No Way Bob Day!

[[TRANSCRIPT]]

 Bob Day’s barrister, Peter King, received a warning from Chief Justice French on the third of may against making speeches with politically charged references in front of the high court. He was responsible for presenting, the cross-bencher, Bob Day’s constitutional challenge about electoral change for the upcoming election process to the High Court.

Mr. King is helping Senator Day launch a constitutional case against the Australian Parliament contesting the electoral reforms designed to prevent independents running for a position in the Senate who don’t represent the Australian general public from receiving a seat. Day complains that the new system would unfairly skew the thousands of votes for minor parties as the votes would quickly be thrown away under the new regime. His fears are that it would only grow Australia’s two-party government issues.

Policy discussions - best reserved
for university lecture halls?

King’s scolding arose when he compared the laws, as equal to dissuading signs out the front of polling places. Chief Justice French rose to action warning King to “go to the nitty gritty rather than have speeches that are best made outside of this place.”

 Legal challenges are very serious and formal affairs. In the entirety of Australia’s history, there have been less than one hundred constitutional challenges. Since the high court opened in 1903, the number of cases the court has seen are incredibly small averaging sixty a year since commencement. Again, the number of constitutional challenges are even lower, meaning they are marked down in Australia’s history for special consideration. The minuscule amount of challenges only leaves more room for humiliation as it is certain that Mr. King’s scolding in front of the high court won’t be quickly forgotten.

The policy reform, which is the subject of the legal challenge, is trying to prevent small senators from creating preference deals with other parties to win the seat in Parliament through the preferential voting system. This voting system works so that political groups can show voters how to choose senators that best support this policy in descending order. The plan was put forward after it was debated in Parliament for forty hours, revealing just how contentious this decision is.

The challenge in the high court has prevented the South Australian electoral officer and federal government from issuing the next round of ballot papers needed for the Senate election, which was scheduled to be held on July 2.

In detail, the new policy intends to eradicate the process requiring below the line voters to place their preference for each listed and instead choose their top twelve favorites for the seat. Party logos would also be included in the paper simplifying the process for less politicized individuals. It was seen in a previous election that taglines printed on group voting papers can be very misleading, this will be eradicated by printing logos onto the ballot paper.

Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull has argued that the new legislation was good for democracy as it will encourage voters to vote for at least six senators above the line individually. But if their preferred candidates are unsuccessful then their votes will be entirely unsuccessful.

If anything the new policy makes
brilliant brunch conversation!

As beneficial as the changes may appear senators are warning that these changes violate the principle of representative government. Day body proclaims that voter’s rights were taken away and today no one is a step closer to restoring those rights. This bold claim adds a frightening spin to the turn of events but in reality, Commonwealth solicitor-general Justin Gleeson has criticized the senator for speaking out and dismissed his arguments as having a considerable weakness.

Gleeson has pointed out that if Day’s case is accepted that it would invalidate all voting since 1984. Following that train of logic then Australia would not have had voted in a valid Senate since the last election before 1984. This would put Australia’s legal and political system in serious jeopardy as it would invalidate all legislation.

According to the Constitution, no law can be passed except on agreement by both houses – therefore is the Senate is eradicated so is all of the laws that have been passed in the last thirty years!

Additionally, the case outlines that the policy interferes with section seven of the Australian constitution that claims senators shall be composed of senators for each state chosen directly by the people of the state and that this means that every person’s vote must directly go towards selecting one candidate.

Constitutional law experts from the University of New South Wales have applied legal reasoning and have clarified that governments are allowed to use a range of electoral systems to satisfy direct election. Day’s loss is that the constitution is ambiguous about by what means the voting has to be direct. As a consequence, he cannot claim that one form of voting is more direct than the other as long as they’re both direct.

To be honest, I think we should all
just have a calming cup of tea.

Overall, it seems that King has set himself up for an uphill battle as he failed to present an outline of his argument to the High Court before his presentation.

The courts are still examining the case as we speak, and I look forward to hearing more about this constitutional challenge…as unlikely as Senator Day’s success may be.