The fear campaign against a price on pollution has become so absurd that talkback radio hosts are claiming that a price on pollution means the end of our economy and life as we know it. Independent MPs are even receiving death threats.

Now, these same radio hosts have joined with climate deniers and far-right politicians to organise anti-climate action rallies as part of Tony Abbott's "people's revolt". They start on Saturday outside Julia Gillard's electorate office in Melbourne. We must make sure that on the other side of town, our movement comes together to present the positive, mainstream views that hard-line 'shock jocks' prefer to ignore.

Right wing shock jock Chris Smith said last week on MTR radio: "I'll do my best on a daily basis to spread the word". We don't have a radio network to promote our rally, but

GetUp members have proved before that, when it counts, we're willing to publicly show how much we care about clean energy & climate action.

Click here to RSVP

I was in Canberra last week and almost every politician and journalist I met with talked to me about the anti-climate action rallies. They're spooked.

I assured them that the campaign for climate action was just as strong -- and now, we need to demonstrate this.

That's why it's so important we

join together for a few hours this Saturday March 12 -- not to have a louder, angrier rally, but to show the difference in both size and tone.

While they're shouting their angry slogans and misinformation, on the other side of Melbourne we'll hold a positive, family-friendly gathering to stand up for our vision for clean energy and preserving a safe climate for our kids.

With your help, we'll prove there are more of us than there are of them and in doing so we'll make a powerful statement.

See you this Saturday.

Simon Sheikh

National Director

for the GetUp team

In an historic decision, the High Court has struck down legislation which resulted in the early close of the electoral rolls and denied over 100,000 Australians the right to vote.
The decision is a landmark victory for representative democracy, political participation and accountable government.
The case was a constitutional challenge to the validity of changes to the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 made by the Electoral and Referendum Amendment (Electoral Integrity and Other Measures) Act 2006. The Amendment Act resulted in in the electoral roll being closed on the day on which the electoral writ is issued for new or re-enrolling voters, and three days after the writ is issued for voters updating enrolment details.  Previously, the electoral roll remained open for a period of seven days after the issue of the writ.
According to the AEC, historically, the calling of an election has resulted in significant numbers of persons enrolling or changing enrolment during the 7 day period, particularly young Australians.  The 7 day period enabled the AEC to advertise and promote enrolment and target particular groups with information campaigns, including Indigenous Australians and people experiencing homelessness.  At the 2004 Federal Election, approximately 423,000 people enrolled, re-enrolled or updated enrolment during the 7 day period.
It is crucial to representative democracy and accountable government that all people have the right, and the practical opportunity, to vote.   The early close of the rolls, which occurred thanks to Howard-era amendments, denied over 100,000 people the opportunity and right to vote.   The legislation disproportionately disenfranchised Indigenous Australians, young people, people experiencing homelessness and people in remote communities. In so doing, the legislation diminished our democracy.
This decision, in ordering that the rolls stay open for at least 7 days to enable people to enrol or update their enrolment, restores and promotes the fundamental human rights to vote and, in so doing, enhances democracy and promotes representative government.
The challenge to the early close of the rolls was jointly conceived and coordinated by the Human Rights Law Resource Centre and GetUp!.  The Human Rights Law Resource Centre is a leading national human rights advocacy organization which, in 2007, established constitutional protection of the right to vote in the landmark High Court case of Roach v The Commonwealth.
The matter was run pro bono by an outstanding legal team comprising Ron Merkel QC, Kristen Walker, Fiona Forsyth and Neil McAteer of Counsel, together with Mallesons Stephen Jaques.
You'll find more commentary from Phil Lynch about this & other commentary on human rights during the election at the Centre for Policy Development here.

