1.E) The complaints by the electorate regarding the lack
of information about how to vote are many; attachment (I) shows four hundred
(400) electors signed an online internet petition stating they did not feel
they were adequately aware of their entitlements, rights and obligations under
the Act and attachment (F) states, that the electorate surveyed had very little
knowledge of how to vote, or any of their entitlements and rights under the
1.F) Furthermore, s 8 of the
Act at subs(1)(c) states,
“…is responsible for the carrying out of appropriate programmes of publicity
and public education in order to ensure that the public is adequately informed
of their democratic rights and obligations under this Act”.
1.G) It is alleged the
Electoral Commissioner has failed to take adequate steps to ensure the public
are informed of their rights and obligations, only where to go to vote for
those that did receive their “Easy Voting Card”, resulting in doubt cast on the
intent of ballots being genuinely cast for the electorates most preferred
candidate, by want of election machinery.
1.H) It has become apparent
that almost one third (1/3) of those most in need of support services, and
proper education, being the many residents of the seventy-seven (77) of the two
hundred and sixty-eight (268) declared institutions that did not receive any
information or support services at all, denying them the entitlement to cast an
informed vote, which has resulted in hundreds or thousands of voters not being
able to cast a vote for the candidate they preferred.
1.I) In 2006, two hundred
and forty-two (242) declared institutions were visited by electoral teams, to
ensure the occupants of such institutions could cast an informed vote for the
candidate they most preferred, the said places, were the total of those so
declared; a total of seventy-seven (77) were excluded from the March 2010 South
Australian State Election, which alleged, has had an affect on the outcome of
1.J) Sections in the Act
ensure proper scrutiny of the ballots, and are reliant on the electorate
understanding their rights and obligations, an example will be given (see
attachment (M), page twelve (12)). Under s 94subs(6) of the Act the law states,
“Where- (a) a ballot paper
has not been marked by a voter in the manner required by this Act; but (b)
despite that fact, the voter’s intention is clear”
the vote will be deemed formal.
1.K) Words “the voters intention is clear” have been
stated by the Court and deemed to mean, that such “intention” was to comply
with the Act. The petitioner states that to do so, the electorate needed to be
clear of their entitlements, rights and obligations in order to do so, in the
absence of such certainty, any vote counted in the scrutiny that was deemed
formal by s 94subss(6)(a),(b) which has not been the voters intention to be
1.L) See attachment (M) at page twelve (12) “sample of a formal ballot
paper” which is alleged not to be the will of an uninformed elector.
1.M) Such uncertainty in the scrutiny of votes,
becomes an irregularity in the conduct of the election, that has affected the
outcome of the election. The petitioner believes that when added to the many
irregularities in the proper conduct of the election found in the petition, it
will further shows a trend that the conduct of the election has strayed so far
from the legislative provisions, that it has not been a proper election at law.
1.N) During the three (3)
days of 18 through to the 20 March 2010, the
petitioners’ own website named “How To Vote In SA” (www.howtovoteinsa.net
) received over
twenty-five thousand (25,000) “hits” (accessed visits), confirmed in the
Affidavit of the petitioner. A copy of the website “hits” (see attachment (M)
on page twenty-two (22)) which confirms a spike in website “hits” from an
average of a few hundred to twenty-five thousand, five hundred and seventy-four
1.O) The petitioner will
state that the sudden surge in electors searching the exact words “How to vote
in SA” is a clear indicator of electors seeking information, due directly to
the important information they were denied by the electoral commission as is
her obligation under s 8subs(1)(c) of the Act.
1.P) During past South Australian State Elections it will
be alleged that a regular practice to display how to vote information in every
cubicle at the polling booths occurred, of both the Upper and Lower Houses and
the respective Upper House preference sheets; it is alleged this practice was
not fulfilled, resulting in breach of the Electoral Commissioners obligations
under both ss 8(b),(c), 65subss(a),(b)(ii) of the Act respectively (see Part 3
of the petition).
Part 2s 23
It will be alleged the Electoral Commission has breached s 23 of the Act in
their duty to ensure the electoral rolls have been kept up to date, extensive
evidence is included in Part 5 of this petition.
The electoral roll, is the basis of the eligibility of voters to cast a valid
vote for the candidate of their preference, issues with the roll, can and have
affected the out come of the election and are an irregularity in the conduct of
the election, by way of denying electors the right to cast their vote and or
receive a ballot paper.
The introduction of the irregular practice of using electronic means to access
the entire roll by way of the new “palm one device” by polling booth staff has
failed due process of the legislative provisions under the Act. Many electors
attended the polling booths to find their name no longer on the roll, and the
new “palm one device” also could not find their names.
(See Exhibit KMM-4) The Electoral Commissioner has confirmed this status, since
the writing of the original petition, beginning at page two (2) at the last
“Alternatively if the elector was voting outside
their enrolled district, all declaration issuing officers were provided an
electronic copy of the roll for the whole state to assist in identifying which
address an elector might be enrolled”.
