Previous 15 / 27 Next

Kiefel CJ Bell J Keane J Nettle J Gordon J Edelman J 9. concerns. First, to maximise the chances of identifying the correct TCP Candidates, the Commission would take into account all relevant objective data including, but not limited to, historical performance26. Second, the Commission would keep confidential the identity of the TCP Candidates until the close of polls27. It was not in dispute that both of these recommendations are given effect in the Commission's established practice for selecting the TCP Candidates and conducting the Indicative TCP Count. 29 When s 274(2A) was introduced into the Electoral Act28, the new procedure was intended to "provide the public on [election] night with an early indication of the two-candidate preferred result in most electorates"29. That reflected the recommendations of the JSCEM in 1992 that it was "highly desirable that the public and candidates know the result of the count as it becomes available"30 and, thus, that not only should the results of the first preference count be transmitted "immediately"31 but "[t]he result of the provisional two-candidate preferred distribution should be transmitted as soon as possible from each polling place, and transmitted in at least three batches from 26 JSCEM, Conduct of the 1990 Federal Election Part II and Preparations for the Next Federal Election, Interim Report: Counting the Vote on Election Night (1992) at 7 [2.3.2]-[2.3.4], 20 (Recommendation 1). 27 JSCEM, Conduct of the 1990 Federal Election Part II and Preparations for the Next Federal Election, Interim Report: Counting the Vote on Election Night (1992) at 8 [2.3.5]-[2.3.7], 21 (Recommendation 2). 28 Electoral and Referendum Amendment Act 1992 (Cth), s 26. 29 Australia, Senate, Parliamentary Debates (Hansard), 15 October 1992 at 1904; Australia, House of Representatives, Parliamentary Debates (Hansard), 16 December 1992 at 3866. 30 JSCEM, Conduct of the 1990 Federal Election Part II and Preparations for the Next Federal Election, Interim Report: Counting the Vote on Election Night (1992) at 15 [4.3.1]. 31 JSCEM, Conduct of the 1990 Federal Election Part II and Preparations for the Next Federal Election, Interim Report: Counting the Vote on Election Night (1992) at 22 (Recommendation 4).

Select target paragraph3

● ● ●

Palmer v. Australian Electoral Commission (AEC)

Judgment

Question Presented: Whether the practice of disclosing the indicative two-candidate preferred count (“Indicative TCP”) prior to the closing of all polling sites in the country by the Australian Election Commission (AEC) influenced the voters’ choice and undermined the impartiality or perception of impartiality of the Commission, therefore violating the election law and the Constitution.

Alleged Acts: The plaintiffs allege that the AEC contravened the Electoral Act by illegally disclosing polling count information before all polls across the country had closed, thereby abandoning its impartiality or its appearance of impartiality and seemingly endorsing specific candidates. The plaintiffs also allege that the AEC’s practice of disclosing polling count information before all polls had closed contravenes Sections 7 and 24 of the Constitution and “impermissibly distort[s] the voting system in a manner that would compromise the representative nature of a future Parliament” by improperly influencing voters who had not yet cast their ballots.

Procedural history: Plaintiffs applied for a constitutional or other writ. Multiple hearings occurred before one justice of the High Court in Melbourne. The Attorney-General of the Commonwealth made annotated submissions to the High Court. A hearing occurred before the High Court sitting in plenary in Canberra.

Summary: Plaintiffs were nominated by the United Australia Party (UAP) as candidates for divisions of the Parliament in 2019. Prior to the election, the plaintiffs filed an application for a constitutional writ seeking an order to prevent the AEC from publishing, as per its usual practice, information about an indicative TCP count. Plaintiffs argued that the AEC’s practice of publishing the Indicative TCP count after the polls of each Division of the House of Representatives closed (but before all the polling sites across Australia closed) was in violation of the Electoral Act. They claimed that this practice undermined the AEC’s impartiality or appearance of impartiality and would distort the voting system to the point of undermining the representative nature of Parliament, which is protected by Sections 7 and 24 of the Constitution. The High Court of Australia found for the AEC (as respondent), holding that the plaintiffs did not ground their statutory or constitutional challenges in any factual foundation. According to the High Court, the plaintiffs did not show how an early Indicative TCP count had influenced people who had not yet voted and simply claiming voting “may be affected” was not enough to sway the High Court. Additionally, the High Court held that the AEC’s selection of candidates for the Indicative TCP count did not favor any one candidate and was not inaccurate or misleading. The AEC’s specific process was a “predictive exercise” and “generally accurate” and the act of publishing the results did not constitute an opinion on the part of the AEC or represent its preference for any one candidate. In light of these findings, the High Court ruled in favor of the AEC, holding that the plaintiffs did not provide enough facts to prove that the AEC practice contravened the Constitution.

Conclusion: The High Court dismissed the case.

Legal Issue(s)

Electoral Administration Irregularities
EMB Operation

Applicable Law(s): s 7(3) of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 (Cth) (“the Electoral Act”); s 274(2A)-(2C) of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 (Cth) (“the Electoral Act”); ss 7 and 24 of the Australian Constitution

Region: Asia-Pacific

Country: Australia

Language of Decision

English

Court: Supreme Court

Election Type: Parliamentary

Date of decision: Aug 14, 2019

Geolocation

Latitude: -35.29924283388032

Longitude: 149.107819190348

: Geolocation

Primary Documents

Palmer v. AEC - Full Judgment.pdf
English
Download View

Election Judgments - IFES

Select target paragraph3

Palmer v. Australian Electoral Commission (AEC)

Primary Documents

Notifications