2. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander participation in elections
   1. The Committee’s interim report tabled on 19 June 2023 provided an overview of the evidence received to date in relation to electoral participation and lifting enfranchisement of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.
   2. The Committee’s interim report examined several themes including voter engagement, barriers faced by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to enrol and vote, current initiatives for enrolment and participation, and on the day and direct enrolment. The Committee made two recommendations aimed at strengthening electoral participation.
   3. This chapter re-examines the evidence received throughout the inquiry, including on current initiatives for enrolment and participation, concerns raised by submitters with the services provided in remote areas, and suggestions for improvement. Notably, the weight of the evidence regarding current barriers to electoral participation pertains to Aboriginal communities in the Northern Territory (NT).

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander enrolment and turnout

2.4According to the AEC, ‘the Indigenous roll is in the best shape it’s ever been’; the estimated unenrolled Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander population has dropped below 50,000 for the first time in Australia's history.[1] The AEC noted:

… there are more First Nations citizens enrolled at the moment than there have ever been in the history of the electoral roll, and that's as a result of the work of the AEC over the last decade—the last five years in particular. The last 12 months saw the biggest increase in Indigenous enrolment in the roll's history. So, whilst we’ve got a long way to go, there have been some incredibly good outcomes.[2]

2.5Table 2.1 illustrates the estimated growth in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander enrolment rates from 74 per cent in 2017 to 94 per cent in 2023.

Source: Australian Electoral Commission, Indigenous Enrolment Rate, viewed 26 September 2023, https://www.aec.gov.au/Enrolling_to_vote/Enrolment_stats/performance/indigenous-enrolment-rate.htm.

2.6It is the first time in Australia’s history that the national estimated enrolment rate for this demographic is above 90 per cent. Furthermore, the national rate is slightly behind the overall estimated national enrolment rate of 97.5 per cent. With a margin of 3.7 per cent, compared to difference of 21.6 per cent in 2017, ‘the gap has been closing quickly’ according to the AEC.[3]

2.7The AEC attributed the surge between December 2022 and June 2023 to the expansion of the Federal Direction Enrolment and Update (FDEU) program and other initiatives, which are further explored in this chapter.[4]

2.8As noted in the Committee’s interim report, however, the enrolment rate is only half the picture and ‘many submitters have noted that turnout of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people is likely to be significantly lower than the enrolment rate, particularly where a seat encompasses remote areas.’[5]

2.9The AEC stated that it is the remoteness of the population that accounts for the differences in enrolment levels between the states and territories[6]:

New South Wales has the highest Indigenous population in Australia, but it also has probably the more urbanised Indigenous population; therefore they’re closer to services and they’re more likely to have previously been the focus of our FDEU programs. It is the remoteness element that is the factor that we are trying to overcome here.[7]

2.10For the 2022 federal election, the turnout rates told a different story. Table 2.2 illustrates the correlation between electorates with significant Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander populations and a low voter turnout.

Source: Australia Institute, Submission 412, p. 30.

2.11Lingiari particularly stands out: voter participation was the lowest in Australia, at a record low of 66.83 per cent. For the 2019 federal election, this figure was 72.85 per cent.[8] According to the Northern and Central land councils, Lingiari consistently has the lowest turnout of enrolled voters[9], and has the highest number of unenrolled voters in Australia.[10]

2.12For context, 77 per cent of Aboriginal people in the NT live in remote or very remote areas[11],and all of the NT’s remote Aboriginal communities are in Lingiari[12],which is the second largest electoral division in the country.[13]This cohort is the most disenfranchised in terms of electoral participation.[14] Lingiari also has some of the highest levels of poverty, as well as the widest gap in employment.[15]

2.13Estimates also suggest that the turnout for very remote areas (with predominantly Aboriginal populations) were even lower: 49.4 per cent of all enrolled voters voted in the 2022 election.[16] According to the Central Land Council (CLC), turnout was as low as 25 per cent in some communities.[17]

2.14This turnout pattern is not exclusive to federal elections. For the NT elections in 2020, several remote Aboriginal communities had turnout rates around 50 per cent.[18]

2.15The Northern Territory Electoral Commission (NTEC) stated that of the 25 Legislative Assembly division in the NT, seven are remote divisions. The table below illustrates the average voter turnout across these seven divisions for the past four Territory elections.

Source: Northern Territory Electoral Commission, Submission 369, p. 2.

2.16According to the NTEC, for local government elections, participation is even lower.[19]

2.17Nonetheless, the Northern Land Council (NLC) asserted that ‘more than anywhere else in Australia, the Aboriginal population of remote NT has the potential to have electoral power.’[20]

Additional statistics

2.18According to Drs Morgan Harrington and Francis Markham, ‘relatively little is known about Indigenous participation in elections’.[21] This is due to the absence of an Indigenous identifier on the Australian electoral roll and a shortage of independent research on the issue.[22]

2.19When discussing Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander electoral participation, Dr Markham explained the value in distinguishing between enrolment, turnout, and formality. Turnout is whether an enrolled voter attends a polling place and is marked off the roll, and formality is whether the vote cast is actually counted as a formal vote.[23]

Enrolment

2.20Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander enrolment rates are produced by matching the electoral roll with administrative data from Services Australia, in order to correlate who has identified as Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander.[24] The number of enrolled Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people is then compared to projections of the voting-age Indigenous population from the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) to generate an estimated enrolment rate.[25]

2.21It was highlighted that the ‘while the denominator (ABS Indigenous voting-age population estimates) will be updated every five years to account for the changing propensity of people who identify as Indigenous in the Census, the Services Australia data (the numerator) is less likely to reflect such a change.’[26] This means that ‘there is a likelihood that the numerator and denominator will measure increasingly different populations.’[27]

2.22Drs Harrington and Markham recommended that the AEC update their method of estimating Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander enrolment rates to account for this cohort’s population increase ‘over-and-above the natural increase’ predicted by the ABS and the ‘differential propensity to identify as Indigenous in different data sources.’[28] This was also espoused by the CLC.[29]

Turnout

2.23According to Drs Harrington and Markham, the AEC ‘have not attempted to provide’ Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander turnout rates, because ‘this information is not available at the individual elector level’. This was deemed ‘surprising’, given that on election day, the AEC mark off voters against the roll and identify who has and has not voted.[30]

2.24Drs Harrington and Markham suggested that the AEC report on ‘any legal or administrative impediments they face in producing [these] estimates’, that identified impediments be removed, and that the AEC ‘produce and publish estimates of Indigenous voter turnout by electoral division after every Federal election.’[31]

2.25The latter recommendation was echoed by the CLC, who also suggested the inclusion of regional breakdowns:

Given the size and diversity of the division of Lingiari, the provision of further regional breakdowns would assist with addressing issues and barriers to participation at the local level.’[32]

Formality

2.26There is little quantitative data available on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander ballot formality. Accordingly, Drs Harrington and Markham examined rates of formality at the polling place level for booths with large Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cohorts in their catchments, and identified a relationship between the proportion of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander voters at a booth and informality rates.[33]

2.27For a ‘hypothetical all-Indigenous polling place’, they extrapolated an informality rate of roughly 15.8 per cent, significantly higher than the informality rate of 5.2 per cent for all votes cast in the 2022 federal election.[34] From this, it was determined that ‘the complexity of casting a formal ballot for the House of Representatives does present a barrier to Indigenous electoral participation.’[35]

2.28Drs Harrington and Markham also theorised that their observed variation in formality rates among remote Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander booths ‘may be due to variation in the levels of assistance offered to votes at different polling places rather than differences in the literacy and civic education of voters.’[36]

2.29To address the issue of high informality rates, Drs Harrington and Markham suggested ‘stronger savings provisions’ to boost effective electoral participation.[37] This was also supported by the CLC.[38]

2.30In response to some of the matters raised by submitters, the AEC noted the difficulty in accurately measuring turnout and formality:

Estimating AEC franchise metrics for First Nations people are subject to many assumptions as it involves indirect modelling with inherent uncertainties due to the absence of an Indigenous identifier on the electoral roll.[39]

2.31The AEC also said it ‘values the contributions of researchers and academics whose work in this important area assists us to better understand First Nations experiences in the context of elections’ and was willing to continue to work with institutions to support improvements to the franchise.[40]

Current initiatives and strategies to increase enfranchisement

2.32This section explores current initiatives and strategies to increase electoral enrolment and participation generally, particularly through the Indigenous Electoral participation Program (IEPP), as well as those used during the 2022 federal election.