Further in Exhibit KMM-4 page three (3) at the first paragraph,
“…after undertaking a check of the electoral roll
(by the use of the palm one) if an elector could not be found on the roll, a
declaration vote was issued”, statements below (stated in Part 5 of the
petition) allege this did not happen.
In attachment (A) there are many unsolicited statements received by the
petitioner that confirm these irregularities were not restricted to only a few
electors, (see attachment (A) page one (1)), Jo stated that she worked for the
Electoral Commission and found many false enrollments prior to the election,
that were not Acted upon. On the same page Shauni Pridham and Jessica
Ikahermonen found their names missing from the roll, as did Sean on page two
(2), Lisa Rossbottom Chadwick on page three (3) and Andrew Shore on page four
Part 3s 65subss(a),(b)(ii),(iii) s
66subss(1)(b),(5)(a),(b), s 80A of the Act
3.A) It is alleged the Electoral Commission breached s
65subs(1)(b)(ii) under the Act by failing to provide adequate equipment and it
is further alleged that a breach occurred at s 65subs(1)(b)(iii) which state
the necessity for “adequate poll clerks, necessary staff and equipemnt”.
Attached reports deny this occurred, and that under staffing irregularity was
the issue of the incorrect rolls, and the increased need for absentee votes,
even to the point of a depletion in levels of important stationary as Absentee
voting papers to the detriment of the right to vote of electors (see Part 9).
3.B) It is alleged this irregularity has had an effect
on the outcome of the election, as the direct result has been a denial under
the Act of the electors’ entitlements and rights to both receive an absentee
ballot paper, and have access to Legislative Council how to vote information
and voting tickets (as supported in Part(s) 1 and 9 of the petition).
3.C) The denial of “How To Vote” information and
“Voting Tickets” has had the effect of electors being unable to cast a vote for
the candidate they most preferred, due to want of electoral stationery, and the
opportunity to cast their ballot in an informed manner. It is further alleged
the Electoral Commission breached s 66subss(1)(a),(b) with respect to this
3.D) The facts
relating to the departure of the polling booths to display essential equipment
are many and not isolated to any one (1) polling booth; in attachment (B) on
page twenty-six (26) and sixty-five (65), Rosemarie McKenzie-Ferguson states,
“O’Halleron Hill Polling Place
had no how to vote information in the booths”.
Further on page twenty-three (23) and sixty-five (65) the
statement is made,
“at the Hendon Primary School
“the how to vote cards for each party and candidate were not in the polling
3.E) Further in attachment (L) at page one (1) the Statutory
Declaration of Mr. Garry Lewis confirms that,
“there was no information to
guide me whatsoever”
At page twenty-five (25) Mr. Matthew Fowler states,
“There was no how to vote
information in the polling booth to assist my decision and I had no access to
where the preferences would go”.
3.F) Attachment (L) has many similar elector statements, the
petitioner will include a few more for clarity, at page eight (8), W&A
Nicole while attending the Brighton/Jetty Road(s) Polling Place,
“When I arrived at the booth I
was surprised there was no white form in the booth”
On page twenty-eight (28) of the same attachment a polling
booth worker stated,
“The large legco poster was
behind where the officers were sitting and hard to see”
3.G) Under the Act, s 66(1)(b) ensures that all
posters are displayed or made available in a prominent position in the polling
booth and in accordance with any direction issued by the Electoral
3.H) The Electoral Commissioner must have the
following electoral material prepared for
use in polling booths on polling day:
(a) posters formed from how
to vote cards submitted by the candidates in the election; and
(b) in relation to a
Legislative Council election—posters or booklets, or posters and booklets
containing the voting tickets registered for the purposes of the election.
3.I) The word “posters” is used in a plural sense
and/or “posters and booklets” also denote the plural, when read in conjunction
with s 80A, it ensures that the electorate should have easy access to
prominently displayed posters and booklets in all the polling booths, but that
in the event of a declaration vote being cast outside of the polling booth,
such material must also be made available to those electors outside the booth.
s 80A regards the entitlement to vote outside a polling booth in certain
circumstances, when read with and in conjunction with s 82subs(5) the polling
booths therefore must have more than one (1) copy of the Upper House “How To
Vote” poster and voting tickets.
3.K) In the Exhibit KMM-4, the Commissioner confirms
only one (1) poster was supplied, further evidence is found in the Affidavit of
the petitioner marked attachment (H), where he received many complaints including
those from polling booth managers whom saw this as an irregularity in the
normal conduct of election.
s 69subs(1) of the Act
4.A) In accordance with s 69subs(1) of the Act, it is
alleged the following breach occurred at various polling booths at the 2010
South Australian State Election.
4.B) The witness statement
of Alison Feast (attachment (M)) shows flaws in polling booth practices, where
her family and others were turned away from a polling booth, other statements
found in attachment (G), confirm others were denied entry due to their attire,
which is not founded in any section under the Act, and confirmed by the
Electoral Commissioner in her Exhibit KMM-4 at page five (5)), denying an
unknown amount of the electorate their entitlement to vote.
