cannot find a single conviction for vote fraud I say you are a poncy little elitist willing to debase our democracy to make sure your friends and bumchums keep their positions of power and you and them can continue your lordly ways.

Stiff words for a stiff mkk... on yers.

Some of the basic logic of this article is sound, such as why when all we talked about all year is the election haven't these people got themselves registered? I know i went in and filled out my registration on my eighteenth birthday my vote was more important than my licence.

The problem i have with this article is the complete lack of objectivity and more or less out and out conservative dribble that it pushes. This is a discrace and should stand as an example of the type of journalism that is eroding out freedoms and democracy. The High Court has ruled i thought and in favour of Get Up. So is the posting of this article for comment on the 8th ment to undermine the integrity of the High Court.

It's a democracy Nairbe, and people can therefore criticise the High Court or any other court. In fact, the High Court has also found an implied right to political free speech in the constitution, making this something that they would presumably approve of. I'm assuming they've probably used some of the reasoning behind the discovery of this right to imply a second right, the right to have a reasonable opportunity to enrol to vote, but I don't know because we don't have reasons for judgement yet.

[Deleted for abuse].

The first comment to this article responded to the by-line of the article with simply the words:

"That is a very good question."

Poster 'twistoflime', on Monday, 9 August 2010 at 10:19:47 AM, gave what I thought to be a very good answer, in saying:

"Why wait? Because in order to have a plaintiff
with an actionable claim then that person needed
to be aggrieved by the close of the rolls. This
means waiting until this election. ....... It was,
if anything, out of procedural necessity."



That should have been the end of the matter, in terms of both the by-line and my bald question.



The issue didn't overly concern me inasmuch as we are given to understand that the identification at enrolment provisions of the Act were not struck down by the High Court, and that the ruling applied to enrolment applications that had been ACTUALLY RECEIVED by the AEC between 8:00 PM on Monday 19 July and close of business on Monday 26 July, 2010.



I am no longer sure that this is what is happening.



I note that GrahamY has posted on Monday, 9 August 2010 at 9:22:32 PM, saying in respect to the High Court ruling:

"... but I don't know because we don't have reasons
for judgement yet."

That has been my experience also. In a report submitted by Diet Simon on Mon, 09/08/2010 at 8:50am, to the indymedia website ( http://indymedia.org.au/2010/08/08/getup-wins-high-court-challenge-on-federal-voting-just-turn-up-with-your-id ) the claim was made that:

"The court did not publish reasons for its decision,
saying a majority had declared the changes invalid."

and that,

"Advocacy group GetUp!, which supported the action,
said the Australian Electoral Commission estimated
100,000 people could have being prevented from registering
for the election at the closing time on July 19.

'The commission had indicated it would contact THOSE
PEOPLE* to inform them they will be able to vote on
polling day', GetUp! Said."



That's not the same thing!



* Emphasis mine.

TBC

Continued

I quoted from the indymedia website because of its high ranking in a Google search I did while looking for a report on the outcome of the FEDERAL court challenge that had been reportedly lodged by GetUp! at the same time as their High Court challenge. My search terms were 'Federal court challenge+Getup'. This is what I got: http://twitpic.com/2d93ik
The indymedia listing* is the one at the bottom, ending with the words 'just turn up'.

A news item in The Australian ( http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/getup-wins-high-court-challenge-to-electoral-roll-cut-off/story-fn59niix-1225902071456 ) says:

"The commission said this afternoon that those
newly eligible under the ruling would have to
cast declaration ballots as the voter lists for
polling stations had already been printed."

It also says:

"In addition to those who enrolled in the seven
days after the rolls closed on July 19, the ruling
also includes people who are overseas or of no
fixed address."

If these two statements constitute correct reporting, its beginning to look like the message is, as published in the indymedia listing, whether or not you enrolled after the deadline, "just turn up" on polling day and make a declaration vote. The reported intention of the AEC to require the newly eligible under the ruling to cast declaration votes may constitute a subversion of the High Court's decision, which it appears applies to only those who ACTUALLY ENROLLED in the seven days after the rolls closed on 19 July 2010.

Such actual enrolments as were made during the subject period should already be a matter of record. They should already show up here: http://www.aec.gov.au/Enrolling_to_vote/Enrolment_stats/elector_count/index.htm . Why should the AEC not now simply publish a magenta supplementary list of the additions for each Division, as was standard practice up to 1983?



Is the Australian public being snowed?




