|
|||
|
|||
|
|
Age |
14 |
15 |
16 |
17 |
18 |
Est % |
98.6 |
94.7 |
82.9 |
62.7 |
14.5 |
There are no proposals to reduce the voting age as part of the measures. The AEC also stressed that there was ‘no necessary link’ between age at which a person can enrol and the voting age.[33] The Coalition has accepted Government assurances that the measures are not part of any process to reducing the voting age.[34] The leader of the Australian Greens, Senator Bob Brown, however, argued that the Bill should also include provisions to lower the voting age to 16.[35]
Schedule 4 comprises the following four proposals concerning technology and electoral roll lists and ballot papers:
Under current legislation, senators and members of the House of Representatives are entitled to receive certain electoral roll information including the ‘latest print of the roll’ in hardcopy. The proposed amendments provide that a senator or member may elect to receive a copy of the electoral roll or certified list in an electronic form. The proposed amendment implements Recommendation 50 of the JSCEM.[36]
Under current legislation the Electoral Commissioner is required to produce a certified list of voters for each Division, and the person issuing ballots must mark each voter off the certified list. The proposed amendments will enable the Commissioner to produce electronic certified lists or ‘approved lists’ to be used along side or instead of the hard copy certified lists at polling places. The proposal gives effect to unanimous Recommendation 43 of JSCEM.[37] The proposal was put to the Committee by the AEC which noted the use of electronic certified lists in recent state elections in, Western Australia, Queensland, Victoria and the Australian Capital Territory. The benefits of using electronic lists include reducing the carbon footprint (in 2007 the lists used over six million A4 sheets of paper) and ease of transportation.[38]
Current legislation requires that ballot papers must include an official mark for purposes of authentication, being a specified water mark or an ‘overprinting’ of the paper with a design approved by the Electoral Commission. What constitutes overprinting is not defined in the Electoral Act. Following the Court of Disputed Returns petition concerning the Division of McEwen the AEC obtained advice from the Australian Government Solicitor suggesting that there is some legal doubt over the technical meaning of overprinting.[39] The nature of the legal doubt concerns whether printing on a ballot paper dyed green in the production process amounts to ‘overprinting’, as opposed to printing on a white paper that had been printed green. The distinction can be particularly important where ballot papers are printed locally from PDF files in Australian embassies overseas.[40] This is also of significance in relation to certain pre-poll and absentee voting.[41]
The amendments propose to remove the technical requirement for ‘overprinting’ ballot papers and provide that ballot papers contain a design approved by the Commissioner. The aim of the proposal is to provide greater flexibility in the printing of ballot papers and to enable the printing of ballot papers on demand where supplies are exhausted in pre-poll voting offices and polling places. The measure implements unanimous Recommendation 38 of JSCEM.[42]
In Mitchell v Bailey, the Court of Disputed Returns raised the issue of how votes are determined to be formal.[43] The Court overturned 153 of the 643 votes that had been excluded from the count on the grounds of formality during a recount for the Division. The recount and the Court’s decision raised a degree of uncertainty about the process of scrutinising ballot papers. In 2008 the AEC commissioned former public servant Alan Henderson PSM to review the implications of the Court’s decision and made a number of recommendations, most of which were endorsed by JSCEM.[44]
The proposed amendments aim to clarify the law in relation to ballot papers considered formal by the DRO despite not containing the initials of an issuing officer nor a water mark. To remove any uncertainty, it is proposed the DROs write on such ballot papers, ‘I am satisfied that this ballot paper is an authentic ballot paper on which a voter has marked a vote’.[45] The measure follows the unanimous recommendation 37 of JSCEM. Henderson had originally recommended that AEC manuals, handbooks and training be amended to specify that ballot papers lacking official marking but believed to be authentic by the DRO be marked as proposed. However, JSCEM considered that the Act should also be amended in order to clarify the procedure in statute.[46]
Current provisions with the Electoral Act and the Referendum Act enable mobile polling at various places including hospitals, prisons and remote divisions. The Acts contain separate provisions for mobile polling in those different places, but does not authorise mobile polling as may be required more generally. The proposed amendments consolidate the currently separate mobile polling provisions for hospitals, prisons and remote divisions into a single general section of each Act and introduce flexibility into determining where mobile polling is conducted and extends how long it may be conducted for. More specifically, the proposed amendments:
The proposals primarily give effect to Recommendation 20 of JSCEM which was framed in terms of providing facilities for homeless people. That recommendation called for the Electoral Act to be amended, ‘to allow mobile polling and/or pre-poll facilities to be provided at such locations and at such times as the Australian Electoral Commission deems necessary for the purposes of facilitating voting’.[47] The proposals also satisfy Recommendations 18 (mobile polling for indigenous town camps), Recommendation 28 (for mine workers), Recommendation 29 (in hospitals) and Recommendation 30 (extending the period of mobile polling where it is provided). Also, as recommended by JSCEM, consistent changes are proposed for the Referendum Act.
