Carol Brown (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

On behalf of the Chair of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, I present the committee's report of the inquiry into the conduct of the 2010 federal election and matters related thereto, and move:

That the Senate take note of the report.

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, the AEC, in terms of the locations to be serviced, due to the increased mobility of electors during this period. The High Court decision in Rowe & Anor v Electoral Commissioner & Anor 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 that the integrity of the role 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 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 learned from and that it will act to prevent any such occurrences in the future. The level of electoral participation at the 2010 federal election was of particular concern. AEC figures indicate that 3.1 million Australians, or 20 per cent of the eligible population, were either missing from the roll, were not marked off a certified list so presumably did not vote, or 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 do 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 effectively. The paper form and the post box 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 updating of electoral details based on data received from trusted sources. This is not a panacea to the problem of the decline in electoral participation but rather another tool for the AEC to utilise when it performs the important role of its maintenance function.

Another issue the committee considered is where 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 an error by a polling official or their having been removed from the roll as a result of the objection process the AEC is required to undertake. Electors not found on the list can cast a provisional vote. At the 2007 and 2010 elections, due to the stricter requirements introduced by the former government in 2006, even if an elector was found to be on the electoral roll, for their vote to be admitted to the count they still had to provide proof of identity on polling day or in the week following. However, those electors who had been removed as part of the AEC objection process on the basis that they were not resident at the enrolled address could not be reinstated even if they were still residing at that address.

At elections prior to the 2006 change, after the required checks to ensure an 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 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 rejected increase to over 80 per cent. In 2010 there were 166,148 provisional votes rejected and only 37,340 admitted. In contrast, at the 2004 federal election, prior to the tightening of restrict­ions, 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 requirements that have contributed to the 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 voters to the roll if they were removed in error and also that their votes should consequently be admitted to the count.

Another matter of concern to the committee was the high number of informal votes at the 2010 federal election. The House of Representatives informality rate was 5.55 per cent, or 729,304 votes, an increase of 1.6 per cent, or 218,482 votes, on 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 and is transparent in that the ticket must be lodged with the Electoral Commission and was designed by electoral administrators, not politicians. The South Australian ticket voting system, if applied to the House of Representatives ballot papers, could save a significant portion of informal votes. For the 2010 federal election this could have been as much as 42.12 per cent, or 307,156 votes, assuming that all 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 the enrolment, voting and counting processes. These competing demands must be satisfied in such a way that the electoral process remains inclusive by 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 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 public hearings. I would also like to thank the committee secretariat for their assistance. I commend the report to the Senate.