|
''R v Pearson; Ex parte Sipka'' was an important Australian court case decided in the High Court of Australia on 24 February 1983. It concerned section 41 of the Australian Constitution, and the question of whether four people eligible to vote in New South Wales could be prevented from voting at the federal level by a federal law which closed registration to vote on the day that the writs of election were issued. The court decided that they could, adopting a narrow interpretation of section 41, and therefore finding that there is no express constitutional right to vote in Australia. ==Background to the case== In 1983, section 45 of the ''Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918'' provided that:
This had the effect of closing the electoral roll on the day when an election was called, so that anyone who had not registered before it was called would not be able to vote. Federal elections in Australia are held at irregular intervals, but are usually about three years apart. However, in 1983, Liberal Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser was keen to call an early election. Popular union leader Bob Hawke had been elected to the Australian House of Representatives in the 1980 election, for the Australian Labor Party (ALP), and was moving to challenge the ALP leader Bill Hayden. Fraser thought his chances were better against Hayden than against Hawke, and so he wanted to hold the election before Hawke could take over the leadership. Fraser requested a double dissolution election (an election for the entire Parliament of Australia, including both tranches of Senators), which was granted by Governor-General of Australia Ninian Stephen on 3 February, with the election date set for 5 March. The writs were issued on 4 February, which meant that the electoral roll was effectively closed at 6 o'clock on that day. Jarka Sipka, Rudolf Kleppich, Murray Chapman and Sarah Walters were four people from New South Wales who were entitled to vote in New South Wales elections, but had not enrolled to vote in federal elections. When they applied to be put on the electoral roll, the Registrar refused to put their names on the roll until after the election, because the roll was already closed. Sipka and Chapman could have enrolled before the writs were issued, had they so chosen, but Kleppich and Walters could only have enrolled on or after 15 February, because Kleppich was not naturalised until that date, and Walters did not turn eighteen (the minimum voting age) until that date. The four applied to the High Court of Australia for writs of mandamus compelling several people, including the Chief Australian Electoral Officer, to appear before the court to show cause for not registering the four people.〔In some cases involving a writ of mandamus, the applicants are referred to as prosecutors, and the person who must show cause is treated as a defendant. The case is correspondingly named as if it were a criminal case.〕 The court granted the writs, and the hearings were held on 16 and 17 February. 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「R v Pearson; Ex parte Sipka」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|