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

On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, I present the committee’s report, incorporating a dissenting report, entitled Report on the 2007 federal election electronic voting trials: interim report of the inquiry into the conduct of the 2007 election and matters related thereto, together with the minutes of proceedings and evidence received by the committee.

Order that the report be made a parliamentary paper.

On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, I have pleasure in presenting the committee’s report entitled Report on the 2007 federal election electronic voting trials: interim report of the inquiry into the conduct of the 2007 election and matters related thereto. One feature of the 2007 election was the conduct of two electronic-voting trials: the first was a trial of electronically assisted voting for blind and vision impaired electors and the other was a trial of remote electronic voting for selected Australian Defence Force personnel serving overseas. The trials had their origins in recommendations that the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters of the previous parliament made in its review of the 2004 election. This interim report focuses solely on the conduct of the electronic-voting trials at the election. Other matters related more generally to the conduct of the 2007 election will be dealt with in the committee’s final report, expected in the middle of this year.

The AEC and its partners, including the Department of Defence and non-government organisations representing people who are blind or vision impaired, should be recognised for their work in delivering the trials. The committee acknowledges their sustained efforts over a short period of time to develop solutions to a range of technical, logistical, administrative and legislative issues. These efforts were invaluable in assisting to deliver the trials.

The combined cost of the trials was over $4 million, with an average cost per vote of $2,597 for the trial of electronically assisted voting for blind and vision impaired electors and $1,159 for the remote electronic-voting trial for selected Defence Force personnel serving overseas. These must be compared to an average cost per elector at the 2007 election of $8.36. The committee has recommended that electronically assisted voting for blind and vision impaired electors and remote electronic voting for Australian Defence Force personnel serving overseas be discontinued.

In the case of the electronically assisted voting trial, it is clear to the committee that some electors who are blind or vision impaired place a strong value on the ability to cast a secret and independent vote like most other electors are able to do. That said, the high costs of providing a service that improves the quality of the franchise for a limited number of voters, at $2,597 per voter for the 850 votes cast, appears to be unsustainable given the low number of votes cast and limited opportunities to lift participation.

The committee is mindful that blind and vision impaired electors will not be disenfranchised by the discontinuation of electronically assisted voting and will retain the opportunity to vote. Existing provisions in the Electoral Act facilitate their participation by providing electors that need assistance the support of a person of their choosing or, where they do not nominate a person to assist, an electoral official. The committee encourages the AEC and relevant advocacy organisations to continue to explore avenues, including the development of cost-effective electronic solutions into the future. In the interim, the committee has recommended that electronic magnifiers be deployed at sites where there is likely to be a demand for them.

In respect of the trial of remote electronic voting for ADF personnel serving overseas, the committee accepts that the system trialled in 2007 required substantial paper based back-up arrangements to be used as a contingency. It is clear that the use of two full systems, one electronic and one paper based, placed a significant additional burden on the ADF in operational areas and would continue to do so if a remote electronic voting system were to be utilised in the future. Further, the committee considers that the high cost of the trial—$1,159 per vote for the 1,511 votes cast—is not warranted, particularly if the number of personnel deployed overseas does not rise significantly from the current level of around 3,000 personnel across 12 areas of operation.

The committee remains concerned to ensure that all ADF personnel are provided with the maximum possible opportunity to cast votes in federal elections wherever operational circumstances permit. The Australian Electoral Commission and the Department of Defence have jointly proposed an assistant returning officer model under which pre-poll and postal voting arrangements are to be provided in operational areas by ADF personnel trained by the AEC. The committee believes that the proposed model provides a realistic and improved alternative to remote electronic voting and builds on processes already used effectively in the past. The committee has therefore endorsed the assistant returning officer model proposed by the AEC and Defence and recommended that the necessary legislative and administrative arrangements be made so that the model can be used for future elections.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank my fellow committee members for their contribution to the inquiry thus far 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. (Time expired)

Scott Morrison (Cook, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Housing and Local Government) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I join with the chair of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters in thanking the committee secretariat and all committee members, in particular the chair for his leadership in bringing us to this conclusion in this report. The report, as the chair of the committee has outlined, is fairly straightforward. At the end of the day, the issue of cost was the one that was most apparent when we were looking at electronic voting for both people in the Defence Force as well as those who are vision impaired. When we look at costs of $1,159 for Defence Force voters and $2,597 or thereabouts for vision impaired voters versus an average cost of $8.36 per voter, the economics of these decisions become fairly clear. While there are very good intentions amongst all the members of the committee to ensure the franchise is fully extended as far and wide as possible, I think we have to be very responsible in the way we make recommendations on what is a feasible way to go forward.

Also, in considering this matter, it was very useful to think through the issues of electronic voting and the challenges that present themselves with electronic voting. I think we can sometimes think that electronic voting can in many ways solve all the issues that we may face in extending the franchise and democracy. But it is still a tool which is pretty much in its infancy and there are many real dangers that are associated with it. In many jurisdictions around the world where they have gone further down the path on these sorts of issues I think they could not necessarily claim to have greatly increased or even improved at all how they have been able to conduct their elections. So electronic voting remains on the agenda but I think it is viewed by the committee, with the chair’s indulgence, very conservatively and cautiously. Should evidence present itself in the future, should technologies change and should ways of doing this more cost-effectively present themselves then I have no doubt that the committee would be very pleased to look at this matter again and see what opportunities present themselves. But, as it stands, the committee feels that the methods and procedures that we currently have in place to deal with these matters are more than sufficient.

I would also make the point in relation to our defence forces specifically that we are very keen to ensure that those who serve under our flag and our name, defending our values, have every opportunity to cast their vote on the people who will represent them in this place. I join with the chair in drawing attention to recommendation 2, which talks about the appointment of assistant returning officers who will be able to conduct a range of activities to ensure that we meet this objective. To those members of the Defence Force who feel that these do not meet their needs or requirements, we would love to hear from them and we would like to know their concerns. We have obviously worked closely, as has the committee secretariat, with the Department of Defence and defence agencies to understand their views on these matters, but if there are Defence Force personnel who feel that their voice needs to be heard on these matters then our ears are wide open to their concerns.

This is particularly concerning. My colleague the member for Herbert spoke to me this afternoon. He outlined his concerns and his cautions in relation to the Queensland election. He is very concerned that members of the defence forces will not get the opportunity to vote in the Queensland election. For federal elections we have a far more advanced and obviously more efficient system. Together with the member for Herbert—and, I am sure, the member for Fadden—I am concerned that all members of the defence forces should receive the opportunity—

Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The time allotted for this debate has expired. Does the member for Banks wish to move a motion in connection with the report to enable it to be debated on a future occasion?

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the House take note of the report.

In accordance with standing order 39, the debate is adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.