However, Recommendation 20 was not unanimous. While supporting the more flexible arrangements for mobile polling, the Coalition members of the Committee opposed the application of the recommendation to people who are itinerant or homeless. It was considered that homeless people already had access to existing polling facilities, whereas voters in rural and remote areas did not.[48]
Schedule 6 proposes four main changes to the existing postal voting provisions consistent with unanimous Recommendations 5, 6 and 33 of JSCEM. First, it is proposed that the requirement that postal vote applications are signed by the applicants and a witness is removed so that the applications may be submitted online and processed expeditiously. Second, it is proposed that extraneous material attached or incorporated into blank application forms for postal voting, such as party political material, be prohibited. Third, that completed postal vote application forms are required to be returned directly to the AEC, rather than via a third party such as a political party. Fourth, to require that written declarations from the elector and witness to certify that the conditions for the completion of the postal vote were met before the close of the poll. Amendments also propose that the date of the witness signature on the postal vote is the date of the completion of the vote, not the post mark. As noted above, it is intended that Schedule 6 would commence six months following Royal Assent.
At the 2007 federal election, a total of 12 930 814 votes were counted for candidates of the House of Representatives and of those, 706 0466 or 5.46 per cent were postal votes.[49] JSCEM considered that the postal delivery system had failed a proportion of voters, despite their fulfilment of their requirements vis-à-vis the lodgement of postal votes. Other evidentiary requirements such as the signature of witnesses for postal vote applications were found to introduce delays in the process without actually enhancing the integrity of the system. The Committee noted that in 2007, there were 50 000 postal vote applications that required rectification and resubmission, mainly due to issues with witnessing. The Nationals and the Liberal Party, in separate submissions, told the Committee that the postal vote application form was unduly complex and not user-friendly.[50]
Since 1998 the Electoral Act has enabled individuals and organisations, to provide postal vote applications physically attached to, or forming part of, other written material.[51] Political parties have relied on this provision to produce their own version of the application form. In 2003 the Special Minister of State granted an extension of members’ entitlements to include expenditure on postal vote application letters to constituents as a ‘community service’.[52]
Previously, public funding in the form of parliamentarians’ entitlements, has been used as supplementary funding for the production and distribution of postal vote applications. In 2009 the Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) released a performance audit on the administration of parliamentarians’ entitlements. In relation to the use of entitlements for producing postal vote material, the ANAO noted:
The Government accepted all of the recommendations from the ANAO report including ending the use of printing entitlements for electioneering.[54]
The Australian Government’s, Electoral Reform Green Paper: Strengthening Australia’s Democracy, canvassed some concerns that have been expressed about the involvement of political parties in the postal voting process. These concerns included:
However, it could be argued that political parties have a legitimate role in facilitating postal voting by encouraging people to use the facility.[56] Notably, the proposed amendments do not completely remove political parties from the postal voting process. Parties may still provide postal vote applications and include their own political material in the same envelope so long as that material is not attached to, or incorporated into, the form.[57] If passed, the new provisions would apply to individuals and organisations, including lobby groups, not just political parties.
