![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|||
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|||
![]() |
|
![]() << Return to previous page | Parliamentary Joint Committee on Electoral Matters Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page Chapter 4 Polling and voting4.1 At the 2010 election, some 14 086 869 electors were entitled to cast their votes in order to determine who would govern Australia.[1] 4.2 Some timing and environmental factors, which are discussed in other parts of this report, affected the ability of some voters to either cast a vote or, as discussed further in this chapter and in Chapter 7 on formality, to have their vote counted. 4.3 Irrespective of whether the votes were cast and counted, or cast and rejected, each person who attended a polling place, pre-poll voting centre, mobile polling location, Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) divisional office, or who lodged a postal or other declaration vote, did so in the knowledge that they were free to vote in the way that they chose, and that the election result would be based on the formal votes that were cast. 4.4 There is a special quality about elections that are conducted by independent, impartial and professional electoral bodies like the AEC, in accordance with electoral legislation that is inclusive and continues to meet the needs of the community as those needs change. 4.5 With this in mind, the Committee examined the events that unfolded at the 2010 federal election to determine where voting processes worked well, where problems were encountered, and sought solutions to voting and polling issues where improvements were needed. 4.6 There are a number of ways in which an elector may cast a vote at an election. These include:
Table 4.1 Votes issued by type at the 2010 federal election
Source Australian Electoral Commission, Submission 87, Table 5.2, p. 75. 4.7 Each of these types of votes and issues around polling are dealt with by the Committee in this chapter. Ordinary votes4.8 Ordinary votes are issued to electors at a polling place, at mobile polling facilities, or at pre-poll voting centres in or for their home division. Voters have their names marked off the certified list of voters and they are issued ballot papers for the House of Representatives division in which they are enrolled and a Senate ballot paper for the state or territory in which their respective electoral division is located. 4.9 Ordinary voters cast their vote then deposit their ballot papers in ballot boxes before leaving the polling place. 4.10 At the 2010 federal election some 11 081 712 ordinary votes were cast in this fashion for the Senate[2] at 7 760 polling places and 531 pre-poll voting centres, which operated for up to three weeks prior to polling day.[3] 4.11 In respect of polling places and mobile polling teams, the Committee received few submissions which detailed serious problems, however, a number of minor issues were raised, such as:
4.12 However, with the exception of the issues outlined above, it appears that ordinary voting at polling places proceeded well in most cases. 4.13 In respect of pre-poll ordinary voting, which was first undertaken at the 2010 federal election, there were two significant failings of process in the divisions of Boothby (SA) and Flynn (Qld) which saw nearly 4 300 votes excluded from the count. 4.14
The matters came to light shortly after polling day when the AEC became
aware of the apparent premature opening of ballot boxes containing 4.15 The AEC issued media releases declaring the seriousness of the matter.[15] On 2 September 2010, the AEC engaged the services of a former senior public servant and a former Electoral Commissioner, Mr Bill Gray AM, to undertake an urgent examination of the facts surrounding each incident and to report his findings, along with recommendations for future action to the Electoral Commissioner.[16] 4.16 Mr Gray provided his report on 22 September 2010, in which he concluded that there was no evidence of tampering with the affected ballot papers. Mr Gray made three recommendations. They were: 1. That the training materials and working manuals for the OIC [Officer in Charge] of a PPVC be reviewed with a view to highlighting the necessity to ensure that all procedures and practices are consistent with the requirements of the Electoral Act. In particular, the need to ensure the integrity of the ballot papers and ballot boxes should be given special prominence in training materials and in working manuals used at a PPVC. 2. That a highly visible stick-on label be attached to each ballot box used in a PPVC at the time it is first sealed (perhaps adjacent to each side seal), that makes clear that the ballot box is not, on any account, to be opened. 3. That the record of ballot boxes and security seals form be routinely examined by divisional staff either when visiting a PPVC or by means of a fax or scanned copy in relation to PPVCs located in country regions. This practice should be included in the operating manuals for DROs and their staff.[17] 4.17 The AEC advised that the three person Electoral Commission met formally on 24 September 2010 and accepted all three recommendations in the Gray report, directing that action be taken to implement them.[18] 4.18 As discussed in Chapter 2, inquiry participants, while critical that the incidents had occurred, were of the view that the AEC took appropriate steps to ensure that the events were reported in a transparent manner and that prompt action was taken to investigate and address the causes. Opposition members believe it is important to ensure that events such as this continue to be thoroughly investigated in the future, particularly with the risk of votes being deliberately tampered with. As such, Opposition members believe it is necessary for a fraud division to be established within the AEC to investigate any such claims. 