Murphy v Electoral Commissioner [2016] HCA 36

Murphy v Electoral Commissioner [2016] HCA 36

The challenged provisions, establishing a suspension period for processing enrolment changes before an election, do not impermissibly burden or restrict the constitutionally prescribed mandate that Parliament be 'directly chosen by the people.' The design reflects a legitimate legislative choice for achieving accuracy and orderly administration rather than exclusion of persons from the franchise. There is no requirement that the maximum possible enfranchisement be legislated, and the mere possibility of alternative schemes does not render the current provisions invalid. Thus, the impugned sections are not invalid under the Constitution.

Parties
Plaintiff: Anthony John Murphy; Plaintiff: Second Plaintiff (Ms Scurry); Defendant: Electoral Commissioner; Defendant: Second Defendant (Commonwealth of Australia); Intervener: Attorney-General for the State of South Australia
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 September 2016
Procedural Posture
Special Case / Final Judgment Answering Questions in Special Case
Outcome
All questions answered adversely to plaintiffs; provisions upheld as valid.
Legal Topics
Franchise, Electoral Roll, Validity of Statutory Provisions, Direct Choice by the People, Burden on Constitutional Mandate
Constitutional Law Electoral Law Franchise Electoral Roll Validity of Statutory Provisions Direct Choice by the People Burden on Constitutional Mandate

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 21 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Anthony John Murphy

Plaintiff

Second Plaintiff (Ms Scurry)

Plaintiff

Electoral Commissioner

Defendant

Second Defendant (Commonwealth of Australia)

Defendant

Attorney-General for the State of South Australia

Intervener

Procedural Posture

Special Case / Final Judgment Answering Questions in Special Case

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether sections 94A(4), 95(4), 96(4), 102(4), 103A(5), 103B(5), and 118(5) of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 (Cth) are contrary to ss 7 and 24 of the Constitution and therefore invalid
  2. 2 Whether the suspension period on processing enrolment claims and roll amendments impermissibly burdens the constitutional mandate that Parliament be ‘directly chosen by the people’
  3. 3 Whether there is a sufficient 'substantial reason' justifying the provisions imposing the suspension period

Ratio Decidendi

The challenged provisions, establishing a suspension period for processing enrolment changes before an election, do not impermissibly burden or restrict the constitutionally prescribed mandate that Parliament be 'directly chosen by the people.' The design reflects a legitimate legislative choice for achieving accuracy and orderly administration rather than exclusion of persons from the franchise. There is no requirement that the maximum possible enfranchisement be legislated, and the mere possibility of alternative schemes does not render the current provisions invalid. Thus, the impugned sections are not invalid under the Constitution.

Court Disposition

All questions answered adversely to plaintiffs; provisions upheld as valid.

Orders

  • Second plaintiff has standing; unnecessary to decide standing of first plaintiff.
  • Sections 94A(4), 95(4), 96(4), 102(4), 103A(5), 103B(5) and 118(5) of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 (Cth) are not contrary to ss 7 and 24 of the Constitution and are not invalid.