4.C) Exhibit KMM-4 from the
Electoral Commissioner confirms (page two (2) at the last paragraph),
a voter attended a polling place and their name was not found on the electoral
roll for a District they were claiming a voting entitlement, an un-enrolled
declaration vote was issued by a declaration issuing officer”.
4.D) It is alleged this did
not occur, denying many their right to vote.
Part 5s 70subs(1), s 8subs(1)(c), s 17 of the Act
5.A) Witness statements and further witnesses available
under oath will allege errors in the roll did exist and furthermore,
irregularities resulted in electors being denied their entitlement to vote. It
is alleged that a breach occurred under s 70subs(1) of the Act.
5.B) The tendered witness statement of Mr. Michael
Sherry is an example (see attachment (L) page two (2)). Mr. Sherry attended the
polling booth to cast his vote, and was told he was no longer on the electoral
roll. Mr. Sherry states he has voted in many elections in the same district, and
there is no reason why his name would have been removed from the roll, as he
has not changed address or subdivision.
5.C) Mr. Sherry alleges due to the lack of information
to ensure he was aware of his rights and obligations (as per s 8subs(1)(c) of
the Act) did not demand an absentee ballot paper, further the polling booth
staff did not ensure he was assisted to do so, (further breaches of ss 17 and
78subss(1),(2),(3) under the Act are alleged) by offering him the option of an
absentee ballot paper. When Mr. Sherry complained about being unable to cast a
vote, the polling booth staff instead of ensuring he maintained his right under
the Act to rightly do so, offered Mr. Sherry a signed enrollment form, to show
he had attended to vote (see attachment (B) page sixty-nine (69)) which shows
an the stated form with the signature from the polling booth worker, M. Fromm
from the Elizabeth Vale polling booth.
5.D) It is alleged this irregularity in the conduct of
the election denied Mr. Sherry his entitlement under the Act to receive a
ballot paper and to cast a vote for the candidate he most preferred. Mr. Sherry
has confirmed he will attend and give evidence before the Court.
5.E) Mr. Darren Verdun Hamblen in his sworn statement on
(see attachment (L) at page three (3)) endured the same denial of his
entitlement to both receive a ballot and cast his vote, and went further to
state that he saw the name of his uncle on the roll, who had passed away some
six (6) to seven (7) years earlier. Mr. Hamblen asked the question of the
polling booth staff “Don’t I get a vote” and was told he did not exist, at no
stage was Mr. Hamblen offered an absentee ballot paper, neither was he informed
of his rights and obligations to demand he received one.
5.F) The Affidavit of the petitioner has received
telephone calls from electors that allege this breach of the Act, by way of
denial of both ballot papers and electors entitlement to cast a vote (see
attachment (H) page three (3) at 14)
“I received calls from
polling booth managers, scrutineers, voters, journalists, nursing home staff
and the like over a 2 day period, the major issues across the board were lack
of information for the voters, huge discrepancies in the electoral roll”.
and (see attachment (H) page three (3) at 16),
“People were attending to
vote and finding themselves off the roll, even those who had been voting for
many years and had lived at the same address all of their lives”.
5.G) The statement of Ms. Sonia Temple (attachment (L)
at page four (4)) in which she states,
“I have heard complaints
from many people that they wasn’t[sic] on the electoral roll”.
This allegation further shows a trend towards the
irregularity in the administration of the roll and furthermore was not
restricted to only a few electors.
5.H) The statement of Mr. Peter Ramsey on behalf of
his daughter, Ms. Sharen Anne Ramsey (see attachment sixteen (16), page sixteen
(16)), is one of many alleged examples of regular electors arriving to vote,
who were turned away without receiving a ballot or entitlement to cast their
vote by way of irregularities in the administration of the roll.
5.I) In attachment (L) on Page twenty-two (22), a
person known as Claine makes the statement,
“When I went to vote my
name wasn’t on the list”
and further went on to say,
“The guy (polling booth
staff) looks up my name and gives me a name that is similar to mine”.
Claine voted under a name on the roll, that was not
5.J) The Statutory Declaration of Helen Aldridge (see
attachment (L), page twenty-three (23)), again alleges a trend of
irregularities in the roll affecting the entitlement of electors to cast a vote
(see para 6) in which she states,
“Since the election date,
several of our personal friends voiced many concerns about the conduct, in particular
finding for the first time they were no longer on the roll and in some cases
missing out on voting”.
5.K) It is further alleged (see attachment (C)) there
are several supporting statements of the electorate who had similar complaints
regarding attending to vote to find their names no longer on the electoral
roll, however these statements do not confirm in all cases, full details of
their complaints to satisfy the Court in regards to the full circumstances of
the reasons surrounding their non inclusion on the roll, however they do show a
trend away from the proper administration of the electoral roll, as per
requirements of s 23 of the Act.