* But don't try to access it from the Google page. You will get this: http://twitpic.com/2d95w3 . Use my link given above.

GrahamY,
Yes it is a democracy and people can and will criticise the High Court. But as you have pointed out we are yet awaiting the rational for the decision making the article speculative and there fore poor journalism and no more than an opinion piece. I argue often that journalism has lost its integrity with this sort of bias opinion that has no proper objectivity. The influence that these articles have in the community requires them to be of a high standard. What we all want to say on this site is personal opinion and we all go for it on that basis, i have even enjoyed being tuned in on many subjects about which i have found myself ill informed.

George Williams, in the OLO Article 'Electoral roll makes a mockery of the election', ( http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=10712 ), published on Tuesday 20 July, says in his concluding paragraphs:

"GetUp! devised an ingenious way around
the limitations of pen and paper enrolment.
It set up a website by which people could
fill in the Australian Electoral Commission's
enrolment form. It then did the legwork of
making sure the information got to the
commission in the correct manner.

GetUp! has solid grounds for believing it
was on the right side of the law. However,
its idea has never been tested in the courts,
and the organisation rightly took down the
website after the commission understandably
took a conservative view in deciding not to
register the forms.

This will not be the end of the issue. The
attempt by GetUp! at online enrolment will
probably need to be resolved in the courts
over the coming days."

Well, to a certain extent, it has now been resolved.

The Electoral Commission has made it clear that the High Court ruling applies to only enrolments actually lodged with the AEC within the then disputed seven day period. See: http://www.aec.gov.au/About_AEC/Media_releases/e2010/06-08.htm

I have several questions.

Are these enrolments co-ordinated by GetUp! the subject of the FEDERAL court challenge, upon which there has been little, if any, information available to the public? How many enrolments are there in this category? What decision has the Federal court made?

Apart from any enrolments co-ordinated by GetUp!, how many enrolment applications did the AEC receive during the period the subject of the ruling?

Could it be that the AEC is at this point saying persons now eligible to vote by virtue of the ruling will have to make a declaration vote claim is in order not to reveal, before the elections, precisely in which Divisions any such enrolments co-ordinated by GetUp! have been effected?

What prevents the AEC printing a supplementary list of such electors for each Division straight away?

A delayed Federal court decision?

Yet more warning bells are ringing in this disgracefully ill-reported matter.

This time the Australian public have Professor Graeme Orr to thank for the heads-up. In an article posted on 6 August on http://inside.org.au/court-by-surprise-the-high-court-upholds-voting-rights/ , Graeme Orr says:

"The immediate effect is that approximately
100,000 enrolments will be processed that
otherwise would have lain in abeyance. SOME
OF THESE ARE NOT NEW ENROLMENTS: JUST A MATTER
OF GETTING PEOPLE INTO THEIR CORRECT ELECTORATES*.
The figure could have been much higher: we will
never know how many people were deterred from trying
to enrol because they thought they were too late."

I am assuming from the publication of his article on the very day of the High Court decision in respect of the roll closure date that Graeme Orr, in writing about the entirely separate online enrolment case before the Federal court ( See this GetUp! web page: http://twitpic.com/2div03 ) had inside information as to the content of the challenge.

Despite the Parliament having not legislated for online enrolment, OR TRANSFER OF ENROLMENT, we have a third party in the form of GetUp! (not the enrolment applicant or elector) presuming to dispose of as to where enrolments will be placed at the last minute when an election has been called! 'Targetting the marginals', no doubt.




100,000 enrolments, strategically placed, could alter what might, in their absence, have been an entirely different electoral result.




Its almost as good as an outright confession on the part of GetUp! to attempting to rig an election! Here we have an organisation, other that the AEC, posing as the champion of un-enrolled youth attempting to move names that are already enrolled around within the rolls!

Let's hope the Governor-General calls upon the AEC to publish the number of enrolment claims that are the subject of the GetUp! Federal court challenge, and within that number, the number that are transfers of existing enrolments. And while they are at it, the number of non GetUp! 'late' enrolments.

Subverting the High Court decision?






* Emphasis mine.

There is still no indication of the AEC maintaining electoral transparency with respect to the noised-about 100,000 or so GetUp! co-ordinated online enrolments and transfers: as of 8:30 AM there had been no updating of the 'Elector Count by Division, Age Group and Gender' page on the AEC website. See: http://www.aec.gov.au/Enrolling_to_vote/Enrolment_stats/elector_count/1003.htm

I can understand that the AEC may be reluctant to publish anything with respect to those enrolments that are the subject (presumably) of contention in the Federal Court until the court rules on the matter.