Indigenous Electoral Participation Program

2.33In 2010, the IEPP was introduced by the Federal Government with the goal of closing the gap in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander disadvantage in electoral participation.[41] Through this, the AEC work and collaborate with ‘Indigenous led organisations and other service providers to identify culturally and regionally appropriate opportunities to enable electoral participation.’ For 2021-22, the budget for the national program was $2.5 million.[42]

2.34$5.6 million in additional funding was also allocated over four years from 2020-21 ‘to support the recruitment of a permanent Australian Electoral Officer and an expanded AEC presence’ in the NT.[43]

2.35At present, the IEPP has five full-time staff and two full-time staff employed at the NT and Western Australia (WA) offices, respectively. The National Office, State Office and Territory Office staff also support the IEPP program.[44]

IEPP Partnerships

2.36The AEC has 87 partnerships with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander organisations across Australia who are ‘trusted service delivery providers for the community’.[45]

2.37IEPP partners ‘lead, co-design, and champion localised, culturally appropriate engagement in their communities.’ This involves ‘collaboration with the AEC on the development of programs, outreach events, and the creation and dissemination of engagement materials.’[46]

2.38Many of these partnerships specifically target areas with high unenrolment rates, such as Dubbo in New South Wales (NSW), Cape York, the Kimberley, the Pilbara and many parts of the NT.[47] This partnership approach has also received the support of the CLC.[48]

2.39In the lead up to the 2022 federal election, the AEC’s IEPP activities centred on ‘establishing partnerships with organisations who have reach into and are trusted by communities’ to foster collaborate initiatives to increase electoral participation.[49] The AEC stated:

One of the key results is the number of partnerships we’ve got with Indigenous organisations or organisations trusted by Indigenous people—well over 80 of these partnerships, which are really producing great results for us. I’d also point out that at the last election we had more Indigenous staff working for us than we’ve ever had at any other election.[50]

2.40During the 2022 election period, the AEC managed 82 partnerships through the IEPP nationally. Of these partnerships, 21 were solely based in the NT and 16 were based in WA.[51]

2.41These 82 partners championed culturally and locally tailored engagement in their communities, and worked with the AEC to:

• create in-language education materials
• attend community events (focused on enrolment, formality, and temporary election workforce employment opportunities)
• deliver voter education workshops
• promote electoral participation through digital engagement activities
• deliver targeted youth engagement initiatives.[52]
  42. The AEC also stated that a number of their partnerships are with Aboriginal health organisations that are trusted by the community, employ local Aboriginal people and provide their services in the local language. The AEC explained:

We’ll go along and say, ‘Hey, are you interested in working with us, so that when you’re out in community you can provide a bit of education around enrolment and even undertake some enrolment activities for us—deliver education around how to complete a formal ballot paper?’ A number of them are also helping us to recruit people to become part of our temporary election workforce.[53]

2.43For example, the AEC engaged with the Ngaanyatjarra, Pitjantjatjara and Yankunytjatjara (NPY) Women's Council, which is based in Central Australia. In the lead up to the 2022 federal election, NPY provided electoral awareness and education, information on how to vote, and completed over 100 enrolment forms.[54]

2.44The AEC also has a longstanding partnership with DriveSafe NT and Northern Territory Births, Deaths and Marriages.[55] For many Aboriginal people in remote communities, a lack of identification is a significant issue and barrier to electoral enrolment. To address this, the IEPP works with these agencies to provide community members birth certificates, access to driver training and electoral enrolment. This initiative was welcomed by the NLC.[56]

Communication

2.45The AEC is ‘focused on its in-language information offerings as appropriate for the needs of First Nations voters’.[57]

2.46Founded on consultation and an ‘evidence-based approach of communication requirements’, the AEC have expanded their materials in-language, and have produced a series of in-language videos on subjects such as how to enrol and cast a formal vote, and temporary election workforce opportunities with the AEC.[58]

2.47For the 2022 federal election, the AEC focused on the provision of ‘accessible and inclusive information to support localised engagement.’[59] This included:

• the production of videos in 24 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander languages
• the advertisement for the Remote Area Mobile Polling Program in 20 languages[60], and
• the first-time engagement of the National Indigenous Television (NITV) under a media partnership whereby a microsite, television commercials, social posts, digital banners, and advertorials were used.[61]
  48. Additionally, through the program, the AEC sent email and SMS prompts to enrol before the 2019 and 2022 federal elections and since June 2020 for state and territory elections. From this, 200,000 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people received prompts; more than 7,000 enrolled.[62]

Federal Direct Enrolment and Update program

2.49In 2012, the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 (Electoral Act) was amended to enable the Federal Direct Enrolment and Update (FDEU) program to improve the AEC’s capacity to maintain an accurate electoral roll.[63]

2.50The amendment allowed the AEC to enrol an unenrolled person using trusted third-party data to identify, automatically update or enrol people on the electoral roll.[64] Third parties included Centrelink, Services Australia, the Australian Taxation Office, and the National Exchange of Vehicle and Driver Information Service.[65]

2.51According to the NLC, the program proved to be successful, as it accounted for more than 278,00 new enrolments between the 2013 and 2016 elections.[66]

2.52Nonetheless, the FDEU did not extend to people in communities with a single address – called ‘mail exclusion zones’. This automatically excluded the majority of people in remote communities where mail is sent to a sole address.[67] This was criticised by a number of submitters, including the Law Council of Australia (LCA) and the Human Rights Law Centre (HRLC).[68]

2.53The NLC stated that this decision ‘excluded most remote Aboriginal communities in the NT’, because such communities have their mail often delivered to post office boxes or in a single community mail bag.[69] Similarly, the NTEC remarked on how this decision negatively impacts Aboriginal voters:

The limits of the FDEU program particularly disadvantages Aboriginal electors in the Northern Territory. According to AEC figures, as at the 30 June 2020, of the estimated 52,847 voting age Aboriginal electors in the Territory, 16,527 were not enrolled to vote. The majority of Aboriginal Territorians live in regional and remote areas not covered by the FDEU program. Data also indicates that remote Aboriginal Territorians do not enrol, face-to-face engagement remains the most effective manner to stimulate enrolment in remote areas. The under representation of enrolment of remote Aboriginal Territorians not only impacts election results, it also affects electoral boundaries.[70]

2.54The CLC stated that the effect of this policy is evident, highlighting that ‘while enrolment rates across all of Australia have steadily increased, in the Northern Territory enrolment jumps in the lead up to an election, and drops between elections.’[71]

2.55There was strong support for its expansion, with the CLC stating that it ‘must be rolled out across all remote communities.’[72] Drs Harrington and Markham noted the potential this program has for enfranchising remote Indigenous communities:

The FDEU has significantly increased rates of enrolment across Australia to the point that the roll is now the most complete is has ever been. There is every reason to expect that the extension of this program to remote parts of Australia will do the same. Applying the FDEU to everyone is the single most effective change that could be made to increase Indigenous enrolment in discrete Indigenous communities across Australia.[73]

2.56Significantly, two community leaders from Arnhem Land lodged an official complaint in 2021 to the Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC)claiming that the failure to apply the FDEU in remote communities represented a Breach of the Racial Discrimination Act,[74] and that the FDEU ‘suppressed or inhibited’ Aboriginal people living on their homelands from voting. This complaint is still before the AHRC.[75]

2.57The AEC has trialled the use of direct enrolment communication via email and community mailbags in WA, NT and Queensland (QLD).[76] In this trial, the AEC contacted roughly 800 Indigenous electors across 63 communities in the aforementioned states who are not on the roll and live in communities that receive mail via community mail bags.[77]

2.58Additionally, the AEC also added a new data set of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander voters, writing to over 14,000 people who self-identify as such and were not on the roll.[78]

2.59These two trials resulted in the automatic enrolment of roughly 16,000 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders[79], and due this success, the AEC decided in February 2023 that ‘they will become a regular feature’ of the FDEU program.[80]

2.60Even more significantly, in the overall 2022-23 financial year, the FDEU program saw roughly 62,300 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people added to the electoral roll.[81]

2.61The AEC also informed the Committee that they intend to trial the FDEU program in correctional settings and have contacted correctional facilities in the NT, SA, and WA.[82]

Mobile polling

2.62Although not a legislated requirement, mobile voting teams visiting remote communities has ‘long been an essential part of the AEC’s delivery of electoral events.’[83] Mobile polling is spread through a range of different divisions, but the majority are within remote WA, NT, SA and Far North QLD.[84]

2.63‘Unique and complex’, the logistics behind the delivery of remote services can be ‘impacted by changes in community advice, unexpected weather events and premises availability.’[85] For every election, providing this service to remote communities involves a ‘small number of permanent staff buttressed by a large number of temporary staff.’[86]

2.64For the 2022 federal election, the AEC had 38 mobile teams visiting 348 locations, issuing 21,620 votes.[87] This level of service was ‘equivalent to that of the 2019 federal election.’[88]

2.65Moving forward, the AEC intend to expand their remote area mobile polling, stating they are aware of the unique challenges remote communities face and the logistical difficulties that come with ensuring people in such places can vote:

Our aim is to try to provide as much opportunity for people to vote as is possible, given that this is a difficult logistical area for us. We are trying to expand on what we are already doing. We are well aware of the challenges that these remote communities face.[89]

2.66According to the AEC, there is a ‘huge amount of work occurring to increase the remote service offering’ compared to the 2022 federal election, and they ‘are hopeful that we will see quite a large increase in the number of locations.’[90] There is at least 100 additional locations that the mobile polling teams intend to visit; however, the AEC acknowledged that there remains ‘a lot of work to ascertain the feasibility and suitability of the communities that we've included in that list.’[91]

Other federal initiatives

2.67The AEC also stated that they have simplified the enrolment process, to allow those without an accepted identity document to complete their application online.[92]

2.68Additionally, in February 2023, Medicare cards were introduced as a valid form of accepted identification for Australian citizens to enrol to vote or update their enrolment.[93] According to the AEC, this will ensure that that all Australians, including Indigenous Australians, can enrol easily.[94] In the first four months after this change, close to a third of all enrolment transactions occurred with the use of a Medicare card.[95]

Barriers to electoral participation

2.69This section will explore the general and broader barriers Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander voters have historically faced as well as those ascribed to the 2022 federal election.

