Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-mzp66 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-30T17:13:03.006Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Electoral Corruption and Malpractice

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 January 2025

P. D. Finn
P. D. Finn*
Affiliation:
Australian National University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Australian electoral legislation provides both a regulatory and punitive scheme designed to overcome electoral corruption and malpractice. Much of this legislation has been based on British models. The article commences by detailing the existing British legislation and its merits. Extended consideration is then given to the sections of Australian electoral legislation dealing with the conduct of candidates for election and their supporters. The former British legislation which has been imitated in various Australian jurisdictions is identified and the effectiveness of the present Australian electoral legislation is compared with that presently in force in the United Kingdom. As well, the principal electoral offences and controls on electoral expenditure in each of the States and the Commonwealth are considered at length. The analysis in this regard is complemented by a schedule to the article comparing the existence of, and penalties for, 48 electoral offences under various electoral statutes in Australia and the United Kingdom. Dr Finn concludes the article by arguing for reform in a number of specified areas of Australian electoral legislation.

Type
Research Article
Information
Federal Law Review , Volume 8 , Issue 2 , June 1977 , pp. 194 - 230
Copyright
Copyright © 1977 The Australian National University

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Statute of Westminster the First (1275), 3 Edw. 1, c. 5; Bill of Rights (1688),Will. & Mar., sess. 2, c. 2; Borough of Blechingley (1623) Glanv. El. Cas. 29.

2 E.g. Borough of Staleybridge (1869) 1 O'M. & H. 66.

3 E.g. Borough of Blackburn (1869) 1 O'M. & H. 198.

4 E.g. Borough of Drogheda (1869) 1 O'M. & H. 252.

5 E.g. R. v. Pitt, R. v. Mead (1769) 3 Burr. 1335; 97 E.R. 861.

6 Hughes v. Marshall (1831) 2 C. & J. 118; 149 E.R. 49.

7 Representation of the People Act 1949, s. 99 (U.K.) (hereinafter abbreviated in the footnotes as R.P.A.).

8 R.P.A., s. 100.

9 R.P.A., s. 101.

10 E.g. Borough of Oldham (1869) 1 O'M. & H. 151, 161-162.

11 R.P.A., ss. 146-147.

12 R.P.A., s. 139.

13 R.P.A., s. 99.

14 Sulston v. Norton (1761) 3 Burr. 1235, 1237; 97 E.R. 807, 808.

l5 Borough of Coventry (1868) 1 O'M. & H. 97, 107.

16 Borough of Stroud (1874) 2 O'M. & H. 181, 183.

17 The instances of elections being avoided in the nineteenth century for bribery are numerous; for payments of money, see Borough of Bristol (1870) L.R. 5 C.P. 503, for offers of employment, see Harding v. Stokes (1837) 2 M. & W. 233; 150 E.R. 742; for payment of voters' travelling expenses to the poll, see Cooper v. Slade (1857) 6 H.L.C. 746; 10 E.R. 1488; for permitting voters to trap and shoot game, see Borough of Launceston (1874) 2 O'M. & H. 129; for purchasing shares with calls due on them see Borough of Bewdley (1881) 44 L.T. 283; for colourable charity, see Borough of Evesham (1880) 3 O'M. & H. 94; for needless hiring of public houses, see Borough of New Windsor (1866) 15 L.T. 105.

18 (1869) 1 O'M. & H. 143.

19 Borough of Wigan (1881) 4 O'M. & H. 1, 14; see also Borough of Kingston Upon-Hull (1911) 6 O'M. & H. 372; Borough of Nottingham (1911) 6 O'M. &H. 292.

20 For an interesting account of corruption in elections in Victorian England see Burn, “Electoral Corruption in the Nineteenth Century” (1950-1951) 4 Parliamentary Affairs 437.

21 R.P.A., s. 100.

22 (1869) 1 O'M. & H. 236, 244.

23 Borough of Wallingford (1869) 1 O'M. & H. 47, 59; Bodmin Division of County of Cornwall (1906) 5 O'M. & H. 225, 233-235.

24 Per Blackburn J., Borough of Bewdley (1869) 11 O'M. & H. 16, 19.

25 Borough of Wallingford (1869) 1 O'M. & H. 57, 59; Borough of Wigan (1881) 4 O'M. & H. 1, 13-14.

26 Borough of Wallingford (1869) 1 O'M. & H. 57, 59; Borough of Harwich (1880) 3 O'M. & H. 61, 70-71.

27 R.P.A., s. 101.

28 (1869) 1 O'M. & H. 62.