Although it was not the intention of the provisions, the proposed measures to require postal vote applications to be returned directly to the AEC could be interpreted as restricting the ability of old or infirm postal voters to use a ‘third party’ to submit their application. It was suggested to the Senate Finance and Public Administration Committee that Schedule 6 be rethought so as not to preclude a postal voter using a friend to deliver or post their application.[58]
The proposals to return postal vote applications directly to the AEC and prevent the attachment of extraneous material from applications were not recommended the JSCEM. The Opposition have argued that these measures would adversely impact on the share of the vote by Coalition parties and have objected to the measures.[59]
Schedule 7 contains three sets of provisions concerning rolls and enrolment based on unanimous recommendations of JSCEM. Current legislation requires that a version of the electoral roll containing names and addresses is available for the public to inspect at the office of each DRO, capital cities and other places. There are no previsions that specifically prohibit the recording or copying the information contained therein. The AEC and JSCEM raised concerns that, given technological developments, large-scale reproduction of the information may be conducted for inappropriate purposes. The first part of Schedule 7 proposes to clarify that there is no right to copy such information, although no offence is specified.[60] This is based on Recommendation 53 of the JSCEM.
The AEC also shares electoral roll information with states and territories under ‘joint roll arrangements’ for the purpose of conducting elections, referenda and maintaining the roll. The second part of Schedule 7 proposes to provide for regulations to proscribe other purposes for which states and territories can use electoral roll information. The Explanatory Memorandum lists the compilation of jury lists as one example of such an additional purpose.[61] This proposal is based on Recommendation 44 of JSCEM. That recommendation referred to a range of minor technical and operational changes suggested by the AEC. The new measures only proposes to implement one of those changes, to expand the list of purposes for which states and territories could use roll information.[62]
Under current legislation, homeless people could lose their enrolment as itinerant electors if they reside in temporary accommodation for a month or longer. Furthermore, homeless people could be removed from the roll if they do not vote at a general election. Voting is not compulsory for itinerant people.[63] The third part of Schedule 7 seeks to broaden the ability for homeless people to vote by maintaining their enrolment while they live in crisis or transitional accommodation and if they have not voted at a general election. The amendments further propose to clarify the current legislation to define a homeless person as a person without adequate access to safe and secure housing consistent with the meaning under the Supported Accommodation Assistance Act 1994.[64] The proposal gives effect to Recommendation 19 of JSCEM.
In its inquiry, JSCEM heard that the AEC did not fully implement electoral services to homeless people as recommended by the Committee following the 2004 federal election. In forming its recommendation to provide greater flexibility in the enrolment of homeless people, the Committee particularly noted submissions from Hanover Welfare Services and PILCH Homeless Persons’ Legal Clinic. The Committee’s recommendation, as adopted in the current proposal, is based on Victorian electoral provisions.[65]
As noted above, the Opposition indicated that it would not support the proposal to repeal paragraph 96(9)(a) of the Electoral Act which currently provides that a person will no longer hold enrolment as an itinerant elector if the person neither votes or applies for a postal vote at a general election. The Opposition argued that measures to maintain the enrolment of itinerant electors if they do not vote or apply for a postal vote reduces the integrity of the electoral roll by leaving ‘no alternative mechanism for roll-cleansing of itinerant voters’.[66]
‘Early voting’ comprises of pre-poll and postal voting. Current legislation prescribes the grounds upon which an application for postal and pre-poll votes may be made. These grounds include absence from the state in which an elector is enrolled, being outside eight kilometres of a polling booth in an elector’s own state, serious illness and so on.[67] The new measures proposed in the Bill seek to provide two additional grounds upon which an elector may apply for an early vote, that an elector will be absent from their own division throughout the hours of polling on polling day, and due to a reasonable fear for, or reasonable apprehension about, their personal safety or wellbeing.[68]
These proposed changes follow unanimous Recommendations 25 and 26 of JSCEM. In its report, the Committee noted that thousands of absent votes had been cast in divisions that adjoined elector’s home divisions. It considered that allowing absence from a division as a ground for early voting would reduce the number of absent votes cast on polling day. Homelessness Australia told the Committee fear for personal safety may prevent people from attending polling places, particularly people fleeing domestic violence in rural and remote areas where polling locations are limited.[69] In previous years, JSCEM has resisted certain reforms to early voting primarily because it wanted to encourage electors to vote in person on polling day.[70] However, this no longer appears to be of great concern to the Committee.[71]
Schedule 9 of the Bill proposes a range of less significant technical amendments to:
Only the more significant provisions amending the Electoral Act are canvassed in this part of the Digest.