A checkered history – frequent underfunding and abolition of programs

2.70According to the CLC, many federal programs geared towards increasing Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander education on and engagement with voting have either been abolished or defunded over the last three decades.[96]

2.71The HRLC stated that the ‘disparity between Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander enrolment and electoral participation is due in part to decisions taken by successive federal governments over a number of years.’[97]

2.72As previously discussed, the IEPP was introduced by the Federal Government with the goal of closing the gap in electoral participation.[98] Nonetheless, the CLC highlighted that the program has undergone repeated and significant funding cuts between 2017 and 2021[99], with staffing in the AEC’s Darwin office reduced from sixteen to three following the 2017 Federal Budget. This included the ‘axing’ of four staff that were working on Aboriginal participation and voter education.[100]The NLC noted that this occurred ‘despite a report on the 2016 Federal election identifying that the division of Lingiari had the lowest voter turnout in Australia at every House of Representatives election since 2001.’[101] Given the goal of the IEPP, the NLC remarked that the reduction of its services in the NT was disappointing.[102]

2.73In relation to the 2017 budget cuts, the AEC stated that the staffing reduction in the Darwin office did not impact on interpreter services and was reversed in a subsequent budget decision in 2022, with the office returning to at least thirteen workers, and is ‘functional and running and doing great work.’[103]

2.74The CLC, although acknowledging and welcoming the reinstatement of ‘modest funding for the IEPP’, remarked that in recognising ‘the need to make up for decades of under-investment and the under-provision of electoral information and education, and enrolment and voting support to remote communities, this funding should be not just maintained but increased over time.’[104]

The Aboriginal Electoral Education Program

2.75In 1979, the Aboriginal Electoral Education Program was established to increase the enrolment of Indigenous people. The various iterations of the program over the years provided education and materials regarding voting in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander languages, and ‘included significant outreach effort and harnessed the opportunity for job creation through the roles of Aboriginal Community Electoral Assistants.’[105]

2.76The program aimed for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander self-management in electoral matters and the increase in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander voter registration.[106]

2.77In 1996, the program - then known as the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Election Education and Information Service - was abolished,[107] and the AEC did not operate a major program targeting Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander electors for 13 years.[108]

2.78In addition to being a factor in ‘declining Indigenous electoral education’[109], the end of this program holistically meant that ‘almost two generations of Indigenous people have missed out on culturally-appropriate education about voting and government.’[110] The Australia Institute remarked that ‘it is still probably having an impact … cuts in voter education can take decades to work through.’[111]

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission

2.79Submitters also highlighted the work of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission (ATSIC), which encouraged electoral participation.

2.80Through the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission Act 1989, ATSIC was created as a ‘statutory authority to both represent, and deliver services to, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.’[112]

2.81ATSIC held elections, facilitated by the AEC, where voters elected its commissioners and members of its seventeen regional councils. According to the CLC, these elections had a positive effect on the voter turnout of Aboriginal voters in the sparsely populated areas in central Australia, where the interest and participation in these elections was higher in comparison to densely settled areas.[113]

2.82This increased participation was correlated to ‘ATSIC’s prominent role in funding and providing services and employment in the remote areas of central and northern Australia and the higher number of polling booths.’[114]

2.83The ATSIC also ran promotional and educational campaigns regarding voting, such as ‘The Right to Be Heard’ campaign in 2002, which encouraged Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to participate in ATSIC elections as both voters and candidates. Significantly, in the 2002 ATSIC elections, voter turnout increased by 11.1 per cent, and over 1150 people nominated as candidates.[115]

2.84Nonetheless, in 2005, ATSIC was also abolished, which, according to the CLC, ‘further eroded Indigenous enfranchisement.’[116]

Lack of voter education

2.85According to Drs Harrington and Markham, a lack of awareness about elections and government, and unfamiliarity with the enrolment and voting process means that many Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people ‘are unaware of the purpose of elections and their responsibility to vote.’[117]

2.86The NLC highlighted the consequences that long-term under-provision of electoral education, engagement and information has had on remote communities:

… there are generations of community members who have never received adequate – or any – electoral or civic education services. This is not due to lack of interest. Research into electoral engagement and education in three remote Aboriginal communities in the NLC’s region … found that: ‘A good majority of those interviewed see participation in electoral processes as an important aspect of being an Aboriginal Australian’. It also noted: ‘Voters’ concerns around how to better understand the purpose of voting, the “underneath stories” of parties and policies and how to effectively judge the achievements of past or incumbent politicians, emerged as just as significant as concerns around literacy and numeracy at the ballot box.[118]

2.87The Kavanagh Report, which was commissioned by the NPY Women’s Council to investigate enrolment and participation in the 2022 federal election, found that ‘most people have little understanding of the processes of participatory rights and obligations around voting as Australian citizens.’[119]

2.88The report noted that they ‘had to explain concepts such as the three tiers of government and take time to help people understand words such as enrolling, voting, Parliament House and even Prime Minister.’[120]

2.89The report also found that ‘the majority of young people in particular had little awareness that an election was taking place. They did not understand how the voting system works - let alone how voting can impact your life. Older people were generally more knowledgeable.’[121]

2.90The NLC highlighted that within the context of their role of representing the interests of more than 50,000 Aboriginal people across seven regions, they are not funded to deliver civics education. They stated:

We are not funded to fix this problem. … We are here today because the agencies that are resourced and mandated to actively manage the electoral roll and deliver targeted education and public awareness programs have obviously, self-evidently and shamefully failed.[122]

2.91Mr Matthew Ryan, Mayor of Maningrida in Arnhem Land, emphasised how ‘lacking’ voter education and awareness has been for remote communities and called for a need to engage with the relevant community stakeholders to address this:

Back in the eighties, they used to talk about how to enrol and when to vote. There used to be how-to-vote cards at schools. That's lacking through the system, right across the Northern Territory. I speak for all and as an individual as well, and I've seen that lacking. It's a big failure. We have interpreter services and, like I said, the stakeholders in our communities, but we can do better. All we need to do is work together in terms of the processes, and we have the land councils that will support this. We have the Aboriginal Peak Organisation that will support this as well. It's about engaging the right stakeholder group within our areas, regardless of where you're from or where you are.[123]

Mobile polling challenges

2.92As previously noted, the delivery of remote voter services can be hindered by a variety of logistical challenges such as changing community advice and weather events.[124] Stakeholders suggested that greater cultural awareness when delivering this service is also necessary.

Poorly timed

2.93Despite remote communities’ reliance on mobile polling booths, limited resources means that ‘booths provided by the AEC can be present for as little as a single hour during an entire election period.’[125]

2.94During the 2022 Federal Election, of the 205 remote polling booth locations in Lingiari, remote area polling teams were present at 154 locations for four hours or less. Of that figure, 95 of those locations had polling booths present for only a single hour.[126]

2.95The NLC remarked on this in the lead up to the election, stating:

This short window for voting does not take into account daily life in remote communities where people have other commitments, including work, childcare, travel as rangers and so on, as well as important cultural obligations.[127]

2.96An example of this was in the small homeland of Donydji, where Aboriginal men who were occupied with a men’s initiation ceremony were turned away from polling booths because they arrived outside of the prescribed voting time. The NT Government explained:

Some of the men came out of the men’s initiation ceremony to vote. Because it was outside the prescribed time that was advertised, even though the AEC staff were still there, the officer in charge at that particular booth did not allow the men who came out of the men’s site to vote that day. There are stories like that of disenfranchisement in that East Arnhem pocket alone attached to Nhulunbuy as the regional hub.[128]

2.97Similarly, the CLC also noted the ‘poorly timed’ visits by the AEC’s remote polling teams to communities, highlighting that for one community, the day the polling team visited, most of its residents had travelled to a neighbouring community for a funeral.[129]

2.98An additional factor that compounds this narrow opportunity to vote is distance. The Central Desert Regional Council (CDRC) highlighted the feedback they received from residents, whereby it was noted that ‘voting windows were unrealistic’, and that the ‘tyranny of distance between communities and outstations made it a challenge for residents to travel within the stipulated voting window’.[130]

2.99Although highlighting the minimal length of time polling booths are available in remote communities as a ‘really big problem’, Dr Harrington also acknowledged the ‘geographic challenge’ in providing this service considering ‘Australia is a very big country and there are a lot of very small and remote communities dotted throughout it’.[131]

2.100In determining how long mobile polling booths stay in communities, the AEC stated that it depends on the communities’ size. The AEC explained that ‘each community will be entirely different. It depends. Sometimes it is for a day, sometimes for longer than that and sometimes for a couple of hours.’[132]

2.101According to the AEC, it is a challenge to balance extending a mobile polling booth’s time in a community against the need to attend other locations:

… one of the challenges is in communities where there are, for instance, around 10 voters. That’s usually the threshold we use to attend a community. Our ability to get to an increased number of locations also means we need to be very pointed in how long we spend in a community. Spending longer may mean we’re unable to reach other locations. There is a balance to be struck.[133]

