Mr Futter's contraventions
16 Mr Futter did not appoint a person to be his agent in relation to the election, so he was taken to be his own agent (see ss 289(1) ad (2)). The obligations in ss 304(2) and 309(2) are thus obligations imposed on him. As explained above, Mr Futter was a candidate in the 18 May 2019 election for the House of Representatives in the electoral division of Newcastle. The "polling day" was 18 May 2019, such that the obligations imposed by ss 304(2) and 309(2) were required to be performed by 2 September 2019 (i.e. 15 weeks after 18 May 2019).
17 Mr Futter was required to furnish a return to the Electoral Commissioner in an "approved form". That was to be done by completing a written form that was published on the AEC's website (and then sent to the AEC) or by preparing and lodging an electronic form via an online portal on the AEC's website. (A person can provide details pertaining to ss 304(2), 309(2) and 309(4) on the one form.).
18 As noted, Mr Futter has, to date, failed to furnish to the AEC a return setting out:
(a) the total amount or value of all gifts, the number of persons who made the gifts, and the relevant details of each gift, received by Mr Futter while he was a candidate in the election (s 304(2)); and/or
(b) details of all electoral expenditure in relation to the election incurred by or with the authority of Mr Futter (s309(2)); and/or
(c) details of any discretionary benefits received by, or on behalf of, Mr Futter from the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory during the 12 months before polling day (s 309(4)).
19 As noted above, even if Mr Futter did not receive any gifts requiring disclosure or did not incur any electoral expenditure, he was nonetheless still required to furnish a return which included a statement to that effect. However, he has not at any time furnished a return to the AEC in relation to the 2019 election.
20 For these reasons, I find that Mr Futter has contravened both ss 304(2) and 309(2) of the Act. In reaching this view I have applied s 140 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) and have had regard to the gravity of the allegations made against Mr Futter (see Wharton (No 3) at [23] per Logan J).
21 I consider this to be an appropriate case to make the declarations sought by the Electoral Commissioner.
22 As to penalty, helpful guidance in assessing civil penalties in a case such as the present is provided by Logan J's judgment in Wharton (No 3) at [28] ff. Relevant matters include the following:
(a) Mr Futter's contraventions have occurred notwithstanding the numerous occasions on which he was reminded by the Electoral Commissioner of his obligations under both ss 304 and 309.
(b) In contrast with the position in Wharton (No 3), Mr Futter has taken no active step in the proceeding, nor sought to explain his conduct.
(c) The evident purpose of ss 304 and 309 is to seek to address corrupt or unacceptable conduct in elections, which is aptly described as serving an "important public purpose in a democratic society".
(d) The purpose of civil penalties is that of deterrence in both an individual and a general sense.
(e) Further guidance is provided by s 82(6) of the Regulatory Powers Act, which identifies the following particular matters (non-exhaustively) which the Court must take into account:
(a) the nature and extent of the contravention; and
(b) the nature and extent of any loss or damage suffered because of the contravention; and
(c) the circumstances in which the contravention took place; and
(d) whether the person has previously been found by a court (including a court in a foreign country) to have engaged in any similar conduct.
(f) There is no evidence of any previous finding that Mr Futter has engaged in any similar conduct.
(g) I accept the Electoral Commissioner's submission that Mr Futter's contraventions do not involve the same conduct. Rather, as was the case in Wharton (No 3), the contraventions are separate and, although they involve similar conduct, that conduct cannot be described as the same conduct.
(h) As Logan J observed in Wharton (No 3) at [38], even where the contraventions do not involve the same conduct, in determining penalty, it is relevant to take into account whether the contraventions are "substantially contemporaneous and connected" (referring to L Vogel & Son Pty Ltd v Anderson (1968) 120 CLR 157 at 168 per Taylor, Menzies and Owen JJ). This highlights the importance of not over-penalising Mr Futter. This is a relevant matter in considering the totality of the penalty.
23 The Electoral Commissioner sought penalties in the amount of $6,300 for each contravention.
24 In the particular circumstances, and applying the matters set out in [22] above, I consider that those are appropriate penalties. Accordingly, I will order that Mr Futter pay an amount for $6,300 for each contravention.
25 As to the time within which that amount must be paid, I respectfully agree with, and adopt, what Logan J had to say in Wharton (No 3) at [42] and will order the civil penalties to be paid within 30 days.
26 Mr Futter should pay the Electoral Commissioner's costs.
I certify that the preceding twenty-six (26) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Griffiths.