Senator Bob Day says he remains confident in his high-stakes challenge to new Senate voting laws, as the High Court begins deliberations on a case that could disrupt the Turnbull government's plans for a July election.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
The Family First senator is arguing the new laws, passed after a marathon sitting of parliament in March, are unconstitutional, and will effectively disenfranchise millions of voters who don't want to support major parties.
The new voting system threatens to wipe out micro-parties, like Senator Day's, which have traditionally relied on preferences to get them into the upper house, despite attracting only a fraction of the primary vote.
The High Court challenge wrapped up just before midday on Tuesday, and the judges are expected to hand down a decision in coming weeks.
The case comes at a critical time.
If Senator Day manages to successfully argue new system is unconstitutional, it could jeopardise Malcolm Turnbull's plans for a July 2 election.
Previously, voters could simply vote for one party above the line, and their preferences would flow according to preference deals made by that party. Voters could select individual candidates below the line to better control where their vote went, but, in doing so, they needed to number every single box on the ballot paper.
That usually meant numbering more than 100 boxes in many states, and statistics from the most recent South Australian election suggest voters could rarely be bothered.
The new voting system tells voters to select at least six parties above the line. Below the line, voters are told to select at least their top 12 candidates.
The government says the system allows voters to better control their vote, avoiding it going to a party or candidate they'd never typically support.
On Tuesday, the Commonwealth presented a brief oral response to Senator Day's case, saying he had misunderstood parts of the constitution and its operation, and interpreted principles of proportional representation in an "impossible" way.
Outside of court, Senator Day said he remained confident in his arguments, praising the High Court for the way it had dealt with his challenge.
He said the laws would potentially disenfranchise three million voters who did not wish to vote for major parties.
"We know that 97 per cent of voters like to vote above the line," he said.
"And now, the net effect of that will be their disenfranchisement.
"That was our case and I think we got it across very strongly."
In court, his barrister Peter King argued the Commonwealth was simply "white-washing" the court by failing to respond in detail to their arguments, and misrepresenting the plaintiff's case to the judges.
"It's about the rights of electors, and the Commonwealth has disregarded those rights," Mr King said.
"[They are] hoping that Your Honours will just wipe away the right of electors being trampled by this legislation," Mr King said.
Senator Day argues the senate voting laws are unconstitutional for four main reasons. Allowing voters two systems of voting, above or below the line, conflicts with the constitution, which only allows for a single method of voting, he argues.
The senator has also argued above-the-line voting does not allow a voter to directly choose his or her candidate, and that the system creates an "unrepresented rump" whose preferences run out before they elect a candidate.
Finally, Senator Day has argued the new system misleads voters, who are not told their vote will be counted even if they don't tick enough boxes.
The High Court urgently heard the case, given its potential implications, and is expected to hand down a ruling before May 11, the last day Mr Turnbull can call the double dissolution election.
