2.1
During 2020, a number of electoral events took place, affording the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) the opportunity to examine the logistical and legislative challenges faced by diverse jurisdictions during a global pandemic, many while also recovering from the 2019-2020 bushfire season.
2.2
The AEC identified the following key logistical challenges that ‘could force significant compromises, delays or even render an election partially or fully undeliverable’:
staffing recruitment and absenteeism challenges;
supply chain delays affecting materials and logistics;
impacts on major service suppliers (i.e. postal votes, scanning and data capture of Senate ballot papers);
exacerbation of existing challenges providing electoral services for electors with disability, living or travelling overseas or in remote and regional areas, experiencing homelessness, hospitalised or in nursing care and the elderly.
2.3
Despite these challenges, International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (International IDEA) found that between 21 February 2020 and 28 March 2021 that at least 113 countries and territories have held national or subnational elections despite concerns related to COVID-19, while only 78 had postponed elections due to COVID-19.
2.4
The impacts of a pandemic may share similarities with impacts of other emergency situations, however there are likely specific requirements to operating services under a pandemic. For example, a natural disaster may be restricted to one geographic location, while a pandemic affects all communities. Specific to the COVID-19 pandemic, International IDEA stated:
The pandemic added unique safety challenges, resource and infrastructure needs, and untested or scaled up voting measures, introducing new logistical and integrity challenges and vulnerabilities. Further it revealed gaps in legal and constitutional frameworks and accentuated deeply rooted partisan divisions and polarization.
2.5
However, even with the challenges of the past 12 months, jurisdictions at the federal, state and local level in Australia all held successful elections. This next section provides an overview of the elections that were held at the federal, state/territory and local levels, and the actions that each jurisdiction took to ensure that elections were held safely, securely and fairly.
2.6
Australian electoral management bodies had a consistent approach to the planning of each election, training of their respective staff and volunteers, communication on the upcoming election, and implementation of practical measures such as hygiene and social distancing. Special consideration was also given to candidate nomination processes, canvassing, and the distribution of political matter and social distancing requirements at polling stations.
2.7
Although the plans covered similar issues, each of them were unique to their situation in terms of the current COVID-19 environment at that time and available legislative requirements. Specific plans created included:
‘Local Government Elections Service Plan’, a ‘Statement of Intent’ and the ‘Election Service Plan’- Electoral Commission of Queensland (ECQ);
‘COVID-19 Management Plan’ – Northern Territory Electoral Commission (NTEC);
‘Election Service Delivery Plan’ – Elections ACT; and
‘Safe Campaigning’ – Victorian Electoral Commission (VEC).
2.8
Common staff training programs included appropriate COVID-safe training for electoral staff and volunteers, videos and courses on hand hygiene, the appropriate use of personal protective equipment (PPE), cleaning surfaces in a polling place and ensuring that the physical distancing requirements were being met in each polling station environment.
2.9
Common social distancing safety measures implemented across jurisdictions for the actual day of voting included adhering to venue capacity limits, placing booths and voting screens the appropriate 1.5 metres apart, providing separate entrance and exits to polling stations, providing social distancing guidance to voters and participants and limiting access to voting venues for media representatives. Specific health measures included ensuring hand sanitiser and masks were available to staff and that hand sanitiser was available to voters.
2.10
In order to assist with physical distancing and overcrowding issues at polling stations, each jurisdiction expanded the number of pre-poll voting centres available and operated extended opening hours.
2.11
This Chapter examines the delivery of the following electoral events:
Queensland local government– 28 March 2020;
Federal by-election–Eden Monaro–4 July 2020;
Tasmania Legislative Council–1 August 2020;
Northern Territory Legislative Assembly–22 August 2020.
2.12
The Australian Capital Territory Legislative Assembly and Queensland Parliament general elections were held in late October 2020. Voting trends in these electoral events followed similar trends to the above elections, with significant increase in postal and pre poll votes cast. Due to the similarity to the above events they are not discussed in this Chapter.
Queensland local government elections
Pre-election
2.13
The Notice of Election marking the commencement of the Queensland local government elections was published on 22 February 2020 at a time when the full extent of the threat posed by COVID-19 was not fully known. The situation rapidly evolved: on 11 March 2020 COVID-19 was declared a pandemic by the World Health Organisation (WHO), less than a week before the early voting period was due to commence. By 22 March 2020 gatherings of 100 or more were banned.
