Do clauses 4 and 5 of the Voter Engagement Reform Bill 2023 (Cth) , if passed, be likely to be upheld as valid by the High Court of Australia? Specifically, I'm concerned as to how any or all of the cases may apply: Roach v Electoral Commissioner (2007); Rowe v Electoral Commissioner ; Murphy v Electoral Commissioner ; McGinty v WA; Ex rel McKinlay v Commonwealth (1975). The Voter Engagement Reform Bill 2023 (Cth) ('the Bill') proposes two amendments to Commonwealth electoral law.

First, clause 4 of the Bill provides that it will be voluntary for electors aged 18-24 to vote in Senate and House of Representatives elections. Enrolment will continue to be compulsory for all persons eligible to enrol, and voting will continue to be compulsory for electors who have attained the age of 25. The Explanatory Memorandum for the Bill states that the change will 'ensure that electoral results reflect the wishes of those voters who are engaged with politics and have given active consideration to their choices.'

Second, clause 5 of the Bill provides: An elector who is a subject or citizen of a foreign power as at 6pm on the date of the issue of the writ for a Senate or House of Representatives election:

(1) must disclose this information when requesting a ballot paper for that election (whether at a polling place or through pre-poll voting). Failure to comply is a strict liability offence punishable on conviction by a fine not exceeding 1 penalty unit.

(2) will be given the opportunity to make a statutory declaration that they intend to reside only in Australia for the next three years, and: (a) if they make the declaration shall be given a ballot paper. (b) if they do not make the declaration shall not be given a ballot paper.

The Explanatory Memorandum for the Bill states that clause 5 will 'ensure that electoral results reflect the views of voters who intend to remain engaged in the political life of the community for the duration of a House of Representatives.'