29 Northern Division of County of Meath (1892) 4 O'M. & H. 185.

30 E.g. County of Norfolk (1869) 1 O'M. & H. 236.

31 E.g. Borough of Westbury (1869) 1 O'M. & H. 47.

32 R.P.A., s. 139.

33 R.P.A., s. 138(3).

34 Parliamentary Elections Act 1868, s. 26 (U.K.).

35 Cf. R.P.A., s. 137(2).

36 See the judgment of Willes J. in Borough of Blackburn (1869) 1 O'M. &H. 198, 201-202 for the antiquity of the rule.

37 E.g. Borough of Lichfield (1869) 1 O'M. & H. 22; Borough of Taunton (1869) 1 O'M. & H. 181, 184-185.

38 Borough of Norwick (1886) 54 L.T. 625, 626.

39 E.g. Borough of Stafford (1869) 1 O'M. & H. 228.

40 Borough of Bewdley (1869) 1 O'M. & H. 16, 17 (italics added).

41 R.P.A., s. 138(3).

42 Borough of Barrow-In-Furness (1886) 4 O'M. & H. 76, 83.

43 It should be noted that the Act does not limit the expenditure of political parties as such. This is emerging as a weakness in the legislation particularly, as in recent years, where Parliaments have been short-lived and where political parties have in consequence been subject to considerable economic stress in meeting the costs of only too regular campaigns.

44 Per Sankey J., Borough of Oxford (1924) 7 O'M. & H. 166. In practice the election agents of the major political parties are full-time paid officers of the local party organisations; and see Schenkman, “The British Election Agent” (1952) 5 Parliamentary Affairs 449.

45 R.P.A., s. 64, as amended by R.P.A. 1969, s. 8.

46 Eastern Division of County of Cork (1911) 6 O'M. & H. 318, 346.

47 See Halsbury's Law of England (3rd ed.) Vol. 14, para. 310,

48 See R.P.A., ss. 88, 89, 90, 92, 93, 94.

49 R.P.A., s. 60(2).

56 R.P.A., s. 62.

51 R.P.A., s. 61(1).

52 Eastern Division of County of Cork (1911) 6 O'M. & H. 318,346.

53 R.P.A., s. 66(1).

54 R.P.A., s. 66(3).

55 R.P.A., Fifth Schedule.

5 R.P.A., s. 61(2), s. 69.

57 R.P.A., s. 72.

58 R.P.A., s. 70.

59 Perjury Act 1911, s. 5 (U.K.).

60 R.P.A., s. 72.

61 R.P.A., ss. 76, 77.

62 R.P.A., s. 69(1); R. v. Tronoh Mines [1952] 1 All E.R. 697, 700.

63 R.P.A., s.63(5).

64 R.P.A., s. 63(6).

65 See e.g. D.P.P. v. Luft [1976] 3 W.L.R. 32.

66 R.P.A., s. 61(4).

67 R.P.A., s. 69(3).

68 Electoral Act 1843, s. 49; Electoral Act 1851, s. 47 (N.S.W.); Electoral Act 1851, s. 46 (Vic.).

69 Electoral Act 1843, s. 51; Electoral Act 1851, s. 49 (N.S.W.); Electoral Act 1851, s. 48 (Vic.).

70 Electoral Act 1843, s. 42; Electoral Act 1851, s. 61 (N.S.W.); Electoral Act 1851, s. 60 (Vic.).

71 See e.g. Ithaca Election Petition [1939] St.R.Qd. 90.

72 See Hughes, “Compulsory Voting” (1966) 1 Politics 81.

73 See e.g. Electoral Act 1896, Part VI (Tas.).

74 The doubt with New South Wales and Tasmania arises because, while “illegal practices” are punished in both states-N.S.W.: Parliamentary Electorates and Elections Act 1912, s. 164; Tas.: Electoral Act 1907, s. 172-neither Act actually defines an “illegal practice”.

75 See Cth: Electoral Act 1918, s. 154, s.161; Vic.: Constitution Act Amendment Act 1958, s. 277; Qld: Criminal Code, s. 105; S.A.: Electoral Act 1929 s. 144, s. 151; W.A.: Electoral Act 1907, s. 179, s. 187.

76 The illegal practices and electoral offences relevant to this article are detailed in the Schedule hereto, infra 228-230.

