Muldowney v The Australian Electoral Commission; Muldowney v The Australian Electoral Commission

The proceedings before the High Court of Australia involved Patrick Kevin Muldowney as the petitioner and the Australian Electoral Commission as the respondent. The dispute concerned the validity of petitions filed by Mr Muldowney, which the respondent sought to strike out.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether Mr Muldowney's petitions were validly signed, as required by section 355(c) of the *Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918* (Cth). This section mandates that a petition must be signed by a candidate at the election or by a person qualified to vote. The respondent argued that Mr Muldowney was not qualified to vote at the 1993 election because he was not enrolled at the close of the rolls, a fact confirmed by both parties' affidavits.

The respondent contended that while section 93(1) of the Act grants an entitlement to enrolment based on citizenship and age, it is section 93(2) that confers the entitlement to vote, which is contingent on an elector's name appearing on the Roll for a Division. The Court was asked to consider whether the term "qualified to vote" in section 355(c) meant the same as being "entitled to vote" under section 93(2), or if it encompassed a broader entitlement to be enrolled. The respondent submitted that the differing language did not signify a substantive difference in meaning, but rather a change in drafting style.