4.19 The AEC submitted that the Commonwealth Electoral Act and the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act 1984 should be amended to specifically provide that a ballot box may not be opened before the close of polling other than in accordance with the provisions of the Commonwealth Electoral Act, and that a savings provision in the event of an official error be included.[19] 4.20 The AEC also noted the overall success of the move to issuing pre-poll ordinary votes, submitting that some 996 875 home division pre-poll votes were cast, representing 28.5 per cent of all early votes cast in the election.[20] 4.21 Issuing pre-poll votes as ordinary votes and counting them on polling night removes the need for the votes to be placed in envelopes and transported to the divisional offices. Further, it takes away the requirement for them to be put through time consuming preliminary scrutiny procedures, thus speeding up the count and allowing more resources to be devoted to other tasks. 4.22 The AEC reported that including those home division pre-poll votes cast as ordinary votes, it counted more than 11 million votes on polling night, which is around one million more votes than were counted on polling night at the 2007 federal election.[21] 4.23 The Liberal Party of Australia welcomed the new pre-poll arrangements which allowed pre‐poll votes cast in their home division to be counted on election night, submitting that: It is undoubtedly advantageous that a significant number of votes are able to be included in the results on the night. Our scrutineers confirmed that, on the whole, the count of pre-poll votes proceeded smoothly and without disruption to the count of ordinary votes.[22] 4.24 However, the AEC submitted that the practice of requiring electors to complete and sign a declaration when casting ordinary votes was an unnecessary step. It suggested that removing this requirement could potentially speed up the issuing process. The AEC also noted that written declarations are no longer required in a number of state and territory jurisdictions, with no issues of integrity having been reported.[23] 4.25 On a related note, the AEC asked the Committee to consider changing the timetable for the commencement of pre-poll voting, submitting that the logistical challenges encountered in preparing, proofing, printing and distributing in excess of 43 million ballot papers along with Senate group voting ticket booklets, printed by 11 contracted printing firms distributed across all states and territories, is becoming difficult to achieve. At the 1996 federal election, around 37.5 million ballot papers were printed.[24] 4.26 The AEC noted that just 24 hours is available after the deadline for the lodgement of group voting tickets before pre-poll voting can commence. Committee conclusion4.27 The Committee notes that the 2010 election was the first at which pre-poll ordinary voting was available, and that despite the mishandling of votes in the divisions of Boothby and Flynn, pre-poll ordinary voting proceeded without incident in all other locations. 4.28 The Committee also notes the actions undertaken by the AEC in dealing with the mishandling of votes. The Committee is satisfied that the AEC has acted appropriately and has taken action to implement the recommendations made in the Gray report. 4.29 The Committee, however, notes the criticism levelled at the AEC by inquiry participants and recognises the seriousness of the consequences for voters who would have otherwise had their votes counted. 4.30 The Committee shares the view of the AEC that the Commonwealth Electoral and Referendum Acts should be amended to specifically provide that a ballot box may not be opened before the close of polling other than in accordance with provisions in the Commonwealth Electoral Act. However, the Committee does not accept that a savings provision is necessary as the AEC must ensure that circumstances such as those that occurred in Boothby and Flynn do not reoccur.
4.32 Notwithstanding the mishandling of votes, the Committee notes the obvious success of the move to issuing pre-poll ordinary votes, and is confident that there is no justifiable reason for retaining the written declaration for pre-poll votes issued as ordinary votes.
4.34 Opposition Committee members feel that section 200DH of the Commonwealth Electoral Act being repealed will increase the likelihood of voter fraud and threaten the integrity of the electoral roll. Providing a signature when placing a pre-poll vote is not an onerous responsibility for the elector and Opposition members believe there is not only no reason to repeal this section of the Commonwealth Electoral Act but doing so could lead to an increase in fraudulent voting. Opposition Committee members therefore reject Recommendation 10. 4.35 The Committee understands the complexities involved in preparing, printing and distributing ballot papers in the short window of opportunity that exists following the deadline for the lodgement of group voting tickets. 4.36 In respect of other issues relating to timing of events during the election period, the Committee makes recommendations about the timeframes for nominations in Chapter 9. 4.37 The Committee notes that if Recommendations 33 and 34 are taken up by the Government, the slight reduction in the nominations period will allow the AEC an extra day for the printing of ballot papers. 4.38 The Committee agrees, however, that an application for a pre-poll vote should not be made prior to the Monday, 19 days before polling day.