The principal Acts regulating the conduct of elections are as follows: Cth: Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918;

N.S.W.: Parliamentary Electorates and Elections Act 1912-1975; Qld: Criminal Code; Elections Act 1915;

S.A.: Electoral Act 1929; Tas.: Electoral Act 1907;

Vic.: Constitution Act Amendment Act 1958;

W.A.: Electoral Act 1907.

77 Cth: s.191; N.S.W.: s.164; Vic.: s. 287; Qld: (Elections Act) ss.124-127; S.A.: s. 182; W.A.: s.164; Tas.: s. 172.

78 But see e.g. Chanter v. Blackwood (1903) 1 C.L.R. 39 (allegations of bribery and undue influence); Crouch v. Ozanne (1910) 12 C.L.R. 539 (allegations of bribery and undue influence); Woodward v. Maltby [1959] V.R. 794 (allegations of bribery and treating); and in 1976 committal proceedings arose in the Australian Capital Territory out of an allegation of bribery of a Senate candidate to secure a favourable allocation of preferences in the 1975 federal elections.

79 Cth: s. 156; Qld: (Code) s. 103; N.S.W.: s. 147; Vic.: s. 241; S.A.: s. 144W.A.: s. 181; Tas.: s. 146.

80 See Tas.: s. 139 (g).

81 E.g. Cth: s. 150; W.A.: s. 100; Tas.: s. 145.

82 On the history of preferential voting in Australia see Mayer and Nelson (eds.), Australian Politics: A Third Reader (1973) 293.

83 This is obviously so in the Commonwealth, S.A., W.A. and Tas., and arguably so in Qld, Vic. and N.S.W.

84 See Woodward v. Maltby [1959] V.R. 794.

85 Cth: s. 156; S.A.: s. 147; W.A.: s. 182; Tas.: s. 146.

86 N.S.W.: s.149; Vic.: s. 244.

87 N.S.W.: s. 150; Vic.: s. 244.

88 Vic.: s. 245A.

89 Qld: (Code) s. 101.

90 Woodward v. Maltby [1959] V.R. 794.

91 The National press reported a candidate advertising with bottles of wine in a recent election.

92 Cth: s. 159; Qld: (Code) s. 102; N.S.W.: s. 151; Vic.: s. 246; S.A.: s. 149;W.A.: s. 184; Tas.: s. 147.

93 Qld: (Code) s. 105; Vic.: s. 262.

94 S.A.: s. 154.

95 Cth: s.171; Qld: s. 76; Vic.: s.193; Tas.: s.157; in addition Western Australia has a prohibited canvassing provision, see W.A.: s. 192.

96 S.A.: s. 151.

97 S.A.: s. 151.

98 Cth: s. 93; N.S.W.: s. 114 I, K; W.A.: s. 95; Tas.: s. 145.

99 Cth: 91 B; Qld: (Elections Act) s. 71; N.S.W.: s. il4 B; Vic.: s. 238; S.A.:s. 80; W.A.: s. 94; Tas.: s. 79.

1 Vic.: s.237.

2 Cth: s.175;S.A.: s.157;W.A.: s.196;Tas.: s.159.

3 Cth: s.170, s.179, s.180; Qld: (Code) s.108; N.S.W.: s.111; Vic.: s.192; S.A.: s. 154; W.A.: s. 190; Tas.: s. 157.

4 Cth: s.191; N.S.W.: s.164; Vic.: s. 287; Qld: (Elections Act) ss.124-127 (which adds personation); S.A.: s. 182; W.A.: s. 164; Tas.: s. 172.

5 Cth: s. 191; N.S.W.: s. 164; Vic.: s. 287; S.A.: s. 182; W.A.: s. 164; Tas.:s. 172. Again it should be noted that there are verbal differences between the Acts.The Victorian and South Australian Acts, for example, do not use the undefined word "corruption" but use "undue influence" in its stead.

6 S.A.: s. 161.

7 S.A.: s. 153; compare Cth: s. 211; W.A.: s. 186; Tas.: s. 182; Vic.: s. 249.

8 See Qld: (Elections Act) ss. 124-127.

9 [1939) St.R.Qd. 90.

10 Defined in Qld: (Elections Act) s. 4 to mean treating, undue influence, bribery and personation.

11 Defined in Qld: (Code) ss. 105, 106.

12 See e.g. per Evatt J. in the High Court of Australia in the Ithaca Election Petition [1940) St.R.Qd. 265, 281.

13 See e.g. Flinders Election Petition [1958) Qd.R. 324, 332 per Philp J.

14 [1939) St.R.Qd. 90.