What about those enrolments that were lodged directly with the AEC between 8:00 PM Monday 19 July and close of business on Monday 26 July? What prevents the immediate publication of these enrolments that were only the subject of the High Court ruling as to roll closure time, enrolments not complicated by the contention as to the legality of online lodgement?




Could it be that there are embarrassingly few of such enrolments?




What will happen if the Federal Court ruling is delayed beyond polling day? Presumably that will mean DROs will have to delay the scrutiny of the declaration vote until the court has ruled. The opportunity will have been given for an un-audited, un-official organisation to hold up a Federal election! The opportunity will also have been given to defeat the provisions of the CEA as to the vote being taken by polling day.

What if the number and distribution of the GetUp! enrolments is such that they could alter the outcome of the whole election and the formation of the country's government? Will Australia face uncertainty as to the result of the elections while the matter is disputed in multiple Court of Disputed Returns hearings?

Whatever opinion may be as to it, the Parliament has not so far provided that online enrolment shall be an available option. Is the Federal Court setting itself up above the Parliament in not immediately dismissing this matter of online enrolment as being beyond its jurisdiction?

Well, we finally have a decision in respect to the GetUp! co-ordinated attempt at last minute placement of enrolments by means of online lodgement onto the electoral rolls.

A concise summary of Friday's Federal Court decision re online enrolment can be found here: https://twitter.com/GrahamY/status/21044961033

"Another advance for slacktivism.
Nintendo democracy."

Indeed.




Some examples of MSM 'journalism' reporting the Federal Court decision:

http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/getup-wins-landmark-case-to-allow-voters-to-enrol-online/story-e6frfku0-1225904996510

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/federal-court-ruling-in-getup-case-opens-way-for-online-enrolments-in-elections/story-fn59niix-1225904996564

To read them one would have thought GetUp! had won its case. It would seem that in fact those touted 100,000 GetUp! online enrolments will NOT be going onto the electoral rolls for this Federal election. It would be nice to have official confirmation of that, though, from the AEC. It would be even nicer, with respect to the maintenance of electoral transparency, if the AEC was to publish a supplementary list of all these attempted online enrolments so that the public could see into which Divisions it was intended that they be placed, especially given that if we are to believe the court's ruling, those names will shortly be going onto the rolls anyway.




A more informative online report of the Federal Court decision by Professor Graeme Orr is available here: http://inside.org.au/voting-rights-round-two-to-getup/

Interestingly, Professor Orr says, in the tenth paragraph of his report:

" Since the Ozenrol site was not live for long,
there cannot be many people who will immediately
benefit from the ruling, unlike Rowe’s case,
which has enfranchised tens of thousands for the
upcoming election."

That's not the understanding I had gained from the admittedly dismal MSM reports of the GetUp! case(s).

Time for the AEC to let the public know the true position. And, by number, in which offices the 'Rowe's case' enrolments were lodged.

It is very interesting to note that electoral enrolments, Australia-wide, increased by only a nett 9,026 enrolments between 30 June 2010 and the close of the rolls on 22 July 2010, if we disregard the 47,579 17-year-old provisional electors that presumably turned 18 during that 22-day interval.



Why do I disregard those 47,579 17-year-olds that turned 18?



I disregard them because, on the face of it, so many turning 18 in just 22 days seems statistically improbable.


See table of enrolments in this Twitpic: htthttp://twitpic.com/2exuj7

Source: http://www.aec.gov.au/Enrolling_to_vote/Enrolment_stats/elector_count/index.htm

From the tabulation, it does seem as if the sudden reduction of 47,579 in 17-year-old names carried on the rolls is to be accounted for by reason of them having turned 18, as the 18 & 19-year-old group shows a broadly concomitant increase of 43,350 names enrolled in the same 22-day period.

It is also to be noted that throughout the preceding year broadly similar numbers of 17-year-olds were shown as being enrolled at every quarterly date. Whatever the average number of days was that 17-year-olds spent on the rolls in that category, it did not seem to vary greatly over the year. A person only stays 17 for at most one year.

For each of those quarters it seems that 17-year-olds turning 18 were broadly speaking matched by 19-year-olds turning 20, as the 18 & 19-year-old total did not vary greatly over the year.

So what explains the concentration of 17-year-olds about to turn 18 between 30 June 2010 and 22 July 2010, 47,579 names, an average of 317 per Division if evenly spread?