2.102In some communities during the election, mobile polling booths ran late which required voters to wait, therefore impacting their day-to-day duties:

Other places had late running booths. It was then exacerbated throughout that day. People were told a certain day and had been hanging around to vote and maybe an hour later the set-up time had been completely off. People had important work, business or travel delayed. It’s just fortunate that in some small places people really count their vote as an important right so they stayed around before they went out to do some of their duties, particularly ranger groups, who try to get out early in the morning when they’re out on country in 40-degree heat. There are those types of frustrations.[134]

2.103There were also additional logistical problems. Due to exceptional issues with a helicopter, Raymangirr and Gurrumuru in East Arnhem - two homelands that were due to be serviced for the 2022 federal election – initially missed out. The NT Government stated that shortly following this, the AEC staff who were stationed at the two-day mobile polling booth at Gapuwiyak were sent to service Raymangirr and Gurrumuru. However, it was unclear as to ‘how many people were actually able to vote a couple of days later from what was advertised—or maybe not advertised, because we saw a lack of materials and communication.’[135]

2.104According to Drs Harrington and Markham, rescheduling these services ‘presented significant difficulties because of limited resources and existing schedules.’[136] The Aboriginal Peak Organisations (APO) NT echoed this, and expressed how frustrating the lack of communication was for community members:

There were quite a few homelands where they didn’t turn up. People are very busy out there and they have their own business to sort out. A lot of our people do want to vote; they wait around for the teams and they didn’t turn up. Apparently one of the helicopters ran out of fuel, so they couldn’t turn up. There was no contact with the communities. No-one from the AEC or the team contacted the communities to say they couldn’t turn up. Then they were looking at rescheduling. This is a big problem about how the AEC engages with these communities to make sure these polls are set up, that people know what is going on.[137]

2.105The Kavanagh Report found that while mobile polling booths were ‘a critical factor in getting people from remote communities to vote,’ little notice is provided before they are available, and that ‘the period of time the booths are open in the communities gives people a limited opportunity to vote.’[138]

2.106There is also an element of unpredictability to remote polling booths, because although schedules are published online and in community offices weeks before an election, ‘many community members do not know which day the remote polling team will be visiting remote communities.’ The NPY Women’s Council report found that ‘most people told us they did not know voting was happening until they saw AEC staff setting up’.[139]

2.107The CLC stressed that such a barrier underlines the importance of the AEC cultivating strong relations with local communities and organisations to obtain ‘local intelligence’.[140] It also highlights the importance of voter education to ensure that people are aware of the opportunities to vote, ‘including via postal vote, and importantly given Aboriginal mobility, absentee voting.’[141]

2.108Furthermore, the need for flexibility was raised when catering for remote voters. Mr Gosford from the NLC referenced his own experience working in elections and catering for remote voters’ unique needs:

I did two federal elections back in the nineties, one as a team member and one as a team leader in a remote community. We did have a day or so of training in Darwin beforehand, but on the ground it quickly became apparent that there was a need to be flexible. In some communities you might expect that 200 people would turn up, and for whatever reason there’d be 400 people who turned up. So the decision we made on the ground was, ‘Well, if there are people there lined up to vote, regardless of what the notified opening and closing times are, then we just stay there until we get every vote, regardless.’[142]

2.109According to the NT Government, in some mobile polling booths, there have been officers-in-charge ‘who were very reasonable, very conscious of the environment that they're operating in and were quite adjusting.’[143]

The importance of certified and trusted interpreters

2.110The issue of available mobile polling booths was compounded by the lack of interpreters at polling centres.[144]

2.111The reported absence of accredited interpreters impacted on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander enrolment, turnout, and voting formality on homelands[145], with the NLC stating that the ‘majority of people were confused and wanted someone to sit with them to explain the system.’[146] Additionally, the Committee heard that during the recent federal election, iPad[s] or video in Indigenous languages were not available at polling places despite their use in the past.[147]

2.112According to Mr Ryan, the absence of interpreters leads to confusion for Aboriginal voters, particularly when there is also a lack of civics education and communication from the AEC:

In my community there was no interpreter … we need interpreters in all our communities. … There’s a lack of education, lack of communication and lack of transparency. People are confused. I’ve seen people lined up, not knowing what to do. At one stage I had to assist some of my fellow countrymen—my people. I didn't want to be influential, but at least I told them to number from 1 to whatever. … Again, it’s a failure of the Electoral Commission itself. Prior to the election, they should be out in the communities and start engaging. That’s the big word, ‘engagement’—in the community.[148]

2.113APO NT also remarked on the difficulty in obtaining properly trained interpreters (and local electoral staff) for the mobile polling booths:

I have worked on many mobile polling teams in the past during several Northern Territory and local government elections and they are not set up for Aboriginal people. We don’t have interpreters. There are no interpreters who are part of the team. Trying to get local assistance has been really difficult and when you do get them you get them on the day, so they are not trained up. The Electoral Commission should be doing ongoing education and training with communities to ensure we can encourage people to work during the election period in the lead-up to the election and during the election.[149]

2.114Although Aboriginal interpreter services are engaged ‘wherever that is possible’, the AEC conceded that there is a shortage of such interpreters across communities:

I think that has been experienced for a while. I think it has been exacerbated, regrettably, by COVID, or the demand may have increased as a consequence of COVID. Access to those very scarce but very valuable interpreter services is difficult to obtain, particularly sometimes with very short notice. So that is one thing that we do, but we are limited by their capacity to service us.[150]

2.115Furthermore, the AEC explained the taxing process required to correctly translate material, which requires engaging an external service:

Many Indigenous languages in particular are oral, not written. We can only use certified translators. The way the process works is you've got to have a certified translator and then you've got to have a certified assurer, and quite often you can’t just translate directly, you have to prepare a concept of what’s being translated and then translate that. So, the concept then has to be quality controlled. It’s a huge process for us. We don’t have that internal capability and we rely on external contractors.[151]

2.116To supplement the shortage of interpreters, the AEC recruit local Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander temporary election workers from communities who speak the language and can provide that interpreter service as part of their duties. For the 2022 election, the AEC had 518 identified positions at polling stations around Australia, and stated that they ‘did our very best to try and fill all of those positions with local Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people who can speak the language.’[152]

2.117These temporary workers who are providing interpreter services are paid $23 dollars an hour, compared to professional interpreters who are paid $60 dollars an hour. In explaining this disparity, the AEC stated that such individuals are not specifically employed as interpreters; rather, they were they were employed as temporary workersthat ‘brought the added value of their language skills, just like temporary workers do from culturally and linguistically diverse communities in Western Sydney and Western Melbourne.’[153]

2.118The AEC stated that they recruit people as temporary workers and ‘if they bring those added language skills, that is an absolute bonus’ but they ‘then rely on external specific professional interpreter services if required.’[154]When asked whether these temporary workers should be paid as interpreters, the AEC stated:

All over Australia there will be incidents in polling places where people with a native ability might have an individual interaction with someone who comes into the polling place where they speak in language because someone might have English as a second language. That is not just restricted to Indigenous Australians; that is right across the board. We benefit occasionally from people’s native language skills. We provide a separate interpreter service, which we contract and pay for, and I’m sure they pay at whatever rate interpreters are paid at. But the tasks we are asking people to fulfil in the polling place are largely temporary election workforce tasks and that’s what they are paid for.[155]

2.119According to the Australian Greens, however, these local interpreters – unlike certified interpreters - have ‘little training in electoral processes or obligations of confidentiality or impartiality.’[156]

2.120The significance of employing certified interpreters who are both equipped with the relevant linguistic skills and are familiar and trusted by these communities was also highlighted. Dr Harrington stated:

The limited research that is available on this issue shows that it’s about having not simply interpreters and people who have the linguistic ability but people who are known and trusted by the community. There is a lot of distrust and historical problems that have lead First Nations people to disengage from government. Having on-the-ground community members who they know and trust is really essential to bridging that gap to encourage civic participation.[157]

2.121Similarly, APO NT remarked more broadly on this, commenting that polling booth staff are not equipped with local knowledge and do not understand the unique community landscape they were working in:

Even the members of the remote polling teams need to have a good understanding of the local people, language and all of those things. The AEC brings up people from down south who have no idea about our communities. They have no idea about the cultural aspects, and they find it really difficult to provide a service to our mob—trying to look for names on their system and so forth.[158]

Suggested improvements and solutions

2.122Engagement with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities and extensive review and assessment must underpin any avenues of reform and the development of strategies geared to improving enfranchisement. Dr Markham stated:

… the AEC really needs to be working in partnership with Indigenous representative bodies in regional and remote Australia to develop these strategies and figure out the best way to implement them, rather than trying to cook up some strategies here in Canberra which may or may not be effective.[159]

2.123In addition, the evidence received also supported a variety of other initiatives, including on-the-day enrolment, community voting centres, voter education, additional accredited interpreters and the development of a local Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander workforce that would facilitate and strengthen the delivery of many of these initiatives and services.