Pre-poll declaration votes4.40 Just over 1.5 million pre-poll votes were cast at the 2010 federal election, representing an increase of 37.9 per cent of the 1 110 334 pre-poll votes cast in 2007. Pre-poll voting commenced on Monday 2 August 2010.[25] 4.41 The AEC advised that 531 pre-poll voting centres operated at the 2010 federal election; an increase of 102 from the 2007 election.[26] It noted that the increase reflected voter demand and was consistent with recommendations contained in the Committee’s report on the conduct of the 2004 federal election, and with comments made in the report on the 2007 federal election.[27] 4.42 The AEC’s State Manager for Queensland, Ms Anne Bright, noted that an increased number of PPVCs were provided in Queensland, but that there were some issues arising from a winter election:
4.43 As the 2010 federal election was the first winter election since 1987, the AEC had to provide polling venues in places that had not been serviced for some considerable number of years. Ms Jenni McMullan, AEC State Manager for Victoria, explained:
4.44 In Western Australia, the AEC took some steps to try and address issues which arise because of the number of fly-in fly-out workers who require pre-poll facilities. The AEC State Manager for Western Australia, Mr Peter Kramer, informed the Committee that:
4.45 Not all inquiry participants supported the increase in pre-poll availability, with some questioning the rationale behind the establishment of some PPVCs and the number of pre-poll votes issued.[31] 4.46 The Nationals submitted that the rise in early voting was cause for concern and called on the Committee to examine the trend to early voting and the application and relevance of the provisions of the Commonwealth Electoral Act.[32] 4.47 Others noted the inconvenience caused by the increased numbers of travellers and interstate visitors especially in rural and remote centres. The Hon Warren Snowdon MP submitted that:
Committee conclusion4.48 The Committee notes that the AEC has provided additional pre-poll voting centres in response to recommendations made by the Committee in the past and that attempts are being made to address comments made in previous reports. 4.49 The Committee is satisfied that the AEC is taking appropriate actions to address the issues arising out of previous inquiries. 4.50 The Committee notes that some inquiry participants were concerned about the increase in early voting and the provision of more PPVCs by the AEC in response to the demand. 4.51 However, the Committee is of the view that the electoral system must be adjusted to respond to the changing expectations of the community. One example of these changes, to which the AEC is responding appropriately, is the growing number of fly-in fly-out workers, both in Western Australia and in Queensland. It is appropriate that such workers be afforded an opportunity to participate in elections and the Committee supports moves by the AEC to do so. 4.52 However, the Committee also notes the delays to voters, especially those in rural and remote areas, where PPVCs encountered increased demand as a result of the election being conducted in winter. 4.53 The Committee takes some comfort that the AEC now has a new winter election benchmark to take into account in its future planning, as indicated in the evidence presented by the AEC State Manager for Queensland, Ms Bright, who advised that:
4.54 The Committee will continue to monitor the uptake of early voting into the future, with a view to assessing any effects on the efficient conduct of elections. Postal voting4.55 Postal voting continues to increase at every election. The AEC submitted that it issued 133 832 more postal votes in 2010 than it did in 2007.[35] 4.56 The AEC advised that it received 821 836 postal vote applications, in addition to the 209 426 General Postal Voters (GPVs) registered, totalling 1 031 262 applications in all.[36] It issued 957 322 postal voting packs (PVPs) from within Australia, with another 9 252 PVPs issued at overseas posts.[37] 4.57 Postal voting continues to be an integral element of the democratic process, and is one aspect of election processes that has been successfully modernised over the past decade, reducing workloads in divisional offices, despite its increased usage. Opposition members maintain that much of the success of this system is because political parties process a number of postal vote applications prior to handing them to the AEC, and argue that any change to the legislation which would stop political parties from doing this would significantly increase the AEC’s workload. 4.58 The AEC utilises an automated process for the production and despatch of postal voting packs, each containing a postal vote certificate (PVC) envelope, ballot papers and postal voting instructions to electors. This process, known as the automated postal vote issuing system (APVIS), was first used at the 1999 referendum and has become a permanent and accepted feature of election processing. 4.59 The Committee examined the operation of APVIS following the 2004 federal election at which a number of postal vote issuing irregularities occurred.[38] However, since then APVIS has performed to a high standard, with the AEC placing an increased focus on the system and its performance. 4.60 Despite the continued and successful use of APVIS, the Commonwealth Electoral Act does not expressly provide that it may be used. The AEC has submitted that it should do so, and explained that:
4.61 The AEC noted that few problems were encountered with processing postal vote applications by contractors in 2010. However, it was aware of some instances where lodgement of PVPs with Australia Post was delayed. 4.62 The AEC indicated that it views any delays in the issuing of postal vote certificates to electors with concern, and advised the Committee that it has reviewed the performance with the contractor and has agreed improved processes for the future.[40] 4.63 The AEC again submitted to the Committee that it was aware of delays in the return to it of PVAs sent to political parties by electors in response to political party mail-outs and supplied Table 4.2 below to illustrate its concerns. Table 4.2 Period between witness signature date and receipt of postal vote applications
Source Australian Electoral Commission, Submission 87, Table 5.6., p. 84. 4.64 Inquiry participants appear to be divided on the issue of political party involvement in the postal voting process. Some, like The Nationals, argued that political parties should not be removed from the postal voting processes, and were opposed to the proposal to require PVAs to be returned directly to the AEC.[41] 4.65 The Liberal Party of Australia also opposed any changes which would limit political party participation in postal voting. It submitted that:
4.66 In contrast, the Labor Party proposed that the Committee recommend banning political parties from reproducing and distributing PVAs and making the AEC the sole entity responsible for these functions.[43] 4.67 The Committee explored the issue during public hearings, in an attempt to find a solution that would be acceptable to all involved in elections. The AEC indicated that it was seeking to address the problems in a way that did not disadvantage political parties. The Electoral Commissioner stated that:
4.68 Timeliness of receipt for PVAs was also addressed by the AEC in the context of the cut-off timeframes for PVAs received in Australia for both domestic and overseas despatch. The AEC submitted that:
4.69 The AEC proposed that the cut-off for domestic issuing purposes should be 6 pm on the Wednesday prior to polling day, consistent with that provided for in New South Wales. For those being posted overseas, the cut-off for a receipt of a PVA should be 6 pm on the Monday prior to polling day. The latter also being consistent with New South Wales provisions. 4.70 Opposition Committee members note the Australian Electoral Commission’s submission advises that approximately two thirds of electors, over 550,000 people, sent their postal vote application back to a political party. Electors choose this option in the full knowledge they will receive a How-to-Vote card from their chosen political party and the recommendation that all PVAs are now returned only to the AEC contravene the right of an elector to receive voting information. For this reason the Opposition does not support recommendation 13 and believes that voters should continue to have the choice as to where they return their PVA. 4.71 Opposition Committee members believe the AEC is seeking unnecessary restrictions on postal voters. The Opposition members note that the AEC has gone to great lengths to assist blind and vision impaired people vote, which is to be applauded, but their recommendation to deny electors the right to send their PVA to their chosen candidate goes against this. It is disappointing to see that once again the AEC’s recommendation mirrors the position of the Australian Labor Party. Opposition members strongly believe it is not within the purview of the AEC to recommend changes of this nature, but simply to provide information about the process. 4.72 Opposition members feel that moving the day for postal vote applications to be received from 6 pm Thursday before polling day to 6 pm Wednesday before polling day will disadvantage postal voters by giving them less time to send in their application. Postal voters are well aware that there can be a delay in processing forms and leaving it late could mean they don’t receive their ballot papers on time. However, it is better to focus on the efficiency of the AEC in processing these forms rather than giving electors less time to send in their application. The task of the AEC is to serve voters, not to make their own job easier. 4.73 Opposition members feel that the AEC should conduct a study about the effectiveness of the cut-off dates used at the March 2011 NSW Election, which is being proposed for federal elections. It is important to determine whether these dates affected the number of postal vote applicants and whether the cut-off dates resulted in postal voters missing out on their chance to vote. These members feel that the Committee should consider the findings of any such study before implementing the NSW system at a federal level. Committee conclusion4.74 The Committee believes that postal voting is a fundamental aspect of the electoral system in Australia and that it services the needs of many in the community who, for a variety of reasons, are unable to attend a polling place or pre-poll voting centre. Like all voters, Opposition members believe that postal voters have the same right to a secret ballot as do ordinary or pre-poll voters. Opposition members also note that tens of thousands of electors send postal vote applications to their chosen political party knowing that they will receive information about how to vote for that political party prior to Election Day. These members believe that tampering with this system will ensure that voters do not receive adequate voting information. 4.75 The Committee notes that postal voting again increased at the 2010 federal election, moving closer toward one million PVPs being issued. 4.76 The APVIS, used by the AEC to automate the issue of PVPs has been of significant benefit to the community and to the electoral process, notwithstanding that some minor problems have been experienced as a result of its implementation by the AEC. 4.77 The Committee agrees with the AEC that the use of the APVIS should be specifically provided for in legislation and makes the following recommendation to remove any doubt about its use.