2.14
In response to the public health measures recommended by Queensland’s Chief Health Officer, the ECQ:
increased postal voting supplies in anticipation of increased demand;
accepted email requests as a ‘one off’ postal vote application;
expanded telephone voting services to cater for those in higher risk categories such as the elderly, disabled, immunocompromised, as well as those advised to isolate or quarantine themselves during the election period.
2.15
On 18 March 2020 the Queensland Parliament passed legislation aimed at providing additional flexibility to support the delivery of the election during the pandemic. The Queensland Government stated:
… the Queensland Parliament passed legislation regarding the conduct of the 2020 local government elections, in recognition of the extraordinary and rapidly evolving circumstances in which the elections were taking place. The [Qld] Public Health and Other Legislation (Public Health Emergency) Amendment Act 2020 provided additional flexibility for the conduct and statutory processes supporting delivery of the 2020 local government elections. In addition, powers were conferred on both Queensland’s Chief Health Officer and the Electoral Commissioner to issue directions to minimise public health risks during the elections.
2.16
The directions issued by Queensland’s Chief Health Officer and the Electoral Commissioner at that time included:
On 20 March 2020, the Electoral Commissioner issued a direction that banned all canvassing for votes and distribution of how-to-vote cards or election material near polling places.
On 22 March 2020, the Chief Health Officer issued a direction on the arrangements for the local government elections and State by-elections, outlining a range of social distancing and hygiene measures for the ECQ, political parties, candidates and their representatives, and members of the public, to observe during the election.
On 26 March 2020, the Electoral Commissioner issued a direction that limited the number of scrutineers allowed in polling places during the counting of votes and the times they could attend those places. This direction was amended as voting and counting proceeded in response to emerging circumstances.
The election
2.17
In addition to the general measures undertaken by all jurisdictions to administer an election during the pandemic, the ECQ implemented a number of actions which included:
extended operating hours over the two-week early voting period;
established a central hub of Returning Officers in Cairns, as teams conducting remote area polling in 14 Indigenous local government areas were unable to remain in those communities due to heightened concerns about the impact of COVID-19;
employed approximately 4,000 additional staff to assist with security, queue control and helping to maintain social distancing at polling places; and
ensured health assessments were undertaken for election staff entering remote Indigenous communities.
Post-election
2.18
In its post-election report, ECQ identified a significant shift in 2020 voting patterns compared with the 2016 local government elections.
Table 2.1: Key statistics: Queensland local government elections 2016 and 2020
|
|
|
|
|
Pre poll votes
|
500 000
|
1.2 million
|
|
Postal votes returned
|
320 000
|
470 000
|
|
Telephone votes
|
500
|
37 000
|
|
Polling day votes
|
1.6 million
|
750 000
|
Source: Electoral Commission of Queensland
2.19
In addition, there was a 5 per cent overall decrease in voter turnout:
Voter turnout at local government elections is typically lower than at State general elections. In March 2020, turnout for the local government elections was 77.71 percent, a decrease from the turnout rate of 83.04 percent at the last local government elections in 2016. While the ECQ strives to increase voter participation at elections, the extraordinary circumstances produced by the COVID-19 pandemic had an inevitable impact on the rate of participation at this election.
Eden-Monaro by-election
Pre-election
2.20
The 2020 Eden-Monaro by-election was held on 4 July 2020 after the resignation of the Hon Mike Kelly AM on 30 April 2020. In addition to being held during the COVID-19 pandemic, many parts of the Eden-Monaro electorate had also sustained significant damage during the 2019-2020 bushfire season and recovery from this event remains ongoing.
2.21
The AEC noted that delivering a by-election in the COVID-19 environment and in an area that had been impacted by a natural disaster, required broader stakeholder consultation than previous elections. Consultations included:
working with the NSW Minister for Health, Commonwealth Chief Medical Officer, NSW Chief Health Officer and ACT Chief Medical Officer and their respective Departments, as well as the Australian Federal Police and NSW Police;
seeking approval or assistance from relevant stakeholders to use venues and locations as polling booths and places;
hosting a walk-through by the Commonwealth health advisor of the counting centre used for the by-election and a polling place mock-up, to demonstrate COVID-safety measures in place;
working with the NSW Police Commissioner and NSW Police in relation to the activities permitted by the Electoral Act [Cth] around distribution of how-to-vote material and the role of scrutineers, and the AEC approach to implementing the by-election;
liaison with the National Bushfire Recovery Agency, Resilience NSW and Services Australia to facilitate access to networks and information involved in supporting bushfire impacted communities; and
liaison with the Chief Executive of Australia Post to ensure there would be no disruption to the delivery of postal votes.