Taking on electoral litigation was never going to be easy. In Australia, the courts have not historically played a big role in shaping Australia's electoral process -- but in the last two weeks GetUp has changed that. Having campaigned for the last 3 years to modernise Australia's enrolment system, this past fortnight has been the most successful period ever in the electoral reform campaigning efforts of GetUp members, who voted in record numbers to pursue this latest online enrolment case.
In 1902 Australia's electoral democracy took its first steps in creating an electoral roll and 15 years later compulsory enrolment was legislated. These days technology plays an enormous role in how people enrol to vote and how the Australian Election Commission manages elections.
Already the AEC accepts enrolments submitted by fax, and even enrolments submitted by people who download a form, sign it, scan it and email it in (a cumbersome process!). GetUp's counsel, Jeremy Kirk and Aditi Rao together with the legal team from Marque Lawyers, argued in the Federal Court on Thursday that the process of faxing or emailing a scanned signature creates a digital signature and that signing with a digital pen would therefore be acceptable -- indeed extremely comparable in terms of the end result.
The OzEnrol website represented a proof of concept. The website enabled members to send to the AEC's fax machine an enrolment form that is comparable to one received directly from another fax machine. It essentially combined an online forum with an online fax system that GetUp members already use to send faxes to their politicians. The website also used a specially built signature tool which GetUp purchased from Europe and built into the OzEnrol website. The need for this ingenious tool was due to the fact that the Commonwealth Electoral Act (and most state acts) requires a person enrolling to sign using their "personal signature". 
The legislature foresaw the direction technology was taking when in 1999 that implemented the Electronic Transactions Act, a piece of legislation designed to remove legal impediments that may prevent a person using electronic communications to satisfy obligations under Commonwealth law. A key principle in the Act is 'technology neutrality' - that is that there should be no discrimination between transactions conducted using for example between a fax machine and a computer -- both forms of 'electronic' communication. It suggests that transactions conducted using paper documents and transactions conducted using electronic communications should be treated equally by the law and not given an advantage or disadvantage against each other and established the basic rule that a transaction is not invalid  because it took place by means of an electronic communication.
When seen in the light of enrollment this provided an opportunity for GetUp to launch a test case. From the start the key was whether a court would accept that a personal signature, whether applied by an ink pen or a digital pen, was all that was required and that the AEC was not entitled to discriminate simply on the basis of the means of signing.
To bring a test case you need two things. The first is a client and 19 year old Sophie Trevitt who had never enrolled kindly agreed to step up to the plate. The second is a law firm. Marque became involved following a chance meeting that I had with Simon Shiekh at a taxi rank in Canberra. From that meeting both Marque and GetUp could see an opportunity to challenge the manner in which enrollment  was being conducted. Added to that was an alignment in the way that both GetUp and Marque like to challenge the status quo.
With the overwhelming support of the GetUp members a test case was launched following the rejection by the AEC of the online enrollment of Sophie. From there things moved really quickly. A team of leading  counsel were assembled, evidence was prepared and the matter heard before the Federal Court, all in the space of three weeks.
The Federal Court found overwhelmingly in favor of GetUp. A key finding was that the AEC was not entitled to discriminate between faxed forms and those that had been generated via the OzEnrol site. The immediate outcome is that Sophie can now exercise her right to vote. In the area of electoral reform it should encourage Federal and State governments to introduce much needed changes to ensure that the 1.2 million Australians who are not on the Roll are given every opportunity to enroll in a manner that reflects the 21st century.  
The principles outlined in the decision extend beyond the somewhat arcane field of electoral law to all areas of government  and commerce. The decision could hasten the adoption of cutting edge technology and facilitate a move away from the need for hard copy forms to be signed by traditional means.     

Damian Sturzaker
Partner , Marque Lawyers

Then he felt compelled to argue point-for-point with a 22 year old campaigner (ie me) over the deeply flawed design of the internet filter policy.

At every opportunity, the Senator has felt compelled to defend his ideology-driven policy against immense opposition.

This week he was given another reason to get on the back-foot with the announcement that the legislation will be shelved before the election.  This is a small and subtle way of Rudd expressing his lack of confidence in his communications minister.

The internet filter is on life support but we need Kevin Rudd to pull the plug.

Just by speaking up, Rudd could save over $40 million a year- money which could be spent on methods which work- education, parental empowerment and resourcing the Federal Police to help keep kids safe online.

While we can't quite say the filter policy is dead, we can say it's dying. And for that we have to thank the 120,000 people who have signed our petition, the 10,000 who flooded Q & A, the thousands who donated and the countless other GetUp members who have shown their support for internet freedom. The campaign is an excellent example of why we need to keep the internet a free and open space for expression. Without keeping the internet free from censorship a movement of this kind would not be possible.

So thanks, GetUp members, for helping to keep the internet amazing!

Meanwhile, politicians on both sides of the chamber will continue to espouse the suspension of the Racial Discrimination Act for interventions on indigenous communities and the protracted detention of asylum seekers. Meanwhile, claims are put on hold and inhumane detention occurs in inadequate facilities, such as at Curtin, and we have rushed into law national security provisions that leave many uneasy about the civil liberties ramifications.