Item 2 inserts a definition of ‘approved form’ to be a form that is approved by the Commissioner in writing, and that has been published by the Commissioner. The note to the new definition gives as an example that the form ‘might have been’ published by the Commissioner on the Commissioner’s website.
Item 5 deletes from subsection 80(1) that the Commissioner publishes the declaration and abolition of polling places in the Gazette, and stipulates instead that the Commissioner will do these things ‘in writing’. Item 7 inserts new subsections 80(2A) and (2B) to the effect that the Commissioner will publish notice appointments, declarations and the abolition of polling places on the Commissioner’s website and in any other way the Commissioner considers appropriate. Failure to do so however, will not affect the validity of appointment, declaration or abolition.
Similar amendments are made to the Referendum Act.
Item 6 makes the substantive amendment in this Schedule by repealing existing section 98AA and re-enacting a new section 98AA to have the effect that certain claims or applications must include or be accompanied by any of the following:
According to the Explanatory Memorandum the new provision:
Provides that the new requirements for evidence of identity apply to a person that makes an application or claim under the provisions providing for enrolment from outside Australia, as a child or spouse of an overseas elector, or as an applicant for citizenship. The new requirements also apply to people who make an application or claim as an itinerant elector, or for standard enrolment if the person is not already enrolled, or if the person wants to change the name under which he or she is enrolled. If an elector is simply changing his or her address details then evidence of identity is not required.[73]
Section 89 of the Electoral Act requires that the electoral roll be printed at regular intervals. Item 1 repeals that provision. The rationale for this includes that the provision is largely defunct
Given the Commission’s powers in section 90 to determine the manner and form in which information is to be provided under Part VI of the Electoral Act. Section 90 specifically includes ‘electronic form’.[74]
Item 5 inserts new subsections 90B(3A)-(3D) to provide generally that the Electoral Commission may provide a single electronic copy of the relevant roll to a Senator or Member, and in certain circumstances, a further one or two copies of that roll.
Item 12 repeals and substitutes subsection 232(1) to the effect that a polling official must either place a mark against a person’s name, or electronically record, that a person has been handed a ballot paper.
Item 47 amends subsection 268(2) to require the polling officer to also endorse a ballot paper with the words ‘I am satisfied that this ballot paper is an authentic ballot paper on which a voter has marked a vote’.
Item 1 repeals and substitutes subsection 184(1) to the effect that an application for a postal vote will no longer be required to be witnessed by another person.
Item 7 inserts new paragraphs 194(1)(da) and (db) to require that postal vote elector and the witness to declare that the vote the requirements of the provision were satisfied before the close of the poll.
Schedule 3 of the Electoral Act contains the rules for the conduct of a preliminary scrutiny of declaration votes. Currently the DRO under Rules 3 and 3A must compare the signature of the elector on the application with the signature on the relevant postal vote certificate and allow the scrutineers to inspect both signatures. Item 9 repeals these Rules and substitutes new rule 3 which will provide that in the event the DLO has reason to doubt that the signature on the postal vote certificate is the elector’s signature, then the DRO must check the signature against the most recent record (if any) of the elector’s signature that is available. The Explanatory Memorandum notes that in practice this is likely to be the elector’s application for enrolment. Note that this amendment means that the checking need only be undertaken if the DLO holds a doubt about authenticity, whereas under the current law, the checking must be done in all cases.
Item 23, although a small amendment, is significant. It removes the word ‘may’ and inserts ‘must not’ into subsection 184AA(1), so that a postal vote application form must not have anything attached to it or form part of other material. A similar amendment is made to the Referendum Act. The Explanatory Memorandum does make clear that other material can still be included in an envelope with the postal vote application.[75]
Item 1 clarifies the Electoral Act by adding new subsection 90A(5) so that a right to inspect the roll does not include a right to copy or record by electronic means the roll or part of the roll.
Items 4-11 make the amendments relating to enrolment of persons experiencing homelessness and itinerant electors discussed at page 19 of this Digest.
Members, Senators and Parliamentary staff can obtain further information from the Parliamentary Library on (02) 6277 2662.
[1]. Explanatory Memorandum, Electoral and Referendum Amendment (Modernisation and Other Measures) Bill 2010, p. 2.