Multilateral engagement and local workforces

2.124According to Drs Harrington and Markham, strategies geared towards increasing electoral participation ‘should be developed with the substantial input of Indigenous voters and non-voters’, as this cohort is ‘best placed to know what strategies would support them to enrol, and what would encourage them to turn out to vote’.[160] They added that a ‘bottom-up’ and participatory approach should be implemented through partnerships with local organisations.[161]

2.125The CLC echoed this, recommending that any such strategies or initiatives ‘are co-designed with and endorsed by Indigenous communities and organisations.’[162]

2.126The notion of multi-lateral partnerships between the AEC, the NTEC and local Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community organisations and land councils was widely espoused.

2.127Rather than bilateral engagement from the AEC, the NLC expanded on multi-organisational engagement, a prospect they had previously proposed, stating:

Rather than just the NLC and the AEC, which now engage in a partnership of indeterminate quality and effectiveness, greater effectiveness could be achieved from a multilateral, multi-organisational working party or something. We proposed that late last year. It hasn't proceeded.[163]

2.128Mr Ryan cautioned against a ‘siloed working group’ and encouraged multi-organisation engagement:

I would encourage the land councils to work together. APO NT, the AEC, the Northern Territory Electoral Commission should come together ASAP to see where we are at and how we can do it moving forward.[164]

2.129The CLC determined that the primary way for the AEC to work through the IEPP should be ‘a partnership approach’ that includes the ‘resources of local community partners’.[165] They also emphasised the importance of ensuring that enfranchisement efforts are informed by local expertise and staff:

It is important that all efforts to increase the electoral participation of Aboriginal people in remote communities are sustained, designed with communities, informed by local expertise and enhanced by the trust engendered through local staff and relationships. We note that there is substantial opportunity to create both short and long-term job opportunities for local people to support ongoing electoral participation efforts and staffing during election periods.[166]

2.130Significantly, the Kavanagh Report ‘identified the need for bespoke services that recognise and are tailored to the particular cultural, linguistic and demographic circumstances of Aboriginal communities.’ Through multilateral partnerships and engagement, local community organisations would act as ‘cultural brokers’ for the AEC and would provide tailored and informed assistance.[167]

2.131This is echoed by research from Charles Darwin University, which identified that although effective electoral engagement varied in each community, this engagement was underpinned by the ‘involvement of local people and local solutions.’ The report recommended that local electoral assistants are employed to provide, in local languages, voter education days or weeks before polling[168]:

This expanded role may include senior people engaged on the basis of their cultural authority, and their ability to work across and through different governance traditions in engaging community members around electoral participation and voting. That the NTEC (and AEC) employ local voter education teams through local research organisations or language centres, and engage them for a few hours a week for a couple of months to alert people to forthcoming elections.’[169]

2.132Both the NLC and CLC supported the development of locally employed electoral workforces,[170] with the CLC recommending that the ‘provision of short and long-term employment opportunities for local Aboriginal people should be a key goal of the IEPP’ and that the AEC should ‘in the first instance, attempt to recruit, train and appropriately remunerate local Aboriginal people as Electoral Engagement Officers.’[171]

Locally employed and culturally aware accredited interpreters

2.133The CLC and HRLC both recommended that priority is given to properly resourcing the provision of accredited interpreters in remote areas, with the latter also recommending that these interpreters should be employed locally.[172]

2.134The NT Government’s Aboriginal Interpreter Service has trained and certified professional interpreters who assist with ‘the voting process and the access of that democratic right.’ Notably, the effectiveness of these interpreters was due to their familiarity with the region and community, with the NT Government’s Minister for Aboriginal Affairs stating:

I often saw—and the NTEC did this really well in previous elections—people who were employed previously, or who worked in and around the region, knew family names and groups. It was: ‘Oh, yes. Your name's Nundhirribala’—bang, off they went, typing it in. There was that smooth process of people getting their names ticked off when they were voting, whereas the AEC were basically looking around on the day trying to find community members in some of the polling places that I was at and signing people up on the spot.[173]

2.135The NT Government stated that they have a ‘whole professional resource around interpreters’ and, noting that the AEC are lacking in this regard, offered a memorandum of understanding between them so that the process is ‘smooth on the ground and also prepared, engaged early—and resourced well.’[174]

Longer timeframes for voting

2.136To address the timeframe issues attached to mobile polling booths, Drs Harrington and Markham recommended extending ‘the provision of voting services for federal elections that would provide access to the ballot box over a period of weeks in areas with low turnout.’[175]

2.137A testament to having longer and more flexible timeframes to vote is the experience of Wadeye, a town in the NT electorate of Daly and the second-largest Aboriginal community in the NT. In the 2022 Daly by-election, the Wadeye booth was open for five full days, ‘which meant that there was a larger voter turnout across that period of time’. According to the NT Government’s Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, allowing further days to vote, ‘made a huge difference in terms of the ability to access voting and voting booths and people turning out to actually vote.’[176]

2.138One way of allowing for larger timeframes is through community-staffed voting centres as they would ‘provide access to ballot boxes over a period of weeks’.[177] This would ‘ensure residents of remote community and outstations have a better chance of casting a vote.’[178]

2.139There is precedent for such an initiative. Drs Harrington and Markham explained that the NTEC ‘has partnered with six local councils to employ their staff to run all aspects of elections except for the count.’ At these ‘Community Voting Centres’, staff from local councils were trained as electoral officers and ‘tasked with encouraging people to vote using ballot papers and boxes provided by the NTEC.’[179]

2.140For the 2021 local Government elections, this initiative led to 37 voting booths in remote communities open for voting on and prior to election day and translated to 1,000 additional hours of voting for remote communities.[180] According to Drs Harrington and Markham, ‘this was the difference between having four hours to vote, and four days to vote.’[181]

2.141The CDRC explained their experience with their ‘service delivery centres operating as voting centres’: they had nine voting centres with over 20 polling officers covering 282,093km2. The CDRC’s polling officers also travelled to surrounding homelands and outstations to reach the majority of their residents registered on the roll.[182]

2.142In explaining the success of this initiative, the CDRC highlighted the following contributing factors:

• advertising of the upcoming elections and discussion through local authority meetings occurred at least 6 months before the elections
• local residents were familiar with the polling officers as they were council workers
• due to this familiarity, there was increased confidence in asking questions, seeking clarity and even getting on the roll
• voting was open for two weeks which provided residents who were travelling between communities sufficient time to return to their registered location to vote
• the two-week voting period allowed for ‘cultural flexibility in respect to cultural business’ that occurred during this period
• the ability of their polling officers to travel to surrounding homelands and outstations enfranchised the majority of outstation residents who are elderly and do not have reliable transportation to travel between communities.[183]
  143. The NTEC’s approach with these community voting centres was deemed as a ‘useful model’ by the NLC.[184]

Provision of electoral information in culturally appropriate and accessible ways

2.144The NLC stressed the importance of ensuring that electoral material is culturally appropriate, accessible and specifically crafted to meet the needs of remote communities.[185] According to the CLC, priority should be given to ‘funding the development of voter educational materials in Plain English and Aboriginal languages’.[186]

2.145The NLC noted, however, that since English is often a second, third or even sixth language, and literacy levels may be lower compared to those in urban areas, the delivery of this material should done in alternative formats, such as oral and visual representations.[187]

2.146Providing electoral education is also important for those Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders in prison, who may ‘struggle with basic literacy and numeracy’, and may have disabilities and mental health issues. The distribution of flyers or facts sheet is, therefore, ‘not going to help those people understand how to vote because they cannot read the information presented.’[188]

2.147Accordingly, the Victorian Aboriginal Legal Service stated that engaging in mediums such as yarning circles and visiting these prisoners to assist them through and break down the voting process is ‘really beneficial.’[189]

Increasing electoral presence in remote communities

2.148APO NT highlighted that neither the AEC or the NTEC have an office in Lingiari, which they deemed ‘a real concern’ as it is ‘really important for that area to have some presence on the ground’ and suggested this be remedied.[190] The CLC also recommended that the NT Government and Federal Government ‘jointly fund an AEC and NTEC office in Alice Springs.’[191]

2.149The secondment of AEC staff to work in these remote regions was also raised. Both the NLC and APO NT support this, with AEC staff being ‘on the ground’[192], working on field-related tasks.[193] APO NT stated:

But we really emphasise the importance of partnership with the AEC and we would similarly welcome opportunities for secondment or additional resourcing for local people to be on the ground and supporting people to participate more meaningfully and over a longer period. APO NT has historically released staff to play really important role in encouraging that participation and raising awareness for people on the ground. It takes time and resources, and we would welcome a commitment to that.[194]

Electronic communication

2.150Submitters suggested using established forms of communication such as BushTel and electronic notification.