As we proved last year, when human rights are on the line GetUp members speak out and step up in big ways. We have that opportunity again.
The Government refuses to act on the pleas of persecuted people and is re-opening the infamous Curtin detention cetre. Australian citizen and Afghan refugee Riz Wakil has come forward to put a human face on these inhumane policies. It's up to us to make sure his story is heard - by the public and our pollies - as just one of the many human rights campaigns we'll be running this year in the wake of the Government's refusal to protect our rights through a Human Rights Act.

First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt, who worked closely with Doc Evatt to create the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, once remarked that "the destiny of human rights is in the hands of all our citizens in all our communities." That is our charge and our challenge. It's up to us to give voice to the vulnerable and live our values.

168,767 Australians cast provisional votes at the 2007 federal election. Only 14% of those votes were counted; 86% (about 144,000) were rejected. That means 144,000 Australians - almost 2 electorates worth - cast a vote at the 2007 federal election but didn't have their vote counted. Most of them were disenfranchised because they had moved house within their electorate and failed to fill in a change of address form at the AEC.
In the 2004 federal election 50% of provisional votes were counted. In the 2007 federal election, after the (misleadingly named) Electoral Integrity Act 2006, just 14% were counted.
Who are these provisional voters?
They're people who move houses a lot, or who don't have drivers licences: young, indigenous, migrant and poorer Australians.
The average number of provisional votes in the 10 most Indigenous seats in this country is 1.76 per cent of the total vote and the national average is 1.23 per cent. In other words, it is half a per cent higher on average in areas with large indigenous populations.
Why are these voters not on the electoral roll?
Becasue the AEC has removed them from the roll. This could be because mail to their address was returned to sender, or it could be because the AEC thought that elector had died (sometimes they get that wrong). Most of the time people are removed because they moved house and didn't complete a change of address form at the AEC.Schedule 2 will repeal the requirement for voters casting a provisional vote to provide evidence of identity and will instead insert the new requirement that, where there is any doubt as to the bona fides of the elector, the signature on the envelope containing a provisional vote be compared with the signature of the elector on previously lodged enrolment records.
What's wrong with the ID requirements?
They don't sound too unreasonable - but actually there are about 27,000 voters whose votes weren't counted last election because of these requirements. Why can't they present ID when they vote? Mostly because they don't have a drivers license. Many of the voters who cast provisional are young, poor or indigenous. Often these voters don't have drivers licenses. Without a license they need to provide a passport or a birth certificate in order to vote. Nobody expects to have to present their brith certificate when they vote -- for most Australians there is no need to provide ID at the polling place at all.
Why don't provisional voters follow-up and give the AEC ID within a week after the election?
Some people aren't struck from the roll because they've moved, but because of a mistake: sometimes the AEC thinks someone has moved when they actually haven't, or thinks they're dead when they're actually still alive (no really, it happens). These people can still have their votes counted if they go to an AEC office within a week of the election with valid ID. Some do, but understandably, many don't - so why not? 
1 - Because the election result is already decided. Who would take time off work, go to the AEC and fill out a form in order to cast a vote that nobody will pay any attention to?
2 - Because they're busy working.
3 - Because in some regional electorates the AEC and the post office are both many hours away.
4 - Because not only do they have to prove their identity with a drivers license or other prescribed document, there are other requirements for identification including proving the validity of their signature. Basically, it can be a lot of paperwork.
Interesting note:
Previously, if a voter moved house without telling the AEC, but stayed in the same electorate, they were entitled to cast a provisional vote and have that vote counted -- provided they could prove their identity and new address. The Howard Government changed that, and these votes are now rejected. Schedule 2 of these amendments won't fix that - and we'll be asking the Government to rectify that.
Other reasons why these reforms are important:
Politicians can selectively disenfranchise voters:
Politicians bulk-mail their electorates before each election. Any mail that is returned to sender can be passed on to the AEC, who can then begin to remove those people from the electoral roll. Perhaps this is not so alarming in itself, but there is nothing to regulate or monitor the activities of politicians in this respect, and it is not unimaginable to envision a party selectively mailing those groups or areas unlikely to vote for them, and then selectively reporting the ‘returned to senders’ to suit their psephological fancies. When those removed from the roll in such a way have their provisional votes rejected, the problem is even worse.
These voters can change the result of elections:
These voters could have changed the outcome of several marginal seats. Approximately 144,000 Australians who cast provisional ballots on November 24 did not have their votes counted14. Those 144,000 Australians, together equivalent to almost 2 whole federal electorates, could well have changed the outcome of a couple of federal seats. There is no way to know for sure exactly how those provisional voters would have impacted the result – but therein lies the problem.