[2]. Ibid., p. 21.
[3]. G Gray, ‘Second reading: Electoral and Referendum (Modernisation and Other Measures) Bill 2010’, House of Representatives, Debates, 2 June 2010, p. 11.
[4]. Ibid.
[5]. Terms of reference and other inquiry documentation, including the inquiry report, are available at the Committee website: http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/em/elect07/tor.htm
[6]. Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters (JSCEM), Report on the conduct of the 2007 federal election and matters related thereto, JSCEM, Canberra, 2009, pp. xxiii–l, viewed 11 February 2010, http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/em/elect07/report2/Final.pdf
[7]. G Gray, ‘Second reading: Electoral and Referendum (Modernisation and Other Measures) Bill 2010’, House of Representatives, Debates, 2 June 2010, p. 11.
[8]. Australian Government, Electoral reform green paper—donations, funding and expenditure, Australian Government, Canberra, December 2008, viewed 18 February 2010, http://www.dpmc.gov.au/consultation/elect_reform/docs/electoral_reform_green_paper.pdf; Australian Government, Electoral reform green paper—strengthening Australia’s democracy, Australian Government, Canberra, September 2009, viewed 18 February 2010, http://www.dpmc.gov.au/consultation/elect_reform/strengthening_democracy/docs/strengthening_australias_democracy.pdf
[9]. Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Political Donations and Other Measures) Bill 2008, Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Political Donations and Other Measures) Bill 2009. These Bills and associated documentation, including Bills Digests, can be accessed at: http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbillhome%2Fs627%22 (2008 Bill), http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbillhome%2Fr4073%22 (2009 Bill).
[10]. Explanatory Memorandum, Electoral and Referendum Amendment (Close of Rolls and Other Measures) Bill 2010, p. 1.
[11]. Ibid.p. 2.
[12]. J Hockey, ‘Second reading: Electoral and Referendum (Close of Rolls and Other Measures) Bill 2010’, House of Representatives, Debates, 25 February 2010, pp. 7–9.
[13]. G Gray, ‘Second reading: Electoral Referendum (How-to-Vote Cards and Other Measures) Bill 2010’, House of Representatives, Debates, 2 June 2010, p. 13, viewed 3 June 2010, http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;adv=;db=;group=;holdingType=;id=;orderBy=;page=;query=BillId_Phrase%3Ar4388%20Title%3A%22second%20reading%22%20Content%3A%22I%20move%22%7C%22and%20move%22%20Content%3A%22be%20now%20read%20a%20second%20time%22%20(Dataset%3Ahansardr%20%7C%20Dataset%3Ahansards);querytype=;rec=0;resCount=
[14]. Terms of reference and other inquiry documentation, including the inquiry report, are available at the Committee website: viewed 17 June 2010, http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/fapa_ctte/electoral_bills/index.htm
[15]. A Robb, ‘Second reading: Electoral and Referendum Amendment (Modernisation and Other Measures) Bill 2010’, House of Representatives, Debates, 15 June 2010, pp. 34–35, viewed 16 June 2010, http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;adv=;db=;group=;holdingType=;id=;orderBy=;page=;query=BillId_Phrase%3A%22r4388%22%20Dataset%3Ahansardr,hansards%20Title%3A%22second%20reading%22%20Speaker_Phrase%3A%22robb,%20andrew,%20mp%22;querytype=;rec=0;resCount=
[16]. Senate Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee, Electoral and Referendum Amendment (How-to-Vote Cards and Other Measures) Bill 2010 [Provisions] Electoral and Referendum Amendment (Modernisation and Other Measures) Bill 2010 [Provisions], June 2010, p. 10, viewed 17 June 2010, http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/fapa_ctte/electoral_bills/report/report.pdf
[17]. Ibid.
[18]. Explanatory Memorandum, Electoral and Referendum Amendment (Modernisation and Other Measures) Bill 2010, p. 1.
[19]. Ibid, p. 3.
[20]. Recommendation 41, JSCEM, Report on the conduct of the 2007 federal election and matters related thereto, JSCEM, Canberra, 2009, pp. 275.