4.79 The Committee further believes that political parties have a right to be involved in postal voting, not least because it provides an opportunity for them to communicate with the electorate, and to provide their campaign material to electors much in the same way as when they hand out how to vote material at polling places and PPVCs. This freedom to communicate with electors is also one of the fundamental aspects of the election process in Australia. 4.80 However, the Committee is of the view that the delays associated with PVAs that are returned directly to political parties before being passed on to the AEC are not being reduced to the extent necessary to ensure that all electors receive their postal voting material in the most timely manner. 4.81 These delays must be reduced. The Committee has sought to identify a solution to the problem of delays, which does not disadvantage electors or political parties but provides for a more timely issue of PVPs. 4.82 The majority of the Committee is satisfied that amending the Commonwealth Electoral Act to require PVAs to be returned directly to the AEC should be made. In addition, amendments should be made to retain the ability for political parties to address campaign material to postal voters in a timely fashion, but in a way that provides a level playing field to all political parties, and does so in a transparent manner. However, the Opposition members believe that this would come at the expense of the postal voter’s right to have a secret ballot and denies the right of the voter to choose to communicate solely with the candidate of their choice.
4.85 The majority of the Committee believes that the above recommendation is an appropriate solution to the problem and notes that it can now be done partly as a result of the use of APVIS, but also due to PVA modernisation measures recommended by the Committee following the 2007 federal election that have now taken effect.[46] Opposition members oppose this recommendation because it ignores the elector’s right to a secret ballot if they choose to apply for a postal vote because their details will be made available to parties the elector does not wish to have them. The Australian Greens believe that while the Committee has acknowledged the problems associated with political parties sending postal vote forms to constituents the recommendations do not go far enough in resolving these problems. The Australian Greens support the recommendations to ensure forms are sent straight to the AEC rather than being routed through party offices, but want to see a halt to party-political material being attached to postal vote forms at all. 4.86 The Committee agrees with the AEC that the Thursday prior to polling day does not provide sufficient time for PVAs to be processed with the resulting PVPs being received with sufficient regularity to enable the electors to cast votes prior to polling day. 4.87 The Committee also agrees with the AEC regarding the cut-off time for PVAs received in Australia that require PVPs to be mailed overseas. However, the Committee notes that the AEC can fax or email such PVAs to overseas posts, where postage times may be sufficient for the despatch of PVPs to electors.
Absent voting4.91 Absent voting continues to be a service utilised by many voters, although there is no evidence to indicate that it is increasing at the same rate as forms of early voting, including pre-poll and postal voting. 4.92 The AEC’s virtual tally room indicates 832 950 absent votes were issued,[47] and 759 452 absent votes were counted.[48] This compares favourably with the trend over recent elections. 4.93 With the exception of matters already canvassed regarding waiting times in the Northern Territory and queues at some polling places, which may or may not have been attributable to absent voting, there was little comment made to the Committee regarding absent voting by inquiry participants. 4.94 The AEC, however, submitted that there were efficiencies to be gained if it was permitted to issue both absent and pre-poll ordinary votes. It stated that:
4.95 The Committee sought further information from the AEC and discussed the proposal in some detail during the hearing on 4 March 2011. The Electoral Commissioner indicated that they anticipate growth in declaration voting and had started to explore measures to limit the number of votes in declaration envelopes.[50] 4.96 Under the AEC’s proposal, the elector would be marked off an electronic certified list and cast their vote. Their ballot paper would still go in an envelope for transportation to the relevant division, but would be treated as an absent ordinary rather than a declaration vote. 4.97 The use of an electronic list, which could be updated when the voter attends a polling place, would go some way to addressing concerns about possible multiple voting. 4.98 The AEC has proposed a trial at the next election of absentee votes as ordinaries. There were, however, concern was expressed that any attempt to change voting processes should occur at all polling venues, not just some.[51] 4.99 However, the Electoral Commissioner explained that the use of technology at every polling place to electronically mark the certified list has its practical limitations, stating that:
Committee conclusion4.100 The Committee notes that the use of electronic certified lists is now permitted as a result of recent changes to the Commonwealth Electoral Act arising out of recommendations made by the Committee following its inquiry into the 2007 federal election. 4.101 However, the Committee remains concerned to ensure that the pace of change to election processes is one that can be managed by all election participants. Equity is one of the fundamental principles of Australian’s electoral system. 4.102 Another concern to the Committee is whether the AEC is able to adequately prepare for the logistical arrangements that would be necessary at the next election, should such a move be permitted. 4.103 If absent votes were to be treated as ordinary votes, the AEC would be required to move all absent and pre-poll ballot papers issued as ordinary votes in all polling places and pre-poll centres across a state or territory, to the respective home divisions in such a short space of time as is required to ensure that the result is delivered much quicker than is provided for under the current arrangements. 4.104 The Committee notes that the AEC already moves large volumes of votes through the declaration vote exchange processes that it currently has in place. However, there are checks and balances in that process, including the retention of counterfoils in issuing divisions, that can be relied upon should some unforeseen event occur to prevent the vote reaching its destination. 4.105 The Committee is of the view that the efficiencies that could be gained by such a move justifies conducting a limited trial that can be properly evaluated by the Committee following the next election. 4.106 Whilst the Committee recognises that such a trial may not dispel the concerns regarding equity, it is also mindful that a limited trial will help in bedding down some of the various issues and processes that must be worked through in the minds of Committee members before a more permanent change to the Commonwealth Electoral Act is recommended.
4.109 Opposition members feel that this recommendation should be altered to change ‘certified lists’ to ‘copies of the electoral roll’. These members believe that marking off pre-poll votes from an electronic copy of the electoral roll is a good idea to help reduce voter fraud and efficiently process electors, however, using certified data from sources other than the electoral roll dramatically reduces the integrity of the roll and thus it is important to make it clear that only information from the electoral roll is being used. It is the view of Opposition members that Recommendation 19 should therefore read:
Voting for blind and low vision electors4.110 An important part of the AEC’s role in administering the conduct of elections is to maximise the opportunities for eligible electors to exercise their voting franchise, while maintaining integrity in the electoral system. 4.111 At the 2010 federal election electors who are blind or have low vision had the choice of being assisted in casting in their vote by a person of their choice or a polling official at a polling place, postal voting or telephone voting through a call centre. 4.112 The new telephone voting system was utilised by 410 electors, who were blind or had low vision, during the polling period for the 2010 federal election.[53] It was at a cost of $205 917, equating to approximately $502 per vote.[54] 4.113 Telephone voting involved the elector attending a specified location and having their name marked off the electoral roll. They would then be taken to a private area, where a call would be put through to an official at an AEC call centre. 4.114 The call centre operator reads the candidate options and the elector gives instructions on how they want their ballot paper to be marked. This transaction is listened to by a second call centre operator to ensure that the preferences were marked according to the voter’s instructions. The identity of the voter is not revealed to the call centre worker, thus providing the voter with some independence and a degree of anonymity. 4.115 However, organisations representing blind and low vision persons did indicate that they had received some negative feedback from their memberships about the telephone voting system. They brought to the Committee’s attention certain incidents and concerns expressed by blind and low vision voters who utilised the service to vote in the 2010 federal election. 4.116 Concerns expressed by Blind Citizens Australia members about telephone voting at the 2010 federal election included:
4.117 Blind Citizens Australia also noted the short time between the call of the election and the late legislative amendments to permit other methods of voting, namely to provide for the telephone voting option. This meant that voters were not made aware of the telephone voting option at the outset and so many may already have applied for postal vote applications and were not aware that they could still choose to utilise the telephone voting option.[56] 4.118 The Committee also notes Vision Australia’s advice about problems experienced by electors who are blind or have low vision, including that:
4.119 These incidents aside, generally the feedback about the telephone voting system at the 2010 federal election was positive, with many voters finding it to be a ‘satisfactory way to cast a secret, independent and verifiable vote’.[58] Blind Citizens Australia submitted that:
4.120 In its submission, Blind Citizens Australia quoted feedback from one of its members in regional Victoria, who stated:
4.121 When compared to most previous federal elections, telephone voting was a good additional option for electors who are blind or have low vision. However, some submitters felt that the 2010 telephone voting option fell short of the electronic assisted voting method trialled at the 2007 federal election. 4.122 The Royal Society for the Blind of South Australia, Blind Citizens Australia and Vision Australia all expressed a preference for the electronic assisted voting system trialled at the 2007 federal election over the more limited telephone voting option in 2010. 4.123 The trial of electronic voting at the 2007 federal election involved electronically assisted voting for blind and low vision electors, and remote electronic voting for selected Australian Defence Force personnel serving overseas. The electronically assisted voting component of the trial for blind and low vision electors was at a cost of $2.2 million, or $2 597 per vote. This was in sharp contrast to the average cost for standard voting in the 2007 federal election at $8.36 per elector.[61] 4.124 The previous Committee, regrettably, could not support the continuation of the form of electronic voting trialled due to the considerable cost. 4.125 Electronic voting options clearly held considerable appeal for electors who require assistance when voting. A number of submitters brought the NSW iVote system to the Committee’s attention. 4.126 The iVote system is a remote electronic voting option that allows eligible electors to vote by telephone or the internet. This system was in place at the NSW state election in March 2011. 4.127 While the impetus for the NSW iVote system was to allow blind and low vision electors to vote independently, the legislation to permit its use extended eligible electors for this option to include electors who are illiterate, or have other disabilities, live more than 20 km from a polling place, or will be interstate or overseas on election day.[62] 4.128 The Royal Society for the Blind of South Australia supports extending the use of electronic voting options to groups other than exclusively to electors who are blind or have low vision, stating that: To be viable in the longer term, any system that comes about needs to be not too expensive yet still address the issues or the difficulties blind people have.[63] 4.129 The Committee notes that key features of the iVote system include:
4.130 Vision Australia General Manager, Mr Michael Simpson, indicated the organisation had some involvement in the testing of the iVote system used in NSW prior to its use at the state election in March. He noted that Vision Australia had received ‘nothing but positive feedback about the phone system that was deployed and mostly positive comment about the web based system’.[64] 4.131 However, the Computing Research and Education Association of Australasia (CORE) expressed concern and stressed the need for exercising caution in the wider adoption of remote electronic voting technology. The CORE’s expert in election voting systems, Dr Teague, stated:
4.132 The Committee notes that the AEC has worked closely with stakeholder groups in developing the telephone voting option for use at the 2010 federal election and options for future elections. 4.133 In its submission, Blind Citizens Australia outlined the stages of the ‘road map’ that had been developed during the AEC consultations with these groups. It stated:
4.134 The Committee notes the advice from Blind Citizens Australia that the telephone voting option was only a stepping stone towards future voting options that will allow blind and low vision voters to exercise more independence in the casting of their vote. Committee conclusion4.135 The Committee commends the AEC for its consultation with stakeholders in developing options for blind and low vision electors to cast their votes with a greater degree of independence. 4.136 The Committee notes with interest the iVote system utilised by the NSW Electoral Commission for the state election in March 2011. The iVote electronic voting system has considerable potential for enabling blind and low vision electors to vote independently and secretly. 4.137 The Committee also noted CORE’s advice about the security risks inherent in remote electronic voting systems. 4.138 The Committee appreciates that some degree of compromise is necessary when providing voting services to certain groups, such as people who are blind or have low vision, to make the method of voting accessible and ensuring the vote is secure. 4.139 The Committee believes that electronic assisted voting systems should be closely examined and rigorously tested, particularly before seeking to extend these options to other groups. 4.140 The Committee believes that electronic voting poses the challenge of striking the right balance between accessibility and user-friendliness for the elector and having a system that is reliable, transparent and secure. The Committee anticipates that this issue will feature prominently in future elections. 4.141 The Committee looks forward to the AEC progressing the road map it has developed in consultation with stakeholder groups to better ensure that blind and low vision electors can cast their vote with a greater level of independence and security.