2.151At the Territory level, BushTel is used to keep voters informed on relevant election matters.[195] A communications resource that has live data about the community, government services, and organisations as well as the key contact details of these organisations, BushTel is a ‘central point for information about the remote communities’ in the NT.[196] Rather than reinventing the wheel, the NT Government recommended the AEC utilise this live and current resource.[197]

2.152Electronic notification by email or text was also suggested by Mr Ryan as a way to notify remote Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander residents of direct enrolment.[198]

2.153Referencing the COVID-19 pandemic, Mr Ryan highlighted that this experience demonstrated that ‘many Aboriginal people in remote communities can readily be contacted by email or text message’.[199]

2.154Mr Ron Levy noted the benefit of using electronic notification, particularly in NSW, and questioned whether the AEC is prepared to utilise it:

If, on the other hand, it's believed that, at least in some situations, electronic communication can and should be used, as New South Wales certainly did at least up until 2015—which was sending default notices by text message or email—we want to know whether the AEC is prepared to do that. They’ve got that power. If they are prepared to do it, the pandemic experience just shows that it’s possible. All of us, including many Aboriginal people who I know and who Mr Ryan can talk to, received electronic notifications from the respective departments of health about COVID. It worked really well. It’s the third decade of the 21st century. It’s an electronic world. It would seem that that should be seriously explored, subject to what the AEC believe.[200]

2.155The NTEC explained that for electronic engagement, they utilise the roll maintained by the AEC which includes data such as mobile numbers and email addresses to contact people. Significantly however, the NTEC observed that there is a disparity between urban and remote voters in terms of the provision of this data:

When we look at the data, it’s very clear that, in urban areas, there’s a greater percentage of electors that provide these details. In remote communities, it would probably be closer to maybe 20 or 30 per cent of electors who have these details. So in terms of a penetration into the market, into that cohort of electors, it’s certainly less effective because we don’t have that same amount of data.[201]

Voter education

2.156A number of submitters highlighted the need for voter education – particularly in remote communities – and suggested that is rolled out in schools and in the lead up to an election to better inform and prepare future and current voters.

2.157According to Drs Harrington and Markham, voter education increases the understandings of ‘the process of registering to vote, the process of filling out and casting a formal ballot, the differences in Australia’s three levels of government, and the connection between casting a ballot and practical outcomes.’[202]

2.158Increased education on electoral democracy and the voting process is, therefore, a ‘necessity in remote communities’[203] particularly before people leave high school and turn eighteen, and in the lead up to elections.[204] The HRLC supports such an initiative[205], as does the CLC, who advocated for ‘education and resources targeted at the generations that missed out on Indigenous voter education initiatives.’[206]

2.159Accordingly, in drawing attention to those community members not yet eligible to enrol, the NLC supports the rolling out of services and programs targeted to 12 to 15 and 15 to 18-year-old cohorts.[207]

2.160Similarly, APO NT discussed the need for both voter education in, and the provision of electoral material at, schools, to ensure that once young people turn eighteen, they are enrolled, informed and prepared:

I do think that should be something that’s in the curriculum. That’s where you can capture these young people. Once they turn 16 or over, they should be filling out forms—and also filling offices out in some of these remote communities. They should have the applications on their campuses. I just think the material is not out there. When the polling centre turns up, they need to actually apply, because a lot of our people don’t go online; they don’t have access to the internet and all that sort of stuff …I just think there needs to be more access to the education but also to the forms so young people can apply and then be ready, once they’re 18, to vote. At the moment, they’re all getting turned away and getting disheartened by the process.[208]

2.161Drs Harrington and Markham recommended, however, that the AEC should trial such voter education initiatives in randomly selected remote communities and test ‘for their efficacy in boosting enrolment, turnout and formality in comparison with non-selected communities who do not receive education efforts.’[209]

On-the-day enrolment

2.162Since it ‘could be an effective way of increasing participation’[210], amending the Electoral Act to permit on-the-day enrolment for elections administered by the AEC is supported by a number of submitters.[211]

2.163Notably, this is already being done in the NT. The NT’s Electoral Act 2004 was amended in 2019 in response to funding cuts to the IEPP and the FDEU’s failure to capture remote communities.[212] This amendment allowed unenrolled voters who attend a voting centre to cast a declaration vote and have their enrolment assessed and processed during the scrutiny/count period.[213] Those voters who are found eligible are enrolled and their vote accordingly admitted to the count.[214]

2.164Previously, this was not the case: their vote would be rejected, and the individual would have to wait for the following election for their vote to count.[215] The NT is currently unique in this provision. In some other jurisdictions, if a voter is found to be unenrolled, their enrolment is updated but their vote is rejected[216], and they must wait for the next election for their vote to count.[217]

2.165On-the-day enrolment was first applied at the 2020 Territory Election and, following similar amendments to the Local Government Act 2019, it was also implemented for the NT 2021 Local Government elections. According to the NTEC, the ‘main motivation for the legislative changes was to address the inadequate enrolment of Aboriginal people in remote areas of the NT.’[218]

2.166The efficacy of allowing individuals to enrol on the day and cast a declaration vote is demonstrated by the following statistics:

• In the 2020 Territory Election, this process resulted in 1,741 of 2,150 (81 per cent) declaration votes cast being accepted and admitted to the count, with the same number of enrolments added to the NT roll. 58.8 per cent of these admitted declaration votes were from the 7 remote divisions.
• In contrast, only 16.1 per cent and 12.8 per cent of declaration votes were admitted to the count for the 2016 and 2012 Territory elections, respectively.
• In the 2021 Local Government elections, this process resulted in 1,197 of 1,339 (89.4 per cent) declaration votes cast being accepted and admitted to the count, with the same number of enrolments added to the NT roll.[219]

Monitoring and evaluating electoral participation strategies and initiatives

2.167A number of submitters expressed support for the rigorous and transparent monitoring and evaluation of electoral participation strategies and initiatives.[220]

2.168Significantly, the efficacy of many past initiatives geared towards improving participation is unclear:

… strategies to increase Indigenous electoral participation should be trialled and transparently evaluated. The history of electoral administration directed towards Indigenous citizens is littered with well-intentioned initiatives, the effectiveness of which is unknown. We do not know which ones worked, and which didn’t.[221]

2.169Accordingly, Drs Harrington and Markham recommended the pursuit of ‘experimental and innovative strategies’to improve electoral participation ‘so long as these experiments are rigorously and transparently evaluated and endorsed by Indigenous partner organisations.’[222]

2.170The NLC stressed transparency, stating that any methodologies utilised by the AEC in the development, monitoring and assessment of programs – such as the FDEU program - should be publicised by the AEC.[223]

Committee comment

2.171The Committee’s interim report recommended the Government resource the AEC to work directly with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community organisations to increase Indigenous enrolment and participation, particularly in remote communities.

2.172The Committee is pleased to see positive signs of change. The increased enrolment rate for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, driven by the roll out of the use of FDEU and changes the Government has made to enrolment requirements, is positive. In light of the significant disadvantages many face, it is crucial that their views be represented in Australia’s parliament.

2.173Increasing enrolment rates for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are only a portion of the overall picture. Such rates mean little if voters in remote communities find voting inaccessible. This picture is further complicated when the rates of informal voting are included.

2.174There is no single approach to lifting the enfranchisement of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. Improving electoral outcomes for First Nations Peoples relies on community-based solutions, and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander organisations and the AEC working together.

2.175It is unfortunate that unenrolled Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander voters have turned up to vote and, although are able to enrol, are unable to have their vote counted for that election. This situation causes disappointment and frustration.

2.176Overcoming this and enfranchising these voters is relatively straightforward and the Committee is heartened by the experience of the NT’s own elections, which clearly demonstrated the efficacy of allowing individuals to enrol on the day and cast a declaration vote.

2.177Additionally, this amendment is supported by both the Northern and Central land councils, who are better placed to identify what is required to meet the needs of the people in their regions.

2.178To increase electoral participation for remote Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander voters, the Committee considers that permitting this is a viable option, and therefore recommends that the Electoral Act is amended accordingly.

2.179The Committee recommends that the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 is amended to permit on-the-day enrolment for federal elections and referendums.

2.180The Committee agrees that any initiatives or strategies geared towards increasing electoral participation must be co-designed and endorsed by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander organisations and communities.

2.181The Committee recommends that the AEC collaborate and engage with community. This will lead to the development and exchange of strong policies, initiatives and strategies that are underpinned by culturally tailored and informed advice.

2.182Building a local workforce is a practical and long-term solution, as it will empower and more effectively engage community members into the electoral process. The local intelligence of staff will strengthen the delivery of electoral services through roles such as Electoral Engagement Officers and certified interpreters.

2.183Indeed, a local-employed and properly trained workforce may help mitigate the current shortage of certified interpreters. Although the Committee understands that to accommodate for this the AEC enlisted temporary election workers as a short-term solution during the 2022 federal election, it is still important to have certified interpreters who are trained in electoral processes and can provide quality control and assurance of translated materials.

2.184The Committee commends the efforts of the AEC during the 2022 federal election to provide electoral services for remote communities, whilst also acknowledging the frustration some voters felt towards the AEC’s visits and information provided. Servicing every remote community and allowing for flexibility to accommodate cultural needs and logistical challenges in light of resourcing constraints can prove challenging.

2.185Since it would ensure those in remote areas have a far better chance of casting a vote, community-staffed voting centres that provide access to the ballot box for an extended and appropriate amount of time is a practical solution that should be considered by the AEC, in collaboration with communities.

2.186The Committee acknowledges the long-term consequences of the under-provision of electoral education, engagement and information, especially on remote communities, and encourages increased voter education.

2.187The Committee recommends the Australian Electoral Commission continue to develop close relationships with relevant community organisations in addressing barriers to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander electoral participation, particularly in remote areas, with a focus on the following initiatives:

• locally-engaged workforces
• community-staffed voting centres
• voter education programs
• appropriate communication.

Footnotes

[1]Australian Electoral Commission, Committee Hansard, 6 September 2023, p. 5.