[21]. Senate Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee, Electoral and Referendum Amendment (How-to-Vote Cards and Other Measures) Bill 2010 [Provisions] Electoral and Referendum Amendment (Modernisation and Other Measures) Bill 2010 [Provisions], June 2010, p. 10.
[22]. Explanatory Memorandum, Electoral and Referendum Amendment (Modernisation and Other Measures) Bill 2010, p. 3.
[23]. Ibid., p. 8.
[24]. Recommendation 3, JSCEM, Report of the inquiry into the conduct of the 2004 federal election and matters related thereto, 2005, p. 28.
[25]. JSCEM, Report of the inquiry into the conduct of the 2004 federal election and matters related thereto, 2005, p. 22.
[26]. Ibid., p. 358.
[27]. Explanatory Memorandum, Electoral and Referendum Amendment (Modernisation and Other Measures) Bill 2010, p. 8.
[28]. AEC, Submission 169 to JSCEM, Inquiry into the conduct of the 2007 federal election and matters related thereto, p. 17.
[29]. JSCEM, Report on the conduct of the 2007 federal election and matters related thereto, JSCEM, Canberra, 2009, p. 89.
[30]. Ibid.
[31]. Ibid.
[32]. AEC, Submission 169.18, to JSCEM, Inquiry into the conduct of the 2007 federal election and matters related thereto, p. 6.
[33]. Ibid.
[34]. Senate Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee, Electoral and Referendum Amendment (How-to-Vote Cards and Other Measures) Bill 2010 [Provisions] Electoral and Referendum Amendment (Modernisation and Other Measures) Bill 2010 [Provisions], June 2010, p. 11.
[35]. Ibid., p. 15.
[36]. JSCEM, Report on the conduct of the 2007 federal election and matters related thereto, JSCEM, Canberra, 2009.
[37]. Ibid., p. 279.
[38]. Ibid., p. 278.
[39]. Mitchell v Bailey (No 2) (2008) 169 FCR 529.
[40]. AEC, Submission 169.18 to JSCEM, Inquiry into the conduct of the 2007 federal election and matters related thereto, p. 7.
[41]. Explanatory Memorandum, Electoral and Referendum Amendment (Modernisation and Other Measures) Bill 2010, p. 18.
[42]. Explanatory Memorandum, Electoral and Referendum Amendment (Modernisation and Other Measures) Bill 2010, p. 18.
[43]. Mitchell v Bailey (No 2) (2008) 169 FCR 529.
[44]. A Henderson, ‘Review of ballot paper formality guidelines and recount policy’, AEC, 2008; JSCEM, Report on the conduct of the 2007 federal election and matters related thereto, JSCEM, Canberra, 2009, p. 259.
[45]. Explanatory Memorandum, Electoral and Referendum Amendment (Modernisation and Other Measures) Bill 2010, p. 18.
[46]. JSCEM, Report on the conduct of the 2007 federal election and matters related thereto, JSCEM, Canberra, 2009, p. 259.
[47]. JSCEM, Report on the conduct of the 2007 federal election and matters related thereto, JSCEM, Canberra, 2009, p. 172.
[48]. Ibid., p. 330
[49]. ANAO, Administration of Parliamentarians’ entitlements by the Department of Finance and Deregulation, performance audit report no. 3, 2009–10, ANAO, September 2009, p. 143.
[50]. JSCEM, Report on the conduct of the 2007 federal election and matters related thereto, JSCEM, Canberra, 2009, pp. 67–80, 214.
[51]. Section 184 AA, Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918.
[52]. ANAO, Administration of Parliamentarians’ entitlements by the Department of Finance and Deregulation, performance audit report no. 3, 2009–10, ANAO, September 2009, p. 145.
[53]. Ibid., pp. 146–7.
[54]. J Ludwig (Special Minister of State), Reform of parliamentary entitlements, media release, 8 September 2009, viewed 9 September 2009, http://www.smos.gov.au/media/2009/mr_352009.html
[55]. Australian Government, Electoral reform green paper—strengthening Australia’s democracy, Australian Government, Canberra, September 2009, p. 167.
[56]. Ibid.
[57]. Explanatory Memorandum, Electoral and Referendum Amendment (Modernisation and Other Measures) Bill 2010, p. 18.