Antarctic voting4.143 Australians working in Antarctica may cast votes under provisions contained in Part XVII of the Commonwealth Electoral Act. 4.144 In order to vote, Antarctic electors must first be correctly enrolled before the close of rolls and registered as an Antarctic voter before nominations close for an election. 4.145 After the announcement of an election, the AEC liaises with the Australian Antarctic Division to finalise the list of registered Antarctic voters for each station. An Antarctic Returning Officer and an Assistant Antarctic Returning Officer are appointed for each station. Some 49 electors were eligible to cast votes from Antarctic stations in the 2010 federal election, with 43 votes actually cast.[67] 4.146 One of the inherent problems with voting in Antarctica is the process used to transfer the votes of electors. While votes are cast in secret, they are placed into envelopes with the electors’ names on them. These envelopes are subsequently opened, the ballot papers stapled to them, and, at an arranged time, a telephone call made by an Assistant Returning Officer to an AEC Operations Manager in Hobart.[68] 4.147 The voters’ details and the preferences indicated on ballot papers cast by the voters’ are transcribed onto ballot papers by an AEC employee in Hobart, the transcribed ballot papers are placed into a pre-poll envelope then sealed and signed by the Australian Electoral Officer for Tasmania.[69] Votes are subsequently sent to the relevant Divisional Returning Officer where they are admitted to the count along with other pre-poll votes. 4.148 The AEC submitted that an opportunity to modernise the process used for Antarctic voters is now available with the introduction of a legal framework which enables development of an electronic voting solution to allow blind and low vision voters to cast a secret ballot. It suggests that the solution adopted for blind and low vision voters could be extended to Antarctic voters, affording them the same opportunity to cast a secret ballot.[70] 4.149 The AEC notes that the solution used at the 2010 election, discussed earlier in this chapter, could be adopted as telephone facilities are available at Antarctic Stations and the supply vessel. The AEC further noted that in the event of system failure, it would be possible to have the current process in reserve to provide a back-up process.[71] 4.150 Under the existing legislative provisions, the AEC is obliged to compile a list of Antarctic electors who are based at each station. A person is only entitled to vote and receive a ballot paper if they appear on the list of electors at the particular station. 4.151 The AEC notes that with the increasing accessibility of Antarctica, and the mobility of expeditioners in the summer months, the current arrangements pose challenges for ensuring that a list of electors at a station reflects those electors who are actually based there as at the time of polling.[72] 4.152 The AEC recommended that there were efficiencies to be achieved if the Commonwealth Electoral Act was amended to enable the production of a list of all Antarctic electors to be used at all Antarctic polling stations.[73] Committee conclusion4.153 The Committee sees merit in utilising the system which is already in operation for blind and low vision voters, to provide a secret ballot for the benefit of Antarctic electors, noting that there has been no final decision made yet as to what system might eventually be used into the future for blind and low vision voters. 4.154 The Committee believes it is appropriate that any system used for the benefit of blind and low vision electors could also be used by Antarctic electors. 4.155 The Committee believes that there is no reason to restrict the voting of Antarctic electors to a particular station, and finds merit in the AEC’s proposal that a list of all Antarctic electors be available at each Antarctic Station.
How-to-Vote cards4.158 One of the benefits of the legislation under which elections are conducted in Australia is that the publication of How-to-Vote cards (HTVs) is both permitted and regulated. 4.159 Regulation is achieved by the operation of section 328B of the Commonwealth Electoral Act, which requires that HTVs must be authorised by or on behalf of a political party or candidate. 4.160 The authorisation must appear at the top or bottom of each printed face of the HTV and must contain the name and address of the person who authorised it, the name of the political party, or if not endorsed by a political party, the candidate’s name and the word ‘candidate’. 4.161 Subsection 328B (2) of the Act specifies the font sizes in which the authorisation must appear and provides that the font size is determined by the size of the printed HTV. The relevant provisions relating to font size were not in place at the 2010 election but have since been implemented. 4.162 The Liberal Party of Australia noted that while it was not required to implement the font sizes for authorisations used at the 2010 election, it did so, seeking to observe the spirit of the amendment. The Liberal Party submitted to the Committee that the font size specified was too large, noting that: The principle that the authorisation can be readily seen by voters is important. However, we believe that the font sizes prescribed need adjusting. The font sizes currently outlined in the Act are impractically large for some sizes of card.[74] Committee conclusion4.163 The Committee notes the issue of font sizes on How-to-Vote cards raised by the Liberal Party of Australia. 4.164 The Committee is mindful that the font sizes specified for HTVs will affect all political parties and candidates and believes that in order to address the issue raised, it would not be appropriate for the Committee to propose alternative font sizes. However, the Committee considers it appropriate to recommend that the font sizes be reviewed.
|
![]() |