Aaron asks "What about those on remand?"

Being a most reasonable person, I would be inclined to find "remand" as an acceptable reason for not attending a polling place.

What can I say.More leftist lunacy.What rights did the victims of the crimes perpetrated by these criminals have?It is about time criminals realised who holds up this fragile umbrella called civilisation that gives them sustenance.Our society seems to be infected with the victim mentality."Poor me.Someone must help me because I'm not responsible for my actions."Really pathetic.

Let's give support and recognition to those who take the difficult road of responsibility and hard work,rather than criminal lay abouts who seek soft options.

According to ABS, across Australia there were 24,392 persons in full-time custody and 53,054 persons in community-based corrections (community service, parole, bail and so on). In total this is about 0.15% of the adult population.

Last quarter 6,300 people entered the system and about the same number leave. That's 50,000 potential changes to the electoral roll every year. According to the AEC, it costs $2.75 per change. That's leaving aside the costs to the prison service.

Only a minority will serve more than a year, so they have an even chance on missing out on one election, state or federal.

What a waste of time, money and effort, in most cases not achieving anything at all.

David by taking them off the role for the grand cost of $2.75 ea,at least we the honest people are voicing our disapproval.

Elections do not fall within Section 51 of the constitution, it falls under other sections, but subject to what is implied or otherwise stated in the constitution.
In any event, being convicted of NOT VOTING when there was no election on 1 January 2005, underlines that we have a gross abuse of powers.
Sure, I can appeal, but more likely it will be another abuse of powers.

Ample of people are convicted regardless of being innocent of any crime committed.
And, again, constitutionally, only the States have the power to deny a person in imprisonment to vote.

Many a person is held on remand, in prison, for 2 years or more (that is right) only to have charges dropt or found to be NOT GUILTY. As the Framers of the Constitution made clear unless there is a conviction of some serious nature people should not be denied their rights. And even after they have served their time, they should be allowed, so to say, to start with a clean slate. Even be allowed to sit in the parliament.

To accept that any person can be denied the right to vote while in imprisonment, just consider the following scenario.

Mr “X” decides to stand as a candidate but realize that Mr “B” has a far better chance. Mr “X” files a false claim and Mr “B” is picked up under the terrorism act, and imprisoned for 14 days. Albeit it is found the allegations are unjustified, in the mean time an election was called and Mr “B” having been in prison now has lost his right to vote, and cannot enroll now as the rolls are closed and so he neither can stand as a candidate.

I have no problem with prisoners convicted of serious crimes and serving more then 3 years (just to state some time frame) to be denied to vote, but it ought to be for serious crimes only, and not people loosing their right to vote for minor offences!
Lets keep our sanity!

And as to;
“Mr Schorel-Hlavka, are you trying to deceive by making apodictic claims about the intention of the framers of our constitution and the validity of government/s. There is the small matter of S51 of our constitution. Section 51 grants certain powers to the government and that would include the power to compel us to vote. In actual fact there is no compulsion to vote. You (the voter) are required to report to the local polling place and have your name crossed off a list. What you do with your ballot paper is up to you. If you do not mark your ballot paper you have not voted.” Posted by Sage

When you attack another person as to “trying to deceive” then at least make out a proper case.
For the record, I did attend to a polling station on 10-11-2001. Was known to be a candidate. Was in the polling station for about 15 minutes, even talked to the election official. Was not given any ballot papers to fill in and as such left. Nothing in the legislation states you must hit an official over the head to get ballot papers! No one denied that I was there! When the magistrate asked me if I filled in any ballot papers I made clear that this was confidential.
The moment the Court decides if you did or didn’t fill in a ballot paper then there is no such as confidential voting, and next we might have armed guards watching how people fill in their ballot papers. If you think that is nonsense. That is what people stated in 2001 about Australians ending up in detention centres. Now it were hundreds of them.
Either we have a constitution or we don’t have one