--- Our blog post from 13 April 2007 ----

Because we don't have fixed terms and set election dates in Australia, citizens never know exactly when a federal election will be held. Unless you're following Australian federal politics closely, it's easy to miss out on these deadlines and end up missing out on your chance to vote entirely. Although we take it for granted that voting is compulsory, a surprisingly large number of eligible citizens are not enrolled and risk missing out on the chance to have their voices heard come election day. For young people between the ages of 18-25 this is particularly true: the AEC has found that 18% of people within this age group aren't on the roll. [UPDATE: Special Minister of State Gary Nairn recently admitted that the number of unenrolled young people has been dramatically underestimated and could be as high as one-third of those in the 18-24 age category.] Furthemore, an estimated one million Australians (5% of the entire country) are overseas at any given time, with around 500,000 based abroad long-term. While many expats will have registered to vote before they left the country, anybody who has been away for more than three years and who hasn't voted since they left risks being struck from the electoral roll altogether. For more on the facts behind the changes to Australia's electoral laws, and how they affect you, read on.

What's the rush? The election won't be until the end of the year so can't I enrol before then? Yes and no. Traditionally, once the election is officially called - known as issuing a writ - we’re given one week to enrol or update our details (such as a new address) before the electoral roll is finalised and closed. Lots of people use this last-minute opportunity to get their enrolment information up to date. According to the AEC, 423,975 people sent their enrolment forms in during the week just before the cut-off date in the 2004 election. But on 22, June 2006, the Government used its majority to push new amendments through the Senate that will change things significantly this time around. Under the ‘Electoral Integrity Act’ you'll only have until 8pm on the day the election is officially called, known as issuing the writ, to get on the roll. And you'll only have three working days to update your address details. The two exceptions are 17 year-olds turning 18 before election day and people granted citizenship before election day.

The impact of these changes means thousands of people are likely to fail to register their details correctly with the AEC in time. Such early cut-off dates stand in complete contrast with other Western democracies. UK voters have until 11 days before polling day to enrol, our neighbours in New Zealand have until the day before polling day to register and Canadian voters can enrol all the way up until polling day. Ok, so I need to get my act together and enrol before the election is called. How hard could it be? From Monday April 16, new enrolees and people updating their details will need to prove their identity. The AEC has produced a detailed list of frequently asked questions which outlines exactly what's required. Why are these changes needed? The Government says the changes have been introduced to clamp down on electoral fraud and strengthen the integrity of the electoral roll. While all supporters of democracy would welcome attempts to ensure that voter fraud is kept to a minimum, numerous studies have shown that enrolment fraud is simply not a major problem in Australia. In fact, it turns out our electoral role is in very good shape. A 2002 report by the Australian National Audit Office found the roll to be 99% accurate when matched against Medicare data. Senator Andrew Bartlett, a former member of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, is one MP who has spoken out against the changes to the law. While recognising the need to ensure "the integrity of the electoral roll is such that it does not unduly or improperly affect the outcome of elections," Senator Bartlett has stated: "The key aim in the Electoral Act is to make it as convenient as possible for people to get on the electoral roll," and, "the Government is not suggesting that you will get 100 per cent [accuracy] with these changes." What else do these amendments do? -Increase the threshold for donating anonymously to political parties from the old limit of $1,500 to $10,000. Donors and recipients will not have to identify the donor's name for donations under this amount. -Increase the level of tax deductible contributions from old limit of $100 per year to $1500 per year. -Automatically de-register all political parties, except for those with parliamentary representation. They must now re-apply for registration under provisions of the Act. -Further restrict the voting rights of prisoners. Previously, prisoners serving sentences of less than three years were entitled to vote in federal elections, the rationale being a person who would be released within the term of the sitting government should be able to have a say in the outcome. Now prisoners serving sentences of any length are barred from voting. For more information, see Justice Action Australia. To download a summary of the changes, including arguments for and against each, click here. The report was prepared by Norm Kelly, a lecturer in politics for the Australian National University and former member of the West Australian State Parliament, in the lead-up to Parliamentary debate before the Bill was passed. So what can we do about this? The first thing to do is to make sure that you are properly enrolled to vote so that your voice isn't silenced come election day. Check your details with the AEC and if you need to update them, fill out an electoral form ASAP. Next, spread the word to ensure your friends and family are correctly enrolled early, before the rolls are closed. Click here to share this essential campaign with everyone you know, including Australians overseas!

While you're there, sign the petition demanding this law be repealed in favour of strategies that make it easier, not harder, for Australians to be counted at election time. For instance, in New Zealand not only do you have more time to register, you can request an enrolment form via a free text message.