[2]Australian Electoral Commission, Committee Hansard, 3 November 2022, p. 9.

[3]Australian Electoral Commission, New Indigenous enrolment record: An in-depth look, viewed 25 September 2022, https://www.aec.gov.au/media/2023/08-03.htm#:~:text=In%20NSW%2C%20the%20estimated%20Indigenous,current%20overall%20national%20enrolment%20rate.

[4]Australian Electoral Commission, New Indigenous enrolment record: An in-depth look, viewed 25 September 2022, https://www.aec.gov.au/media/2023/08-03.htm#:~:text=In%20NSW%2C%20the%20estimated%20Indigenous,current%20overall%20national%20enrolment%20rate.

[5]Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, Conduct of the 2022 federal election and other matters Interim Report, June 2023, p. 110.

[6]Australian Electoral Commission, Committee Hansard, 8 March 2023, p. 3.

[7]Australian Electoral Commission, Committee Hansard, 8 March 2023, p. 4.

[8]Central Land Council, Submission 478, p. 5.

[9]Northern Land Council, Submission 423, p. 2.

[10]Central Land Council, Submission 478, p. 6.

[11]Northern Land Council, Submission 423, p. 2.

[12]The Australian Institute, Submission 412, p. 31.

[13]Central Land Council, Submission 478, p. 4.

[14]Northern Land Council, Submission 423, p. 2.

[15]Central Land Council, Submission 478, p. 4.

[16]Central Land Council, Submission 478, p. 7.

[17]Central Land Council, Submission 478, p. 5.

[18]The Australia Institute, Submission 412, p. 31.

[19]Northern Territory Electoral Commission, Submission 369, p. 2.

[20]Northern Land Council, Submission 423, p. 2.

[21]Dr Morgan Harrington and Dr Francis Markham, Submission 430, p. 5.

[22]Dr Morgan Harrington and Dr Francis Markham, Submission 430, p. 5.

[23]Dr Francis Markham, Private capacity, Committee Hansard, 3 November 2022, p. 34.

[24]Dr Morgan Harrington and Dr Francis Markham, Submission 430, p. 5.

[25]Dr Morgan Harrington and Dr Francis Markham, Submission 430, p. 5.

[26]Dr Morgan Harrington and Dr Francis Markham, Submission 430, p. 5.

[27]Dr Morgan Harrington and Dr Francis Markham, Submission 430, p. 5.

[28]Dr Morgan Harrington and Dr Francis Markham, Submission 430, p. 9.

[29]Central Land Council, Submission 478, p. 7.

[30]Dr Morgan Harrington and Dr Francis Markham, Submission 430, p. 7.

[31]Dr Morgan Harrington and Dr Francis Markham, Submission 430, p. 9.

[32]Central Land Council, Submission 478, p. 8

[33]Dr Morgan Harrington and Dr Francis Markham, Submission 430, p. 8.

[34]Dr Morgan Harrington and Dr Francis Markham, Submission 430, p. 8.

[35]Dr Morgan Harrington and Dr Francis Markham, Submission 430, p. 8.

[36]Dr Morgan Harrington and Dr Francis Markham, Submission 430, p. 8.

[37]Dr Morgan Harrington and Dr Francis Markham, Submission 430, p. 8.

[38]Central Land Council, Submission 478, p. 8.

[39] Australian Electoral Commission, Submission 330.2, p. 2.

[40] Australian Electoral Commission, Submission 330.2, p. 2.

[41]Central Land Council, Submission 423, p. 9.

[42]Australian Electoral Commission, Submission 330, p. 33.

[43]Australian Electoral Commission, Submission 330.5, p. 5.

[44]Australian Electoral Commission, Submission 330.5, p. 5.

[45]Australian Electoral Commission, Committee Hansard, 8 March 2023, p. 3.

[46]Australian Electoral Commission, Submission 330.10, p. 8.

[47]Australian Electoral Commission, Committee Hansard, 8 March 2023, p. 3.

[48]Central Land Council, Submission 478, p. 10.

[49]Australian Electoral Commission, Submission 330, p. 24

[50]Australian Electoral Commission, Committee Hansard, 3 November 2022, p. 10.

[51]Australian Electoral Commission, Submission 330.5, 6.

[52]Australian Electoral Commission, Submission 330, p. 24

[53]Australian Electoral Commission, Committee Hansard, 8 March 2023, p. 4.

[54]Australian Electoral Commission, Committee Hansard, 8 March 2023, pp. 4-5.

[55]Australian Electoral Commission, Committee Hansard, 8 March 2023, p. 3.

[56]Northern Land Council, Submission 423, p. 8.

[57]Australian Electoral Commission, Submission 330.10, p. 8.

[58]Australian Electoral Commission, Submission 330.10, p. 8.

[59]Australian Electoral Commission, Submission 330, p. 24

[60]Australian Electoral Commission, Submission 330.10, p. 8.

[61]Australian Electoral Commission, Submission 330, p. 24

[62]Australian Electoral Commission, Submission 330, p. 33.

[63]Northern Land Council, Submission 423, p. 6.

[64]Human Rights Law Centre, Submission 418, p. 21.

[65]Dr Morgan Harrington and Dr Francis Markham, Submission 430, p. 11.

[66]Northern Land Council, Submission 423, p. 6.

[67]Central Land Council, Submission 478, p. 11.

[68]Human Rights Law Centre, Submission 418, p. 22, Law Council of Australia, Submission 1379, pp. 7-8.

[69]Northern Land Council, Submission 423, p. 6.

[70]The Australia Institute, Submission 412, p. 33.

[71]Central Land Council, Submission 478, p. 11.

[72]Northern Territory Electoral Commission, Committee Hansard, 23 November 2022, p. 9; Central Land Council, Submission 478, p. 11.

[73]Dr Morgan Harrington and Dr Francis Markham, Submission 430, p. 11.

[74]Dr Morgan Harrington and Dr Francis Markham, Submission 430, p. 11.

[75]Human Rights Law Centre, Submission 418, p. 21.

[76]Human Rights Law Centre, Submission 418, p. 22.

[77]Australian Electoral Commission, Committee Hansard, 28 September 2022, p. 2.

[78]Australian Electoral Commission, Committee Hansard, 28 September 2022, p. 2.

[79]Australian Electoral Commission, Committee Hansard, 8 March 2023, p. 2.

For those communities of the 63 that had mailbags, the AEC wrote to their mailbags and automatically enrolled just under 800 people. For the same 63 communities – where the AEC had email data – those residents were emailed, and another 800 individuals were automatically enrolled.

[80]Australian Electoral Commission, Committee Hansard, 8 March 2023, p. 2.

[81]AEC, Submission 330.10, p. 7.

[82]Australian Electoral Commission, Committee Hansard, 8 March 2023, p. 3.

[83]AEC, Submission 330.10, p. 6.

[84]Australian Electoral Commission, Committee Hansard, 3 November 2022, p. 9.

[85]AEC, Submission 330.10, p. 6.

[86]Australian Electoral Commission, Committee Hansard, 3 November 2022, p. 9.

[87]Australian Electoral Commission, Committee Hansard, 8 March 2023, p. 10.

[88]AEC, Submission 330.10, p. 7.

[89]Australian Electoral Commission, Committee Hansard, 8 March 2023, p. 10.

[90]Australian Electoral Commission, Committee Hansard, 8 March 2023, p. 10.

[91]Australian Electoral Commission, Committee Hansard, 8 March 2023, p. 10.

[92]Australian Electoral Commission, Submission 330.8, p. 2.

[93]Australian Electoral Commission, New Indigenous enrolment record: An in-depth look, viewed 25 September 2022, https://www.aec.gov.au/media/2023/08-03.htm#:~:text=In%20NSW%2C%20the%20estimated%20Indigenous,current%20overall%20national%20enrolment%20rat.

[94]Australian Electoral Commission, Committee Hansard, 8 March 2023, p. 2.

[95]Australian Electoral Commission, New Indigenous enrolment record: An in-depth look, viewed 25 September 2023, https://www.aec.gov.au/media/2023/08-03.htm#:~:text=In%20NSW%2C%20the%20estimated%20Indigenous,current%20overall%20national%20enrolment%20rat.

[96]Central Land Council, Submission 423, p. 8.

[97]Human Rights Law Centre, Submission 418, p. 21.

[98]Central Land Council, Submission 423, p. 9.

[99]Central Land Council, Submission 423, p. 9.

[100]Central Land Council, Submission 423, p. 9.

[101]Northern Land Council, Submission 423, p. 4.

[102]Northern Land Council, Submission 423, pp. 4-5.

[103]Australian Electoral Commission, Committee Hansard, 3 November 2022, p. 11.

[104]Central Land Council, Submission 423, p. 9.

In 2022, the Federal Government reinstated funding of $9.4 million over four years and $1.3 million after that, with the majority of the funding allocated from 1 July 2022.

[105]Central Land Council, Submission 423, p. 8.

[106]Human Rights Law Centre, Submission 418, p. 21.

[107]Central Land Council, Submission 423, p. 8.

[108]Human Rights Law Centre, Submission 418, p. 21.

[109]The Australia Institute, Submission 412, p. 33.

[110]Central Land Council, Submission 423, p. 9.

[111]The Australia Institute, Submission 412, p. 34.

