Login
Court told Voice vote process ‘clear and consistent’
A court hearing an appeal into whether crosses on the upcoming Voice referendum should count as a “No” vote has been told the method around voting has been “clear and consistent for decades”.
Naomi Neilson
United Australia Party Senator Ralph Babet, with support from founder Clive Palmer, returned to the Federal Court two weeks after Justice Steven Rares found a cross on the referendum could have a number of meanings and should not be counted as a “No” vote.
Justice Rares found a voter could intend for it to be a disapproval, a non-answer or an unwillingness to answer the question.
This was in line with a media release from the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC), which set out that a “Yes” or a tick would be counted as affirmative, but a cross or an “X” would not be counted as a “No” vote because it’s meaning was too ambiguous.
Justice Rares agreed that a tick was different because it suggested “an affirmative response” and “does not convey a negative response”.
In a rush to appeal Justice Rares’ finding before the vote on 14 October, Mr Babet filed an application for leave to appeal on four grounds, including Justice Rares erred in finding a tick written alone satisfies a requirement of disclosing a clear intention on the part of the voter.
Failing that, Mr Babet proposed an alternative order that the tick symbol could not be counted as an affirmative answer.
On Monday (9 October), counsel for Mr Babet argued that “if a tick satisfies the standard of quality, then so does a cross”.
In response, AEC counsel instead argued that the methods for voting, including in referendums, have been “clear and consistent for decades”, and a voter will go into the booths with an existing understanding of it.
He also added the “ticks and crosses” debate could pose a “danger of the waters being muddied”, leading to voter confusion.
Naomi Neilson
Naomi Neilson is a senior journalist with a focus on court reporting for Lawyers Weekly.
You can email Naomi at:
