- Single national electoral roll
Introduction
3.1This chapter considers whether a single nation electoral roll, capable of being used for federal, state and territory elections, would be useful and practical. The chapter:
- describes the evolution of the Commonwealth electoral roll (from here on referred to as ‘the roll’)
- establishes the extent of current cooperation between the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) and its state and territory counterparts
- examines the some of the complexities of enrolment that a single roll for federal, state, and territory elections would need to encompass.
Background
3.2The electoral roll is a fundamental tool of enfranchisement. In most established democracies, political parties and candidates invest significant resources and time in enrolling electors and getting out the vote. Australian political parties and candidates are spared this investment because professional electoral administrators in independent government authorities at the Commonwealth, state and territory levels perform this task.
3.3Australia’s unusual approach to enrolment stems from compulsory enrolment and voting. Compulsory enrolment and voting imposes an obligation on people who are eligible to enrol and vote. Consequently, Australian governments must ensure that the barriers to meeting those obligations are minimised. Ron Levy, a barrister from Selby Street Chambers, summarised this reasoning as follows:
Because the AEC is an independent entity with a mandate in a system of mandatory enrolment and mandatory voting, it wants to have people on the roll.
Electoral roll discrepancies
3.4Australia is a federation with Commonwealth, state and territory jurisdictions that have:
… over time established their own agencies to oversee their electoral systems, compile and administer voter rolls, conduct elections or redistributions, and enforce electoral laws.
3.5Separate jurisdictions administering their own rolls under their own laws can result in discrepancies between electoral rolls compiled by the AEC and counterpart state or territory electoral authorities.
3.6For example, in 2009, New South Wales (NSW) state electoral legislation was amended to allow the NSW Electoral Commission to enrol or amend elector details on the NSW electoral roll without electors needing to submit a form. This was called ‘direct enrolment,’ and its introduction in NSW resulted in a rapid and significant discrepancy between the AEC’s roll and the NSW state electoral roll because at the time electors had to submit an application to enrol or change their enrolment details for the AEC’s roll. As a result:
… within a year, there were an extra 50,000 or 60,000—something along those lines—on the roll in New South Wales.
3.7The proportion of persons eligible to enrol and vote on the AEC’s roll:
… had slipped [as a percentage] to the low 90s or possibly high 80s … which, in our system, is of great concern because it's a mandatory enrolment and mandatory voting system.
3.8Discrepancies such as this can mean that some electors are unable to meet their legal obligations to vote. A single national electoral roll could prevent this from happening if existing mechanisms are not able to control discrepancies between the AEC’s roll and state and territory rolls.
Evolution of the Commonwealth electoral roll
3.9The AEC’s process for updating and amending the roll has evolved over time. Prior to 1999, the AEC engaged in habitation reviews, essentially doorknocking, every two years, updating the roll by adding new electors and amending the enrolment of existing electors through face-to-face contact.
3.10In 1999, the AEC introduced a process called Continuous Roll Update (CRU). The AEC used data obtained from various government agencies, utilities, and other sources to match against data on the roll. Data matching identified potential new electors or electors who might have changed their address. These electors were then sent enrolment forms which upon return result in an addition, deletion or amendment to the roll.
3.11The effectiveness of CRU as a tool for updating and amending the roll varied from poor initial results (the return rate from the initial mailouts of enrolment forms in 1999 was 32.3 per cent) to a measure of success (the rate in 2004-2005 was 55 per cent) followed by a decline (the rate in 2012 was between 15 and 20 per cent)..
3.12Meanwhile, in 2007, JSCEM recommended that the AEC use information obtained from the sources used for CRU to directly amend the roll, rather than wait for returned enrolment applications, if the elector concerned had consented for the source information to be used for that purpose. The recommendation would enable the AEC to directly update the roll if an elector consented to data sharing when they, for example, obtained a driver’s licence.
3.13Shortly thereafter, NSW and Victoria implemented direct enrolment programs for their state electoral rolls. The NSW model was comprehensive, permitting any addition, deletion, or amendment to the roll to be made directly. Victoria opted for a model limited to directly enrolling electors when they turned 18 using data from the Victorian Curriculum and Assessment Authority.
3.14Amendments to the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 (Electoral Act) followed in 2012, permitting the AEC to directly enrol and update the roll using data provided to the AEC from the same sources used for CRU. The program was called the Federal Direct Enrolment and Update (FDEU). The AEC explains that the FDEU program:
… is used to assist some Australians meet their enrolment obligations by applying trusted third party information directly, without the need for that person to complete an enrolment application.
Federal Direct Enrolment and Update
3.15As discussed above, the AEC collects information from other government agencies to match against the roll. Data can include an individual's surname, given name(s), date of birth, and address. At present, the most reliable data sources are Centrelink, the Australian Tax Office, the National Exchange of Vehicle and Driver Information Systems, and the Department of Home Affairs. In many instances, the matched data provides sufficient information for the roll to be updated directly.
