FREO ELECTION COMEDY OF ERRORS

THE State solicitor. A former WA premier. Fremantle’s youngest councillor and two legal actions declaring the 2023 local government elections invalid because of a ballots blunder in central and coastal wards.
More than 30 people attended the Court of Disputed Returns today, only to be excluded from proceedings in which The Greater Fremantle Community & Business Association and former south ward councillor Marija Vujcic applied to have the election results thrown out by Magistrate Tanya Watt.
StreetWise understands the City of Fremantle did not appear today after GFCBA handed its affidavit of service on CEO staff on December 13.
Given their unannounced appearance at the closed court, Labor ‘counsel’ Peter Dowding and new coastal ward councillor Jemima Williamson-Wang were reprimanded for not having applied to join as interested parties opposed to the challenge instead of ‘verbalising’ their application without due process. Interested parties now have two weeks to join the action and present their evidence.
“We are now up against the State Solicitor, Greens and Labor,” according to the association of ratepayers and local businesses with support from various community groups including the Fremantle Society whose president John Dowson said: “I thought elections were about transparency. The Society raised questions about the integrity of the election at the time but the answers from WAEC did not quell our concerns.”
In a statement released by GFCBA, spokesperson Elizabeth Megros said the bungled October 21 elections were neither legitimate or valid.
“Fremantle residents in coastal and central Wards were denied their opportunity to cast a legitimate vote due to ‘voter confusion’, and many other irregularities incurred during the incorrect distribution process of first round ballots, and multiple second round ballots,” she said.
Ratepayers expect the election process managed by the WA Electoral Commission and Fremantle Council is fair, transparent and legitimate by way of, “correct distribution of voting papers forwarded to registered voters living in all wards. This did not occur”.
The invalidity complaints by GFCBA and Ms Vujcic were scheduled to be heard at the same time today, but Ms Vujcic was heard first followed by GFCBA. Both complaints are expected to be heard at the forthcoming hearing.
The Association told StreetWise the State Solicitor proposed eight orders the magistrate would not hear today. Two of the orders ask the court to include Ms Williamson-Wang and central ward councillor Geoff Graham as interested parties. None of the unsuccessful candidates except Ms Vujcic are included.
“We spoke to the State Solicitor before the hearing and Jemima was not mentioned,” it said, adding the State Solicitor’s Office acknowledged January 4 the invalidity complaint was brought by GFCBA, not an individual.
Mr Dowding argued incorporated associations should not be permitted to challenge elections and that costs could be considerable, adding GFCBA did not have sufficient funds to cover such costs.
This would not apply to Ms Vujcic, who was confident her challenge would succeed.
Coastal ward had the highest ballot return of all four wards (40.95%). In Central ward (30.56%), Cr Graham beat Steve Pynt by more than 300 votes. The ballots balls up by the WAEC would have to be significant to reflect a different election outcome in central ward.
However, coastal ward was close, with Ms Williamson-Wong having received 955 votes and Ms Vujcic 885 votes, a difference of 70 votes, of which about 20 went to preferences.
In 2017, the Court of Disputed Returns ruled the City’s south ward election in October that year was invalid and a new election held in which Ms Vujcic won.
In this case, for the magistrate to decide whether to hold another election in either central or coastal seats, she must consider whether there is enough compelling evidence that the results would have been different.

Uninterested parties?

THE Greater Fremantle Community & Business Association is concerned the City of Fremantle is leaking information about the elections challenge currently before the Court of Disputed Returns.
GFCBA says details of its legal action were included in a confidential item discussed by staff and councillors on December 20, 2023. The next day they appeared on a local blog without any source or attribution.
“Nobody would have known about this outside of the chambers and our GFCBA committee.”
GFCBA says the same blog on January 1 made direct reference to the issue Mr Dowding would raise in court nine days later (today), regarding whether incorporated associations should be allowed to appeal.
“That was before we received the State Solicitor’s correspondence. This post pretty much outlines what the State Solicitor put in our email regarding whether GFCBA as an incorporated association can challenge an election. It almost sets the scene to justify and back Jemima in being able to contest as an interested party.”
The post also describes the people behind GFCBA’s challenge as a, “community group of disgruntled voters”, who supported unsuccessful candidates Ms Vujcic and Mr Pynt.
GFCBA fears the City leaks could prejudice its case before the courts.
Well informed social media observers who support a rerun said by October 20 there was a last minute influx of votes in central and coastal wards, most people having realised their first vote was invalid.
Others claim discrepancies in daily WAEC ballot results before and after the error was discovered by ratepayers including South Freantle resident Ian Ker who said ‘flawed process’ is more than simply the ‘wrong ballot papers’ issue, “but also the fact that were a large number of unexplained errors and inconsistencies in the day-by-day ballot paper returns statistics provide by the WAEC online”.
He said Mr Dowding’s last-minute intervention, “might have done us all a favour, since the outcome was that the magistrate has allowed a period of 14 days in which ANYONE who feels they have an interest in the actions can apply to be included – this includes all coastal and central ward electors and, potentially, any City of Fremantle ratepayer if City of Fremantle has to bear the cost of a new election (although the latter is probably an unlikely outcome, since it would presumably be on the basis that the WAEC failed in its duty to the City of Fremantle in carrying out the local government election, so should bear the costs of a rerun)”.