5.L) In attachment (L), at page twenty-eight (28) the
statement of a polling booth employee, whose name is left anonymous due to the
terms of his employment, again substantiates issues with the roll, (at para two
(2)), where he/she states,
“I must admit to wishing I
had read up more on the rules relating to elections, as many attended our
booth, for one reason or another found themselves off the electoral roll”
“that the booth did not have enough absentee ballot papers”.
5.M) In the statement of Mr. Paul Kuhn, (see
attachment (L) on page forty (40) at 6.1),
“One family of five voting
age electors told me directly that all five were denied the opportunity to vote
by an official because they were not on the roll, despite having voted at the
same location for the previous 26 years”.
5.N) In the statement of Ms. Miriam Johnson, (see
attachment (L), page fifty-one (51)) she states,
“I had updated my details
(change of address) by the close of the roll deadline, however when I went to
vote at the Moonta polling place, my old address was still on the roll”.
This shows a trend in issues with the administration
of the roll across the State of South Australia.
5.O) The supporting statement of Ms. Rachel McMahon
(see attachment (L), page fifty-five (55)), shows a further trend in which she
alleges names missing from the roll, and in-fact goes as far as confirming
absentee ballot papers ran out in at least one (1) polling booth, Ms. McMahon
has confirmed she is willing to give such evidence before the Court.
5.P) The aforementioned statements are show a trend
(see attachment (F)) in several questions put to some one hundred (100) South
Australian electors by the company “Zoomerang”, where those who took part could
only vote once, (see attachment (F) page three (3), question nine (9)),
“If I arrived to vote and I
was no longer showing on the roll, can I still vote?”
5.Q) Twenty-eight percent (28%) had no idea if they
could vote, a further fifty-four (54%) believed they could not vote, such
figures confirming they were not aware of their right to an absentee ballot
paper (s 78 of the Act), therefore left without the means to both understand
their rights and/or ensure they were able to vote (ss 8subs(1)(c) and
5.R) In attachment (F) at page five (5), question four
(4), the electorate were asked if they had heard of any friends or family that
were denied their opportunity to vote, fifty-six percent (56%) confirmed they
had, and a further twenty-nine percent (29%) had not asked their friends, in
order for survey purposes.
5.S) In attachment (L), the statement of Mr. Chris
Jones by way of e-mail, shows a trend as to issues with the administration of
the roll. Mr. Jones states he was not found on the roll at the Hackham East
Primary School polling booth, therefore he left without receiving a ballot
paper (alleged breaches under s 78subss(1),(2),(3)), only to attend the
Christies Beach Primary School polling booth where his name did appear on the
electoral roll, and therefore was able to vote.
5.T) The Electoral Commission made available to every
polling booth new equipment called a “palm one device” which was designed to
ensure access to the complete electoral roll, should an elector for one reason
or another attended a polling booth out of their electoral division. It is
alleged this new technology has added to the irregularities in the access to electorate
information held on the electoral roll, as it is clear from the above statement
of Mr. Jones where his enrollment was unable to be confirmed at the first
polling place, but was able to be found at a subsequent location. This alleged
irregular practice has resulted in the electorate facing similar issues, who
may not have made the choice to attend another booth as Mr. Jones so decided.
5.U) The petitioner wishes to raise that allegation from
Brian (a polling booth manager) (see attachment (L), page sixty-nine (69))
makes the unsolicited statement online from the internet,
“As I have done for the past 20
years, I worked at one of the many polling booths across the state.”
He went further to mention at (4.),
“It isn’t our fault you aren’t
on the roll”.
This statement supports the allegation that issues with
the roll were a prominent issue for polling booth staff as well, while this
statement can not be verified under oath due to identity reasons, it does help
in alleging an overall departure from the proper conduct of the election in
regards to the basic provisions of ss 23 and 70 which ensure the rolls are up
to date, and that any error or omission does not result in an electorate being
denied their right to receive a ballot paper.
5.V) Supporting unsolicited statements confirming that
issues with the administration of the roll resulted in the electorate being
denied their vote are found in many other locations in the attachments within
the petition, such as that of Rosemary of Adelaide in an online internet
“blog”, (see attachment (L) at page sixty-six (66)) where she states,
“My son went to vote only
to find his name no longer on the electoral roll- he enrolled to vote when he
was still in high school, and has voted at every election since he was 18, and
now he is 27 he suddenly falls of the roll”
The petitioner concedes such statements do not fulfill
the usual rules of evidence found in the Supreme Court, but states that s 106subs(2) applies.
It is respectfully asserted to your Honour this allows the Court greater scope
to ensure equity in such cases is given priority over the usual strict
guidelines that would be restrictive in such cases.
5.X) The petitioner respectfully submits to the Court
that the above examples show a trend away from the proper conduct of the
election as a whole, and had they not occurred, the result of the election
could indeed have been different and this section gives rise to an irregularity
that has offended the common law right of elections, and could succeed (with
the supporting evidence of witnesses in the Court), in proving that an
irregularity which may stand alone to support the request for relief under s
107 of the Act.