3.16Subsections 103A(3)-103A(5) and 103B(3)-103B(5) of the Electoral Act allow the Electoral Commissioner to either enrol or change the address of an elector when the Electoral Commissioner is satisfied that:
- the elector who needs to be added to the electoral roll is entitled to enrol and has lived at an address for more than a month
- the elector whose enrolment is to be changed has moved from their enrolled address and now lives at another address.
- The AEC is required to advise the elector concerned when the Electoral Commissioner makes a change to their enrolment under subsection 103A(2)or subsection 103B(2). This is done by letter. The letter will advise the elector concerned that if the proposed change to their enrolment is correct, they do not need to respond to the letter, and their enrolment details will be changed accordingly. If the details are incorrect, the elector concerned has 28 days to respond before any change to the roll is made.
Roll accuracy
3.18Currently there are three mechanisms for enrolment or amending the roll: FDEU, online transactions, and paper forms. The table below shows AEC enrolment transactions by state and territory and enrolment type for July 2023 (the latest available figures at the time of writing).
Table 3.1Enrolment transactions by state/territory and type, July 2023
| | | | |
NSW | 28,908 | 27,763 | 1,930 | 58,596 |
VIC | 23,422 | 25,300 | 1,605 | 50,327 |
QLD | 26,110 | 26,780 | 1,751 | 54,641 |
WA | 10,509 | 10,706 | 803 | 22,018 |
SA | 5,530 | 6,179 | 758 | 12,485 |
TAS | 1,977 | 2,188 | 308 | 4,473 |
ACT | 1,484 | 2,309 | 121 | 3,911 |
NT | 921 | 922 | 148 | 1,991 |
National | 98,856 | 102,162 | 7,424 | 208,442 |
Source: Australian Electoral Commission, ‘Transactions by source and enrolment type for the month ending 31 July 2023,' www.aec.gov.au/Enrolling_to_vote/Enrolment_stats/type/2023/07.htm, viewed 1 September 2023.
3.19The table shows that the bulk of enrolment transactions are split relatively evenly between FDEU and online transactions. Only a small number of enrolment forms are submitted in hard copy.
3.20Evidence presented to the Committee indicates that the mechanisms used to update the roll at the moment are effective. Ron Levy advised the Committee that the roll accuracy as a percentage of eligible electors has been in the high 90s at recent elections, after slipping to the low 90s or high 80s at the time the Electoral Act was amended to introduce FDEU.
Cooperation with states and territories
3.21Commonwealth, state and territory electoral authorities have a long history of cooperation when it comes to electoral roll management. Between 1924 and 1994, each of Australia’s state and territory electoral authorities signed a Joint Roll Arrangement (JRA) with the AEC and its predecessor agencies to provide a single point of enrolment. JRAs only provide for the maintenance of electoral rolls for federal, state and territory, and local government elections using a single point of enrolment. For example, the NSW Electoral Act 2017 describes the JRA between the NSW Government and the Commonwealth Government in the following terms:
Arrangement with Commonwealth
1The Governor may arrange with the Governor-General of the Commonwealth for any one or more of the following—
- a joint enrolment process,
- the exchange of information necessary for, or the carrying out of any procedure relating to, the preparation and maintenance of rolls or electoral information registers,
under this Act and the Commonwealth Act.
3.22In other words, JRAs do not prevent state and territory governments from establishing and maintaining separate electoral rolls. NSW did so when it introduced direct enrolment in the late 2000s. Currently, Victoria’s electoral act requires that the Victorian Electoral Commission maintain a separate roll for state and local government elections. At the time of writing, all other state and territory electoral commissions use the AEC’s roll for state and territory elections, and the Australian Electoral Commissioner, Tom Rogers, stated that he was ‘comfortable with the relationships we have with each of the commissions at the moment.’
3.23In practice, this means that the rolls used for Commonwealth, state and territory elections are, currently, with the exception of Victoria, all but the same, and discrepancies between the rolls are kept at a minimum. Maintaining the current arrangements between the Commonwealth, and state and territory rolls does rely on cooperation of the relevant electoral commissions; it could be affected if any change in either the eligibility provisions for enrolment and voting or legislative changes to the way electoral rolls are maintained by Commonwealth, state or territory governments occurs.
Complexities of a common electoral roll
3.24The evidence provided to the Committee demonstrates that in practical terms, electoral rolls for Commonwealth, state and territory contain only minor discrepancies at present. JRAs and a healthy cooperative environment between the various electoral commissions means that disparities between electoral rolls are kept to a minimum.
3.25There are nevertheless differences, albeit minor, between the processes of enrolment and the eligibility requirements between the jurisdictions. Any common electoral roll needs to be flexible enough to accommodate these differences now and in the future, while maintaining the integrity and accuracy of a common electoral roll. There are also some other complexities involved in ensuring an accurate roll that need to be taken into account in a common electoral roll.
3.26Evidence provided to the Committee identified a number of these differences, including:
- electors in remote communities (discussed in the preceding chapter)
- Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander naming conventions
- existing differences in eligibility rules between jurisdictions
- local government elections
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander names
3.27Address difficulties was not the only issue associated with enrolling Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander electors. GetUp pointed out that many Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander electors were removed from the electoral roll as a result of cultural name changes. In addition, the Central Desert Regional Council found that community members’ names had been misspelled and changes to names had not been updated.
3.28The Central Land Council, representing communities in Central Australia, describes the naming conventions in the communities it represents in the following terms:
Aboriginal people may have a number of names. For example, a person may have a European first name and surname, a bush name, a skin name and maybe even a nickname. Personal names are used less among relatives and community members than when the person is addressed by most non-Aboriginal people.Conversely, in some community organisations such as clinics, skin names have been frequently used like surnames. This can be a source of much confusion, heightened if a range of spellings are used.
3.29As the previous chapter canvassed, ‘on the day enrolment’ may help address some of these concerns. As the NT Electoral Commission explained:
That provision allows people who are not on the roll, but who are entitled to be on the roll, to complete a declaration vote. That vote, obviously, is placed in the declaration envelope and that envelope is checked. If that is a valid enrolment, then that vote is admitted to the count.
So I think the reality, in terms of providing enrolment services out to remote communities being difficult, is that the day that electoral commissions have the most resources in a community is when they do mobile polling, so it kind of makes sense if the message can be, 'Just come to the voting centre.' Under a regime where people can enrol on the day, it means, particularly with young electors, that they can attend the voting centre, they can enrol and they can have their vote counted.
Existing differences in eligibility rules
3.30While for the most part eligibility requirements for enrolment and voting across Commonwealth, state and territory jurisdictions are the same, there are some small differences that would need to be incorporated into any common electoral roll. Tom Rogers, Australian Electoral Commissioner, noted that:
… whenever there is even a small gap in legislation, state and federal, as you know, there is room for some confusion …
3.31The following two categories of electors are subject to slightly different eligibility requirements between the Commonwealth, state and territory jurisdictions:
for Commonwealth, Queensland, Tasmanian and NT elections, all otherwise eligible prisoners can enrol, but prisoners serving a sentence of three years or more cannot vote
- in NSW and WA, all otherwise eligible prisoners can enrol, but prisoners serving a sentence of 12 months or more cannot vote
- in Victoria, otherwise eligible prisoners serving a sentence of less than five years can enrol and vote
- in South Australia and the ACT, all otherwise eligible prisoners are entitled to enrol and vote
Local government elections
3.33All state jurisdictions use the roll for local government elections, but in a number of cases, the franchise for local government elections is extended to a number of other persons. In NSW, for example, people who own property within a local government area but are not resident in that area are entitled to enrol as a non-resident. Corporations are also entitled to enrol as non-residents for local government elections.[44]
3.34Eligibility requirements for local government elections are not consistent across the states. In South Australia, the following persons can enrol to vote in local government elections:
- persons living at residential addresses who are not eligible to enrol for federal or state elections.
- persons who own an organisation or business
- persons who own a holiday home
- persons who own a property
- persons who are landlords of a property.
- All states that have different eligibility requirements for local government elections either keep a supplementary roll of electors who meet the expanded criteria for enrolment, or require each local government to do so.
Views in favour or against a common roll
3.36Most inquiry participants discussing a common electoral roll focussed on the technical aspects of such a roll. Views in favour or against such a proposal were not as common.
3.37Supporters of a common electoral roll argued that it would overcome the problem of divergence between Commonwealth, state and territory rolls. The Australian Labor Party pointed out that:
We recognise that the AEC has made significant progress in tackling entitlement and procedural divergences between the Commonwealth and State & Territory electoral rolls.
However, our analysis suggests that substantial incidences of roll divergence continue in New South Wales and Victoria.
3.38In the same vein, Real Republic Australia supported a common electoral roll because, ‘A single roll would remove any inconsistencies among federal, state, and territory voter rolls’.
3.39The Electoral Reform Society of South Australia supported a common electoral roll on the basis that enrolment should be made as easy and simple as possible.
3.40Other supporters of a common electoral roll pointed out the economies of scale that might be achieved. The ACT Government supported identifying efficiencies that could streamline administrative processes for electoral commissions across Australia.
3.41On the other hand, the Nationals were concerned that a single national roll might require more resources.
3.42The Nationals and the NSW Nationals were hesitant to support the creation of a single national electoral roll based on concerns about the accuracy of the data used to manage the electoral roll provided by states, territories and other bodies, and the potential risks to the security of personal information on the roll.
Committee comment
3.43The Committee appreciates the comprehensive exploration of the issues involved in a common electoral roll provided by participants to the inquiry. The Committee does not believe there has been sufficient evidence presented as part of this inquiry about whether a common electoral roll is desirable.
3.44In considering whether a common electoral roll is established, local governments will need to be involved as stakeholders who use the electoral roll but with a particular set of unique circumstances.
3.45Consequently, if the idea of a common electoral roll is to be further explored, a focused investigation should be undertaken. Given that a common electoral roll will require Commonwealth, state and territory involvement, the Committee believes the appropriate forum for taking a common electoral roll forward is the National Cabinet.