15 Ibid. 140 per Blair C.J.

16 (1934) 37 W.A.L.R. 45.

17 Ibid. 47.

18 Borough of Norwich (1886) 54 L.T. 625, 626 per Denman J.

19 Cth: s. 161; Tas.: s. 154; N.S.W.: s. 151A; Vic.: s. 261A, s. 262.

20 Cth: s. 181; Qld: (Code) s. 105; Vic.: s. 262; S.A.: s, 148; W.A.: s. 183.

21 Cth: s. 161; N.S.W.: s. 151A; Vic.: s. 261A; Tas.: s. 154.

22 Cth: s. 181A; S.A.: s. 155a; Tas.: s. 154.

23 Cth: s. 161; Qld: (Elections Act) s. 100; (Code) s. 106; Vic.: s. 261A; S.A.:s. 151; W.A.: s. 187; Tas.: s. 154; N.S.W.: s. 151E.

24 Cth: s. 164B; N.S.W.: s. 151B; Vic.: s. 261B; S.A.: s, 155b.

25 [1967] V.R. 253.

26 It is interesting to note that clause 56 of the ill-fated Commonwealth Electoral Laws Amendment Bill 1974 sought to overcome this decision.

27 Vic.: s. 263.

28 Cth: s. 145.

29 Cth: s. 147.

30 Cth: s. 145.

31 Cth: s. 148.

32 Cth: s. 152.

33 Cth: s. 161; s. 162; s. 191; cf. R.P.A. s. 70; s. 72; s. 139.

34 Cth: s. 209; s. 161; s. 162.

35 Vic.: s. 257; Sixteenth Schedule.

36 Sixteenth Schedule.

37 Vic.: s. 257; s. 264.

38 Tas.: s. 137.

39 Tas.: s. 140.

40 Tas.: s. 138.

41 Tas.: s. 138; s. 149.

42 Tas.: s. 149.

43 W.A.: s. 174.

44 W.A.: s. 175.

45 W.A.: s. 199.

46 W.A.: s. 187(3); s. 188.

47 Corrupt and Illegal Practices Prevention Act 1883 (U.K.).

48 It is interesting to note that both the New Zealand and Canadian electoral Acts now both follow the modern British approach; see N.Z.: Electoral Act 1956,ss. 133 et seq; Canada: Electoral Act, R.S.C. Ch. 14, s. 63.

49 Cth: s. 146; Vic.: Sixteenth Schedule; W.A.: s. 176; Tas,: s. 139,

50 Cth: s.151; Vic.: s. 259; W.A.: s. 177; Tas.: s.141.

51 Cth: s. 161; Vic.: s. 257; s. 259; W.A.: s. 187; Tas.: s. 149.

52 Vic.: s. 260; Tas.: s. 142.

53 For the U.K. provision see R.P.A. 1948, s. 145; and e.g. Re Bedwellty Election (1965) 63 L.G.R. 406; Re Wakefield Election (1966) 64 L.G.R. 383.

54 Cth: s. 151; Vic.: s. 261; Tas.: s. 141.

55 See Corrupt and Illegal Practices Prevention Act 1883, s. 33(f) (U.K.).

56 Vic.: s. 263.

57 See in the U.K.: R.P.A., s. 69(3); for a lengthy analysis of the U.S. laws see (1975) 88 Harvard Law Review 1114; for Canada: see Elections Act 1970, R.S.C.Ch. 14; ss. 62, 63; for N.Z-.:-see Electoral Act 1956, S; 137.

* Fines in this column are in £ Sterling.

† Fines in -this column are in $ Australian

1 As regards each offence, the relevant section (if any) in each jurisdiction is specified. The penalty for offence is indicated by first specifying the maximum monetary penalty, followed by the maximum term imprisonment.

2 References in this column are to the Representation of the People Act 1949 (U .K.).

3 References in this column are to the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 (Cth).

4 References in this column, where suffixed by “Code”, are to the Queensland Criminal Code; where abbreviation “E.A.” occurs, references are to the Elections Act 1915 (Qld).

5 References in this 1:olumn are to the Parliamentary Electorates and Elections Act 1912 (N.S.W.).

6 References in this column are to the Constitution Act Amendment Act 1958 (Vic.)

7 References in this column are to the Electoral Act 1929 (S.A.).

8 References in this column are to the Electoral Act 1907 (W.A.).

9 References in this column are to the Electoral Act 1907 (Tas.).