Fraud and the election: High Court challenge

But if the Court had invalidated WorkChoices, Peter Van Onselen’s belated wish that the Howard government had been re-elected would have probably been fulfilled. The ACTU’s advertising on that was the most effective political advertising since Gough Whitlam’s It’s Time, and as everyone knows, government advertising is always money - yours - down the drain.

(A word to those who do not subscribe to The Weekend Australian. In the July 31 issue, Dr Van Onselen, the newspaper’s contributing editor, surprised us all when he wrote that if the past three years have taught us anything “it is that if voters had their time again they would have re-elected the Howard government for a fifth term”.)

GetUp! had five years to go to the High Court

You really do have to wonder why GetUp! waited until now to challenge the Howard legislation which has been on the statute books since 2006. The answer is simple. They hoped that the Rudd government would have been able to amend the law for them to revert to the seven days. But as with so many of Mr Rudd’s projects, this proved too difficult to deliver.

This High Court case is being justified because the two plaintiffs must be among those who registered after the first day following the writs but before the eighth. (There are two plaintiffs because GetUp! would have ensured that each sex be represented. While gerrymandering the Summit is apparently alright you must never engage in anything those with time on their hands could possibly determine is sex discrimination.)

Does this mean the plaintiffs have the ability, knowledge and persistence to bring a High Court case but are unable to comply with a simple one-day deadline well publicised by the AEC? Does it mean they could not have registered beforehand? Why did they wait for the second day, but ensure they did it before the eighth?

The answers to all this will not be revealed in cross examination. Instead Their Honours will be provided with a statement of agreed facts which is unlikely to traverse this crucial question.

Originally the plaintiffs were described as petitioning the Court on their own behalf and in a representative capacity, presumably for other 99,998 people the AEC says registered on the second to the seventh day after the writs were issued.

But this representative capacity was abandoned on Justice Hayne’s suggestion after the Electoral Commission indicated, not unreasonably, that it would apply any decision favourable to the two plaintiffs to all of those in the same bateau.

Running dead

That is the problem. The AEC is not celebrated for its commitment to the early closing of the rolls. Nor is the government - it is not the legislating Howard government but the Gillard government which is defending what the government would prefer to amend.

In his paper to the Samuel Griffith Society on the WorkChoices case, Julian Leeser accused the States of running dead (“WorkChoices: Did the States run dead?”)

In this case the question is whether we will see a vigorous defence of the Howard amendment and of the reasons for it. These are a matter of public record and may be found in Hansard.

But will this be mentioned in detail in the statement of agreed facts, the application books, the submissions or in argument?