5.Y) Attachment (B) at page sixty-three (63), Mr. Michael
Cooke (at para 3) states,
“The team setup specifically to
deal with people for whom the electoral roll had failed to change address was
flat out all day according to the man who ultimately assisted me, and he
claimed some people would say they had sent in dozens of change of address notifications.
There were people in-front and behind me who found they were no longer on the
electoral roll, and were told they did not have to vote and would not be fined
if that’s what they chose.”
The Question here is did they
vote, and if not could the roll omission be responsible for that choice, and if
the omission had not been evident, would they have taken up their right to so
5.Z) Attachment (L) at page ninety-four (94); Mr. Terry
Purcel gives the enrolled addresses for three (3) people who were denied a vote
due to irregularities with the administration of the electoral roll. In the
same attachment, Ms. Robyn Andrew confirms her eighty (80) year old grandmother
who has voted all her life was denied a vote due to issues with the electoral
roll, and is willing to give evidence to the Court.
(The Petitioner would like to remind the court, that all of
these statements were unsolicited, and sent to the petitioner as part of
hundreds of general complaints)
Part 6s 72subss(1)(a),(b) of the Act
6.A) The introduction of the “Easy Voting Card”
resulted in reports of no questions being asked to confirm either (a) to
establish identity and (b) if the elector has voted yet, my personal experience
found neither questions being asked and furthermore, reports within the
electorate that some did not receive their ‘Easy Voting Card” and others who
allegedly abuse the process through theft of such cards or multiple use,
casting doubt on the final voting figures and therefore the validity of the
election (see attachment (H) and survey (F)). It is alleged that the above
statement breached s 72subss(1)(a),(b) of the Act.
Part 7 s 74subss(2),(4) of the Act
7.A) The Electoral Commissioner in her Exhibit (see
KMM-4 at page one (1) at (1) states that the sixteen thousand, eight hundred
and sixteen (16,816) postal votes applied for in time and in the correct
manner, were not returned in time for scrutiny under the Act. The petitioner
states these postal ballots never made it to the electors of whom requested them
in time, supporting the petitioners’ assertion that many South Australian
voters did not have the opportunity to cast their vote for the candidate they
preferred, by want of electoral stationery and irregularities in the conduct.
It is alleged a breach under s 74subss(2) of the Act occurred. It is also
alleged that a breach of s 74subs(4) has resulted, as the Electoral
Commissioner must have records of all voters.
7.B) An example is shown in attachment (L) page
fourteen (14), Mr. Bob Atwell stating,
“My mother who is house
bound, did not receive her postal vote pack”, denying her right under s 74 of
7.C) The petitioner alleges this is not an isolated
incident, and states in (see attachment (L) at page twenty-six (26)) the
Electoral Commissioner in a media release, states
“The Commission had
received a total of ninety-nine thousand five hundred (99,500) applications
(for postal ballots) a fifty one percent (51%) increase on the 2006
7.D) It is further alleged that the irregularities go
further than a sudden increase in applications, when compared to the
information found in Attachment (M) page nineteen (19); it is possible that the
sharp rise in postal ballot applications was a direct result of non direct
application mail outs of the major political parties, where the return address
for applications was in-fact the headquarters of the Labor Party rather than
the Electoral Commission, this would have resulted in time delays on forwarding
such applications, denying applicants timely access to ballot papers, therefore
their entitlement to cast their vote in time for formal scrutiny and inclusion
in the count.
7.E) A letter addressed to the Electoral Commissioner
(Attachment L page fifty (50)) and found elsewhere states,
“The letter I received from your department arrived on
Friday the 19 March, advising that if I required a postal vote, it
had to have arrived by Thursday the 18March” such incidents are
alleged not isolated, and could have resulted in the denial of an electors entitlement
7.F) Attachment (L) at page eighty (85) further
supports such irregularities in the issue of postal ballots in which S.K.
“Several friends and
themselves did not receive their postal ballots in time.”
7.G) In attachment (M) at page twenty-four (24) the
Affidavit of Mrs. Glenda Stevens alleges that although she applied in time, her
postal ballot did not arrive in time, denying her an entitlement to vote under
7.H) The petitioner states in respect to this irregularity,
with the supporting evidence that some seventeen thousand five hundred (17,500)
postal ballots were not received back to the Electoral Commission in time for
inclusion in the count, and that this irregularity, has had an affect on the
outcome of the election, as the final result of the said election could be
different if only as little as 17 were to have cast their ballots for a
particular candidate (see Legislative Council count)
7.I) Further examples of
missing ballot papers are confirmed by various unsolicited statements found in attachment (I) at page twenty-seven
295 Roland Malham Postal
305 Carly Dale Postal vote
Attachment (A) page 3(c) states,
“Anne of Greengables online 6pp applied for postal, SAEC
Part 8s 73subs(4), s 75, s 78subss(1),(2),(3) of the Act
8.A) The petitioner alleges that polling booth staff
breached s 78subss(1),(2),(3) of the Act, by denying the electorate replacement
8.B) The petitioner alleges that a breach occurred
under s 75 of the Act. In attachment (H) the petitioner states if not for his
knowledge of the Act, he would have not been able to demand a replacement for
his spoiled ballot paper, which would or could have resulted in an informal
ballot being excluded, denying his entitlement to vote under the Act.
