Daryl Melham (Banks, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, I present the committee’s report, incorporating a dissenting report and additional comments, entitled 'The 2010 Federal Election—Report on the conduct of the election and related matters', together with the minutes of proceedings. I ask leave of the House to make a short statement in connection with the report.

Leave granted.

This report continues the tradition of examining and reporting on the conduct of federal elections and relevant legislation which has been carried out by the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters and its predecessor, the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform, since 1983. The 2010 federal election was the first winter election since 1987, which created some challenges for the Australian Electoral Com­mission in terms of the locations to be serviced due to the increased mobility of electors during this period. The High Court decision in Rowe v Electoral Commissioner reinstating the seven-day close-of-rolls period and the Federal Court's decision in Getup Ltd v Electoral Commissioner regard­ing the use of electronic signatures also impacted to varying degrees on the election and its conduct by the AEC. The Rowe case enfranchised almost 100,000 electors, incl­uding 57,732 new electors who would otherwise have lost their voting franchise. The decision highlighted the need to protect the democratic right of Australians to participate in choosing their representatives, as provided for in the Constitution. This committee has a role to play in assisting to enfranchise eligible Australians. Making enfranchisement a priority does not mean the integrity of the roll is compromised.

The committee has made some 37 recommendations in this report to help protect the enrolment and voting franchise of Australians and to make other changes to improve the conduct of future elections. Overall, the AEC delivered a highly professional and independent service in its conduct of the 2010 federal election. However, there were the regrettable incid­ents in the divisions of Boothby in South Australia and Flynn in Queensland where thousands of votes could not be counted due to polling official error. The committee trusts that these were mistakes which the AEC has learnt from and will act to prevent any such occurrences of in the future.

The level of electoral participation in the 2010 federal election was of particular concern. AEC figures indicate that there were 3.1 million Australians—20 per cent of the eligible population—who collectively: (a) were missing from the roll; (b) were not marked off a certified list and so presumably did not vote; or (c) cast a vote that did not meet the formality requirements for a valid vote under the Commonwealth Electoral Act. This means that a significant proportion of eligible Australians are not exercising their franchise.

Eligible electors have a duty to enrol for federal elections by completing an enrolment form and submitting it to the AEC and to notify the AEC of a change of address. However, it is sensible to recognise the changing nature of how Australians choose to interact with government and business. People increasingly expect to be able to conduct their professional and personal business electronically and efficiently. The paper based form and the postbox are gradually going out of fashion.

AEC enrolment activities are necessary and must continue, but they have not been effective in achieving growth in the Commonwealth electoral roll at the same rate as the growth in eligible electors. To help address this, the committee supports direct enrolment and the update of elector details based on data received from trusted sources. This is not a panacea to the problem of decline in electoral participation but rather another tool for the AEC to utilise when it performs its important roll maintenance function.

Another issue that the committee consid­ered was the situation that arises when some eligible electors who have enrolled and believe they are on the roll turn up to vote and cannot be found on the certified list. This may be due to a polling official error or being removed from the roll as a result of the objection process the AEC is required to undertake. Electors not found to be on the list can cast a provisional vote. At the 2007 and 2010 federal elections, due to the stricter requirements introduced by the then government in 2006, if the elector was subsequently found to be on the electoral roll the elector still had to provide proof of identity on polling day or in the week following for their vote to be admitted to the count. However, those electors who had been removed as part of the AEC objection process on the basis that they were not resident at their enrolled address could not be reinstated if they were in fact still residing at that address.

At elections prior to the 2006 change, after the required checks to ensure the eligible elector was duly enrolled or could be reinstated if they had been removed in error, their vote could be admitted to the count. This meant that roughly 50 per cent of the provisional votes at the elections between 1996 and 2004 were admitted. However, the stricter requirements for proof of identity and the prevention of reinstatements saw the percentage of votes being rejected increase to over 80 per cent. In 2010, 166,148 provisional votes were rejected and only 37,340 were admitted, in contrast to the 2004 federal election prior to the tighter restrictions at which 90,366 provisional votes were rejected and 90,512 were admitted to the count. The government has since legislated to remove the proof of identity requirement that has contributed to increased rejection of provisional votes. The committee feels that the government must go further to address this matter and enable the AEC to reinstate eligible electors to the roll if they were removed in error and consequently have their votes admitted to the count.

Another matter of concern to the committee was the high number of informal votes in the 2010 election. The House of Representatives informality rate was 5.55 per cent—729,304 votes. That was an increase of 1.6 per cent, 218,482 votes, in the 2007 federal election. The committee has consid­ered the options presented by participants to reduce the impact of informality. After careful consideration, the committee has recommended the adoption of a savings provision based on that used in South Australia. The committee notes that the system has been used in South Australian House of Assembly elections since 1985 and has saved many votes which would otherwise have been informal. The comm­ittee is particularly attracted to the system because it reinforces compulsory preferential voting, prohibits advocating other than full preferential voting, is transparent in that tickets must be lodged with the Electoral Commission and was designed by electoral administrators and not politicians. The South Australian ticket voting system, if applied to House of Representatives ballot papers, could save a significant portion of informal votes. At the 2010 federal election this could have been as much as 42.12 per cent—namely, 307,156 votes—of the informal vote, assuming that all the relevant candidates had followed the appropriate procedure and lodged tickets with their preferences. Australians expect that particip­ation in the electoral process is accessible, convenient and does not impede their ability to go about their business. At the same time, it is fundamental to ensure accuracy, secrecy and integrity in enrolment, voting and coun­ting processes. These competing demands must be satisfied in such a way that the electoral process remains inclusive while preserving the high levels of integrity necessary to ensure continued trust and acceptance of election results. The comm­ittee has sought to achieve such an outcome with the recommendations made in this report.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank my fellow committee members for their contribution to the inquiry and those who participated by making submissions or appearing at the public hearings. I would also like to thank the committee secretariat for their assistance. I commend the report to the House.

See this speech in context