[58]. Associate Professor Graeme Orr, AEC, Submission to the Senate Finance and Public Administration Committee, Inquiry into the Electoral and Referendum Amendment (How-to-Vote Cards and Other Measures) Bill 2010 and the Electoral and Referendum Amendment (Modernisation and Other Measures) Bill 2010, p. 4.
[59]. A Robb, ‘Second reading: Electoral and Referendum Amendment (Modernisation and Other Measures) Bill 2010’, House of Representatives, Debates, 15 June 2010, pp. 34–35.
[60]. Explanatory Memorandum, Electoral and Referendum Amendment (Modernisation and Other Measures) Bill 2010, p. 34.
[61]. Ibid.
[62]. JSCEM, Report on the conduct of the 2007 federal election and matters related thereto, JSCEM, Canberra, 2009, p. 283.
[63]. Section 245, Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918.
[64]. Explanatory Memorandum, Electoral and Referendum Amendment (Modernisation and Other Measures) Bill 2010, p. 36.
[65]. JSCEM, Report on the conduct of the 2007 federal election and matters related thereto, JSCEM, Canberra, 2009, pp. 158–171.
[66]. A Robb, ‘Second reading: Electoral and Referendum Amendment (Modernisation and Other Measures) Bill 2010’, House of Representatives, Debates, 15 June 2010, pp. 34–35.
[67]. Schedule 2, Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918.
[68]. Explanatory Memorandum, Electoral and Referendum Amendment (Modernisation and Other Measures) Bill 2010, p. 37.
[69]. JSCEM, Report on the conduct of the 2007 federal election and matters related thereto, JSCEM, Canberra, 2009, p. 195.
[70]. For example, proposals to count pre-poll votes as ordinary votes were resisted by JSCEM on number of occasions. In its report on the 2001 election the Committee found that it lacked sufficient evidence to support the proposal. See JSCEM, Report of the Inquiry into the 2001 federal election and matters related thereto, JSCEM, Canberra, June 2003, p. 159, viewed 19 February 2010, http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/em/elect01/report/fullreport.pdf . In its report on the 1998 election, the Committee concluded that such a proposal would be ‘contradictory to its overall strategy of discouraging the increasing use of declaration voting’, JSCEM, Inquiry into all aspects of the conduct of the 1998 federal election and matters related thereto, JSCEM, Canberra, June 2000, p. 49, viewed 19 February 2010, http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/em/elect98/wholereport.pdf. In relation to the 1996 election, the Committee decided to uphold the principle that voting should be done in person on polling day. See JSCEM, Inquiry into all aspects of the conduct of the 1996 federal election and matters related thereto, JSCEM, Canberra, June 1997, p. 54, viewed 19 February 2010, http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/em/elec/elec.pdf
[71]. A proposal to count pre-poll votes as ordinary votes was recommended by JSCEM in its report on the 2007 election and now forms part of the Electoral and Referendum Amendment (Pre-poll Voting and Other Measures) Bill 2010, currently before the Parliament. See the Bills Digest for a discussion of the rise in early voting and the Governments proposed measures in this regard.
[72]. G Gray, ‘Second reading speech: Electoral and Referendum (Modernisation and Other Measures) Bill 2010’, House of Representatives, Debates, 2 June 2010, p. 12.
[73]. Explanatory Memorandum, op. cit. paragraph 56, p. 9.
[74]. Ibid., paragraph 78, p. 12.
[75]. Ibid. paragraph 234, p. 33.
This work is copyright. Except to the extent of uses permitted by the
Copyright Act 1968, no person may reproduce or transmit any part of this
work by any process without the prior written consent of the Parliamentary
Librarian. This requirement does not apply to members of the Parliament
of Australia acting in the course of their official duties.
This work has been prepared to support the work of the Australian Parliament
using information available at the time of production. The views expressed
do not reflect an official position of the Parliamentary Library, nor
do they constitute professional legal opinion.
Feedback is welcome and may be provided to: web.library@aph.gov.au. Any concerns or complaints should be directed to the Parliamentary Librarian. Parliamentary Library staff are available to discuss the contents of publications with Senators and Members and their staff. To access this service, clients may contact the author or the Library’s Central Entry Point for referral.