8.C) s 75 is reliant on the assurance of s 8subs(1)(c)
in a sense that the electorate are aware of their rights under s 75 and s
78subss(1),(2),(3) and that under s 17 that the polling staff ensure their assistance
to receive a replacement ballot paper. The petitioner states that neither these
8.D) Statements include that of the petitioner in
Affidavit from attachment (H) and those of the following;
Attachment (H) page
4 statement of Marie Benson
page 9 at 10
Attachment (L) page
page 61 statement of
(C) page 41 at 1 Mr. Geoff
(F) under the surveys taken by on average of one hundred (100) voters, the
results relating to the question about their voting rights, shows a trend that
voters did not understand their entitlements and rights, which include their
right to demand a replacement ballot paper.
The aforementioned statements confirm a trend by polling booth staff to deny an
electorate their right under the Act to a replacement ballot paper, statements
found in the Affidavit of the petitioner further show that it was imperative
for voters to understand their rights and obligations under the Act, as indeed
he did, enabling him to argue his right to receive a replacement ballot paper.
The Affidavit of Mr. Anthony Paul Forrest (see attachment (M)) states as to the
many issues Mr. Forrest had in casting a vote for the candidate he most preferred,
including the denial of a replacement ballot paper, resulting in both his wife
and himself being unaware if his vote was to be considered formal under the
(see evidence at Part 5, 5.C, 5.E, 5.F, 5.H)
8.H) Furthermore, it is alleged a breach occurred at s
78subs(2) of the Act in regards to a declaration vote being issued, as the word
“applies” is reliant on the electors proper understanding of their rights to so
“apply” and likewise s 17 of the Act, which ensures that the electoral staff assist
in such matters.
s 71subs(1), s 82subs(2)(d)(i) of the Act
9.A) The petitioner alleges that many electors were
denied their right to make a declaration vote, such facts and evidence of, are
confirmed in Part 5 of the petition by several witness statements. It is
alleged that a breach of s 71subs(1) under the Act occurred.
9.B) Further the Electoral Commissioners decision to
no longer send mobile polling services to many declared institutions and their
many residents totaling some seventy-seven (77) institutions, denying them the
opportunity to cast an informed vote for the candidate they might have
preferred by this irregularity in the conduct of the election. If some 7000
electors were denied their right to vote for the candidate they most prefer,
this fact alone has the ability to satisfy s107 and the petitioners prayer for
9.C) The petitioner claims further that declaration
voting entitlements extend to those who are so entitled outside the polling
booth, for which the commission did not ensure adequate how to vote information
to do so under the provisions of the Act, as only one Upper House how to vote
poster was supplied to each polling place, not the minimum of two (2) required
to fulfill the requirements of the Act.
9.D) With informal ballot papers exceeding eighty
thousand (80,000) votes and up to twenty-five thousand (25,000) declaration
votes unaccounted for, it is alleged that this would alter the outcome of the
election. It is also questionable regarding the votes that are in doubt due to
lack of voting equipment.
9.E) A media article
found on attachment (L) at page seventy-four (74) states,
“In Flinders Medical Centre,
Adelaide, 96 patients missed out on voting after the Electoral Commission staff
were unable to take their votes on polling day”.
9.F) s 71subs(1) also appears to be a similar provision in
which a ballot must be supplied.
It is alleged the polling booth staff gave rise to breach s 82subs(2)(d)(i) of
It is alleged the breach occurred from evidence that Miss Hsin-Ju Chiu found in
attachment (A) at page one (1) states,
“He took by postal vote in person, however he
seems[sic] does not really know what to do with the postal vote, so he took it
from me and put it in a box behind him, which looked like a bin”
Further statements of Miss Hsin-ju Chiu can be found in attachment (H) in the
statement of F.R.E.E Australia. The result is that an amount of votes may have
affected the outcome of the election by not being either cast of counted as
they were intended.
Part 10s 111
of the Act
10.A) It is alleged the aforementioned irregularities
interfered with political liberties of a percentage of the electorate and
allegedly capable of affecting the out come of an election by denial of their
equity of rights. Therefore, it is alleged that the Electoral Commission has
breached s 111 of the Act.
10.B) The alleged offending of s 112A under the Act,
by way of the “Family First How To Vote Card” irregularities have interfered
with the performance of the Family First Political Party and their supporters
in regards to their free exercise of entitlement, right or duty under the Act.
