Add articles to your saved list and come back to them any time.<\/p>\n
Mining magnate Clive Palmer and United Australia Party Senator Ralph Babet have launched a Federal Court bid to force the Australian Electoral Commission to count crosses on Voice referendum ballot papers as a vote against the proposal.<\/p>\n
The urgent court challenge comes just five weeks before the historic Voice to parliament referendum on October 14.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Mining magnate Clive Palmer has launched a Federal Court action over the Voice referendum.<\/span>Credit: <\/span>Alex Ellinghausen<\/cite><\/p>\n The Electoral Commission has made clear that a tick will be counted as a Yes vote but a cross, which may be ambiguous, will not be counted as a No vote on Voice referendum ballot papers, consistent with legal advice that has been provided for decades.<\/p>\n Opposition leader Peter Dutton has previously claimed this would give the Yes campaign an advantage.<\/p>\n Babet and Palmer \u2013 the founder of the United Australia Party \u2013 are seeking a Federal Court declaration that \u201ceffect shall be given to any ballot papers containing a cross (\u201cX\u201d) written alone in the space provided, by treating such ballot papers as clearly demonstrating the voter\u2019s intention that he or she does not approve the proposed law\u201d.<\/p>\n They are also seeking an order restraining the AEC from \u201cinstructing scrutineers or any other officer\u201d to count ballots \u201cother than in accordance with\u201d that declaration.<\/p>\n Alternatively, the men seek a declaration that any ballot papers containing a tick alone \u201cdo not clearly demonstrate the voter\u2019s intention\u201d to be counted as a Yes vote, and are to be treated as informal votes. They also seek a related order restraining the AEC from instructing scrutineers or other officers to count those votes other than in accordance with that declaration.<\/p>\n Federal Court Justice Steven Rares made orders on Friday listing the challenge for a hearing on Wednesday, September 20.<\/p>\n The AEC has previously made clear that \u201cthe formal voting instructions for the referendum are to clearly write either \u2018yes\u2019 or \u2018no\u2019, in full, in English\u201d.<\/p>\n \u201cIt is that easy: given the simplicity, the AEC expects the vast, vast majority of Australian voters to follow those instructions and cast a formal vote,\u201d the commission said.<\/p>\n It took aim at misinformation surrounding the vote count and noted that \u201cmore than 99 per cent of votes cast at the 1999 federal referendum [on an Australian republic] were formal\u201d.<\/p>\n \u201cEven of the 0.86 per cent of informal votes, many would have had no relevance to the use of ticks or crosses.\u201d<\/p>\n Australians will cast their vote on October 14 on whether to enshrine recognition of the nation\u2019s First Peoples in the Constitution by creating a body that would advise the parliament and executive government on matters relating to Indigenous Australians.<\/p>\n Under so-called \u201csavings provisions\u201d, a vote may be counted where a voter\u2019s intention is clear, even when they have not followed the instructions to write either \u201cYes\u201d or \u201cNo\u201d on the ballot paper.<\/p>\n \u201cThe longstanding legal advice provides that a cross can be open to interpretation as to whether it denotes approval or disapproval: many people use it daily to indicate approval in checkboxes on forms,\u201d the AEC said in a statement last month.<\/p>\n \u201cThe legal advice provides that for a single referendum question, a clear \u2018tick\u2019 should be counted as formal and a \u2018cross\u2019 should not.\u201d<\/p>\n