[112]Parliament of Australia, Former Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australian Government representative and advisory bodies: a quick guide, viewed 3 October 2023,https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/rp2223/Quick_Guides/FormerAboriginalandTorresStraightIslanderRepresentativeBodies.

[113]Central Land Council, Submission 423, p. 9.

[114]Central Land Council, Submission 423, p. 9.

[115]Central Land Council, Submission 423, p. 9.

[116]Central Land Council, Submission 423, p. 9.

[117]Dr Morgan Harrington and Dr Francis Markham, Submission 430, p. 14.

[118]Northern Land Council, Submission 423, p. 5.

[119]Dr Morgan Harrington and Dr Francis Markham, Submission 430, p. 14.

[120]Dr Morgan Harrington and Dr Francis Markham, Submission 430, p. 14.

[121]Dr Morgan Harrington and Dr Francis Markham, Submission 430, p. 14.

[122]Northern Land Council, Submission 423.1, p. 1.

[123]Matthew Ryan, Private capacity, Committee Hansard, 23 November 2022, p. 1.

[124]AEC, Submission 330.10, p. 6.

[125]Dr Morgan Harrington and Dr Francis Markham, Submission 430, p. 13.

[126]Northern Land Council, Submission 423, p. 8.

[127]Northern Land Council, Submission 423, p. 8.

[128]Northern Territory Government, Committee Hansard, 23 November 2022, p. 6.

[129]Central Land Council, Submission 423, p. 10.

[130]Central Desert Regional Council, Submission 333, p. 2.

[131]Dr Morgan Harrington, Research Fellow, Centre for Aboriginal Economic Policy Research, Australian National University, Committee Hansard, 3 November 2022, p. 37.

[132]Australian Electoral Commission, Committee Hansard, 8 March 2023, p. 10.

[133]Australian Electoral Commission, Committee Hansard, 8 March 2023, p. 10.

[134]Northern Territory Government, Committee Hansard, 23 November 2022, p. 6.

[135]Northern Territory Government, Committee Hansard, 23 November 2022, p. 6.

[136]Dr Morgan Harrington and Francis Markham, Submission 430, p. 13.

[137]Aboriginal Peak Organisations NT, Committee Hansard, 23 November 2022, p. 4.

[138]Dr Morgan Harrington and Francis Markham, Submission 430, p. 13.

[139]Dr Morgan Harrington and Francis Markham, Submission 430, p. 13.

[140]Central Land Council, Submission 423, p. 10.

[141]Central Land Council, Submission 423, p. 10.

[142]Northern Land Council, Committee Hansard, 23 November 2022, p. 7.

[143]Northern Territory Government, Committee Hansard, 23 November 2022, p. 6.

[144]Northern Land Council, Submission 423, p. 8.

[145]Human Rights Law Commission, Submission 418, p. 22.

[146]Northern Land Council, Submission 423, p. 8.

[147]Aboriginal Peak Organisations NT, Committee Hansard, 23 November 2022, p. 3.

[148]Matthew Ryan, Private capacity, Committee Hansard, 23 November, p. 4.

[149]Aboriginal Peak Organisations NT, Committee Hansard, 23 November 2022, p. 3.

[150]Australian Electoral Commission, Committee Hansard, 3 November 2022, p. 10.

[151]Australian Electoral Commission, Committee Hansard, 6 September 2023, pp. 8-9.

[152]Australian Electoral Commission, Committee Hansard, 3 November 2022, p. 10.

[153]Australian Electoral Commission, Committee Hansard, 3 November 2022, p. 10.

[154]Australian Electoral Commission, Committee Hansard, 3 November 2022, p. 10.

[155]Australian Electoral Commission, Committee Hansard, 3 November 2022, p. 11.

[156]The Australian Greens, Submission 432, p. 10.

[157]Dr Morgan Harrington, Research Fellow, Centre for Aboriginal Economic Policy Research, Australian National University, Committee Hansard, 3 November 2022, p. 37.

[158]Aboriginal Peak Organisations NT, Committee Hansard, 23 November 2022, p. 4.

[159]Dr Francis Markham, Private capacity, Committee Hansard, 3 November 2022, p, 38.

[160]Dr Morgan Harrington and Dr Francis Markham, Submission 430, p. 10.

[161]Dr Morgan Harrington and Dr Francis Markham, Submission 430, p. 10.

[162]Central Land Council, Submission 478, p. 10.

[163]Northern Land Council, Committee Hansard, 23 November 2022, p. 3.

[164]Matthew Ryan, Private capacity, Committee Hansard, 23 November, p. 3.

[165]Central Land Council, Submission 478, p. 10.

[166]Central Land Council, Submission 478, p. 10.

[167]Northern Land Council, Submission 423, p. 5.

[168]Northern Land Council, Submission 423, p. 5.

[169]Northern Land Council, Submission 423, p. 6.

[170]Northern Land Council, Submission 423, p. 6; Central Land Council, Submission 478, p. 10.

[171]Central Land Council, Submission 478, p. 10.

[172]Human Rights Law Centre, Submission 418, p. 23; Central Land Council, Submission 478, p. 8.

[173]Northern Territory Government, Committee Hansard, 23 November 2022, p. 7.

[174]Northern Territory Government, Committee Hansard, 23 November 2022, p. 7.

[175]Dr Morgan Harrington and Dr Francis Markham, Submission 430, p. 13.

[176]Northern Territory Government, Committee Hansard, 23 November 2022, p. 11.

[177]Northern Land Council, Submission 423, pp. 8.

[178]Central Land Council, Submission 478, p. 12.

[179]Dr Morgan Harrington and Dr Francis Markham, Submission 430, p. 13.

[180]Central Land Council, Submission 478, p. 12.

[181]Northern Land Council, Submission 423, p. 8.

[182]Central Desert Regional Council, Submission 333, pp 2 – 3.

[183]Central Desert Regional Council, Submission 333, p. 3.

[184]Northern Land Council, Submission 423, p. 8.

[185]Northern Land Council, Submission 423, p. 6.

[186]Central Land Council, Submission 479, p. 8.

[187]Northern Land Council, Submission 423, p. 6.

[188]Victorian Aboriginal Legal Service, Committee Hansard, 3 November 2022, p. 37.

[189]Victorian Aboriginal Legal Service, Committee Hansard, 3 November 2022, p. 37.

[190]Aboriginal Peak Organisations NT, Committee Hansard, 23 November 2022, p. 11.

[191]Central Land Council, Submission 478, p.10.

[192]Aboriginal Peak Organisations NT, Committee Hansard, 23 November 2022, pp. 2-3.

[193]Northern Land Council, Committee Hansard, 23 November 2022, p. 2.

[194]Aboriginal Peak Organisations NT, Committee Hansard, 23 November 2022, p. 3.

[195]Northern Territory Government, Committee Hansard, 23 November 2022, p. 7.

[196]Northern Territory Government, BushTel, viewed 10 October 2023, https://aboriginalaffairs.nt.gov.au/resources-and-news/bush-tel.

[197]Northern Territory Government, Committee Hansard, 23 November 2022, p. 7.

[198]JSCEM Opening Statement Matthew Ryan, Submission 1492, p. 2.

[199]JSCEM Opening Statement Matthew Ryan, Submission 1492, p. 2.

[200]Ron Levy, Selby Street Barrister, Committee Hansard, 23 November 2022, p. 5.

[201]Northern Territory Electoral Commission, Committee Hansard, 23 November, p. 5.

[202]Dr Morgan Harrington and Dr Francis Markham, Submission 430, pp. 14-15.

[203]Dr Morgan Harrington and Dr Francis Markham, Submission 430, p. 14.

[204]Dr Morgan Harrington and Dr Francis Markham, Submission 430, p. 14.

[205]Human Rights Law Centre, Submission 418, p. 23.

[206]Central Land Council, Submission 478, p. 10.

[207]Northern Land Council, Submission 423, p. 5.

[208]Aboriginal Peak Organisations NT, Committee Hansard, 23 November 2022, p. 10

[209]Dr Morgan Harrington and Dr Francis Markham, Submission 430, p. 15.

[210]Dr Morgan Harrington and Dr Francis Markham, Submission 430, p. 12.

[211]Northern Land Council, Submission 423, p. 7; Central Land Council, Submission 478, p. 12; Dr Morgan Harrington and Dr Francis Markham, Submission 430, p. 12.

[212]Northern Land Council, Submission 423, p. 7.

[213]Northern Land Council, Submission 423, p. 7.

[214]Northern Land Council, Submission 423, p. 7.

[215]Northern Territory Electoral Commission, Submission 369, p. 3.

[216]Northern Land Council, Submission 423, p. 7.

[217]Northern Territory Electoral Commission, Submission 369, p. 3.

[218]Northern Territory Electoral Commission, Submission 369, p. 3.

[219]Northern Territory Electoral Commission, Submission 369, p. 3.

[220]Central Land Council, Submission 478, p. 10; Northern Land Council, Submission 423, p. 7; Dr Morgan Harrington and Dr Francis Markham, Submission 430, p. 10.

[221]Dr Morgan Harrington and Dr Francis Markham, Submission 430, p. 10.

[222]Dr Morgan Harrington and Dr Francis Markham, Submission 430, p. 10.

[223]Northern Land Council, Submission 423, p. 7.