These allegations can be found in statement attachment (E) and evidence in
10.C) It is alleged the decision by the Electoral
Commissioner to allow “another person” to make the decision for hundreds if not
thousands of electors confined to declared institutions, to receive mobile
polling services has interfered with their political liberty, denying those
affected voters, equal access to adequate information and services, with the
petitioner stating many have been denied their right to either cast a vote, and
or do so in an informed and free manner (testimony at trial of Rod Stienert
Affidavit attachment (L) will confirm alleged irregularities).
10.D) The petitioner states that the Electoral
Commission have interfered with many candidates in the disputed election to
exercise their duties to the electorate and/or their individual liberty to
ensure they could best perform in their candidacies, in the petitioners’
Affidavit, attachment (H) at pages one (1) and two (2) at 3,4,5,6 and 7, it is
alleged the Electoral Commission made a promise to Legislative Council
candidates in which we would all receive contact information for all the
candidates contesting the said election, so as to best ascertain preference
10.E) This information was not made available to the
candidates as promised, and further explained in the course of the Affidavit of
the petitioner (see attachment (H)), such denial of important information has
affected the liberty of all the Upper House candidates.
10.F) The Electoral Commissioner confirms this
occurred (see Exhibit KMM-4 at page four (4) 2 to last paragraph)
“Due to tight turn around
following the close of nominations and preparation of the ballot paper
template, the contact details for candidates could not be published on the
10.G) In direct contradiction with the Electoral
Commissioners Exhibit KMM-1 which shows a print out of the said information
with the production date of Saturday, March 62010, allegedly in
time to upload to the Electoral Commissioners website as promised.
10.H) It is alleged further evidence of irregularity
and procedural errors exist in statements of the political parties, F.R.E.E.
Australia Party and the One Nation Political Party in other attachments.
10.I) Hindering or interference with the free exercise
or performance by any other person, or a right or duty under this Act is
alleged to have had an effect on the outcome of the election, by denial of a
candidates right to equity in service and the implied right of candidates
having fair and free access to timely information so as to ensure their ability
to equity, as preferences determined several seats in the said election.
Part 11s 112B of the Act
11.A) It is alleged the South Australian Labor Party
during the day of the election, distributed “How To Vote” cards which clearly
were designed to mislead the electorate as to who they represented, by the use
of a word, or set of words that could It is alleged the Electoral Commissioner has failed
to take adequate steps to ensure the public are informed of their rights and
obligations, only where to go to vote for those that did receive their “Easy
Voting Card”, resulting in doubt cast on the intent of ballots being genuinely
cast for the electorates most preferred candidate, by want of election
not be able to be, registered as the name, or as part
of the name, of a political party under Part 6 of the Act because of the
operation of s 42subss(2)(e) or (3)(b). It is alleged this behavior has
affected the outcome of the election. The petitioner alleges that a breach of s
112B has occurred.
(see attachment (E) and attachment
(L) pages eighteen (18) and twenty (20))
11.B) Although the media covered this event in detail,
(attachment E) expands on the many who felt affected by the alleged breach of
the Act, the Electoral Commissions irregular decision to allegedly restrict
“How To Vote” information in polling booths and allowed for such material to
have more chance of success, this breach of the Act had the sole intention of
affecting the out come of an election.
11.C) The above situation is allegedly an irregularity in
the conduct of the election, and even though it is an event designed by the
perpetrators to affect only certain Lower house seats, it becomes an
irregularity that adds to the trend, the election has strayed far from the
legislative provision for the proper conduct of an election comfortable at law.
115subs(1)(a) of the Act
12.A) It is alleged that advertisements did exist
during the election campaign period which were an offence under s 115subs(1)(a)
of the Act, because they did occupy an area greater than one (1) square metre
and photographs of the advertisements found by the petitioner, are to be
witnessed from attachment (D) at pages nineteen (19) and twenty (20).
12.B) The petitioners’ Affidavit in attachment (H)
states that the Adelaide Motorplex sign on page twenty (20) was driven for
several weeks in and around Adelaide which included parking outside rallies of
Parliament House and driven around the Clipsal motor race event.
12.C) It is alleged this breach is an offence under s
115subs(1)(a) of the Act, and an irregularity in the conduct, which has
affected the outcome of the election.
Part 13 s 124subs(1)(b) of the Act
13.A) It is alleged that reports in the media copies of
which are found in attachment (K) at page five (5), and confirmed by the
Electoral Commission in an e-mail received by the petitioner, did occur, which
equates to an irregularity capable of affecting the outcome of the election.
Therefore, it is alleged that a breach occurred under s 124subs(1)(b) of the Act.
13.B) Furthermore in Exhibit KMM-4, the Electoral
Commissioner further confirms abuse of s 124, in respect of the receipt of
postal vote applications totaling seven thousand, four hundred and fifty-one
(7,451) which were rejected for a variety of reasons including “multiple
13.C) It is alleged this irregularity is complicated in its
affect on the election by aforementioned issues of electoral roll
discrepancies, missing postal ballots et al, that make the true impact on the
election result contentious to ascertain, but in stating such, the breaches of
s 124 show a trend to an irregularity in the conduct capable of and designed to
affect the outcome, and combined with the many aforementioned irregularities
give further weight that the election has not been a process comfortable at
Part 14 s 125subss(1)(a),(b),(c) of the Act
14.A) Several statements found in the petition and the
Affidavit of the petitioner (attachment (H)) allege that s
125subss(1)(a),(b),(c) were breached on occasions through a variety of polling
booth locations, resulting in an irregularity in the conduct, which allegedly
was designed to affect the outcome, and if it were not to occur has had an
affect on the outcome of the election.
14.B) Attachment (L) at page five (5), the statement of Ms.
Kerry J Seebohm confirms several alleged breaches of s 125subss(1)(a),(b),(c),
as does Ms. Nancy Fahey on page seven (7) and on page twelve (12), Ms Corinne
Hall goes further to state,
“This young man was giving a very
loud election speech, and upsetting the girls”
“He then tried to abuse me”, when
speaking of those giving out how to vote cards.
14.C) In attachment (L) the e-mail of Ernie details breaches
of s 125subss(1)(a),(b),(c), the Electoral Commission concedes this
irregularity by way of her Exhibit KMM-4, on page three (3),
“On election day many party
workers tend to establish themselves within the 6 meters of the entrance to the
14.D) It is alleged that what the Electoral Commissioner
does not address is party workers intimidating electors as they enter the
polling place, and the possible affect it would have on the outcome of the
election, either for or against the party they are said to represent.
The results of the Legislative Council Election in some
cases were affected by as little as 17 votes, when one looks at the results by
exclusions from the count, for clarity here are some of the exclusions;
Count 22 Independent Joseph Williams excluded by 304 votes
Independent Joe Lenco 59
Australia Party 954 votes
Independent Fishing and Lifestyle 285 votes
Independent Legalize Euthanasia 354 votes
for Croyden 17
Figures and facts from the
State Election March 20 2010, that the petitioner argues are in
contention, and exceed the total of 17 which would have affected the outcome.
Enrolled voters 1,015,386
Enrolled voters in the lower house
Invalid/informal votes in the upper house
Invalid/informal votes the lower house
Didn’t turn up to vote in the upper house 80,449
Didn’t turn up to vote in the lower house 78,474
Total non-voters 77,930………………………………………………………….77,930
Total receiving a first notice for a fine 41,400
Total excused for not voting 36,530
Increase in the informal vote for the upper house 6092………………………… 6,092
Postal ballots requested 100,397
Postal ballots refused 7,452 ………………………………………………………7,452
Postal votes issued 92,946
Postal ballots received back 76,130
ballots missing 16,816..…………………………………………………
All Figures in the left column are open to contention.
RELIEF SOUGHT BY THE PETITIONER
petitioner seeks relief by way of an order
declaring the aforementioned election void and requiring a new election to be
held under s 107subs(1)(c) of the Act, (a) due to a defect in a roll or
certified list of electors; and (b) an irregularity in, or affecting, the
conduct of the election, as it can be proven to the Court, that it will be
satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the result of the election was
affected by the many listed defects and irregularities and that under the
common law of elections, the irregularities are so great in number that the
election can not be deemed an election at law.
The South Australian general election
conducted on March 20 2010 was allegedly not an election at law,
due to many irregularities in its conduct. The electorate were denied their
right to cast their vote for the candidate they most preferred, by errors in
the roll, irregularities in the conduct and by want of equipment and a lack of
understanding of their rights and obligations under the Act.
The Electoral Commission were not awarded
adequate time and funding to conduct the election as is required under the Act,
their part-time staff and the electorate in general were not well informed
enough to ensure the candidates chosen by the election results were those that
the majority preferred.
The Electoral Commissions decision to enact
irregular practices in respect of the usual public education regime, has failed
in its task, sending an uninformed electorate to the polls, the sudden surge in
postal ballot applications due to in particular the Labor Parties’ mass mail
out of postal vote applications with the return address being their own office
rather than the Electoral Commissioner (see attachment (M)) has contributed to
an overload of resources and time to ensure adequate review, which has in
itself cast doubts on the votes of some twenty five thousand (25,000) electors
due to the processing of the postal ballots alone.
Those electors that do not or can not read
the local paper, or do not have access to the internet, deserve to be as
informed as those that can, as do our elderly, first time voters and new
Australians, but when those that do, still attend to vote ill informed, the
election has failed.
Similar time constraints without doubt have
brought about similar issues with the administration and servicing of the
electoral roll, and the supply of adequate stationary and information found
lacking in the polling booths at the election.
Witnesses at trial will support the nominated
sections of the Act that the petitioner has alleged incurred a breach, and the
petitioner is certain of the facts contained in the petition before the Court,
he would be more than happy to call more witnesses by way of random choice from
the electoral roll to prove without doubt the conduct of the election was not
one comfortable at law.
The Petitioner, Mark Marshall
Candidates and enrolled voted in the March 2010 State
Election South Australia