2.22
To bolster community and stakeholder confidence, the AEC published a Service Plan outlining management of the by-election during the pandemic. The Service Plan addressed the AEC’s approach to COVID safety measures at voting centres and throughout the entire by-election process ‘including the receipt and declaration of nominations, the management of election materials and at our counting centre.’
2.23
The AEC also expanded its communications plan for the by-election, the key message was ‘plan ahead before you vote’, encouraging voters to consider the implications of the COVID-19 situation, including:
limiting attendance at polling places to eligible voters only, and avoid socialising
research candidates and preferences before you go to vote
if you prefer bring your own pen or pencil to vote
if you are feeling unwell or have any cold or flu symptoms in the lead-up to by-election day, don’t attend a polling place; and
2.24
Particular to this election, mobile polling stations that would normally be established in aged care facilities and hospitals were halted and instead the AEC established a support team for these facilities and facilitated the provision of general postal vote application forms.
2.25
The AEC also considered how the pandemic may affect the work of campaigners at polling places. Although the AEC has no legislative jurisdiction for campaigners outside six meters of the entrance to the polling place, it recognised that the current COVID-19 environment may impact on their ability to campaign and sought to offer details of all candidate’s official campaign website addresses at the time of nomination and provide links to the websites and candidate details on the AEC website.
The election
2.26
In additional to general hygiene and social distancing measures, the AEC undertook a range of service measures during the election including:
expanding the number of pre-poll voting centres compared with the 2019 federal election (13, an increase of 5), had more centres open for the maximum pre-poll period, and adjusted polling places (71, an increase of 2) to spread the flow of voters and communicated these to the electorate, along with the option to postal vote.
Post-election
2.27
The pandemic did not impact turnout, with the rate remaining consistent at 89 percent, one of the best rates of turnout for a by-election, and only a slight drop from the 2019 federal election turnout of 93 percent for the Eden-Monaro electorate. Informality rates also remained consistent.
Table 2.2: Turnout: Eden-Monaro 2019 and 2020
|
|
|
|
|
|
Eligible electors
|
114 147
|
114 178
|
0.03%
|
|
Turnout
|
93.31%
|
89.13%
|
-4.18%
|
|
Informality
|
6.80%
|
6.71%
|
-0.09%
|
Source: Australian Electoral Commission, Submission 17, p. 12
2.28
However, the AEC noted that despite eligibility requirements for postal and pre-poll voting remaining the same for the Eden-Monaro by-election, the number of postal votes counted was more than double than at the federal election, with a 123 percent increase. Pre-poll had also increased but only by fifteen percent. In person polling day votes were reduced by twenty percent.
Table 2.3: Key statistics: Eden-Monaro voting trends 2019 and 2020
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pre-poll ordinary votes
|
37 808
|
43 701
|
15.59%
|
|
Pre-poll declaration votes
|
6 207
|
156
|
97.49%
|
|
Polling day votes
|
56 064
|
44 570
|
-20.50%
|
|
Postal votes
|
5 969
|
13 340
|
123.49%
|
|
Mobile votes
|
457
|
-
|
N/A
|
|
Total votes
|
106 505
|
101 767
|
-4.45%
|
Source: Australian Electoral Commission, Submission 17, p. 12
2.29
The AEC conducted surveys following the election of both voters and the temporary election workforce, which ‘highlighted their satisfaction with the voting service and safety measures implemented.’ In relation to voters being aware of the COVID-safety measures in place at the time of the election, the AEC stated that post-election public awareness survey results indicated that at least 85 percent of respondents were aware of the health measures in place and that all measures made at least three-quarters of respondents feel safer.
2.30
While the AEC provided positive examples of how they used their resources in the Eden-Monaro by-election, it cautioned against assuming those strategies could be deployed in a general election under existing legislation.
The resource intensive strategies implemented for Eden-Monaro and the Groom by-elections may not be sustainable or even practical for a full federal election.
2.31
Post-election analysis also showed that under COVID-19 conditions, the average vote issuing process took 16.5 seconds longer (46 per cent longer) than at the 2017 Bennelong by-election. The longer wait time could potentially have resource implications as well as possibly increase exposure times for voters to other voters and staff while at a voting centre. Factors noted included:
the impact of using masks and screens on communication and efficient vote issuing;
issuing staff sanitising hands between voters;
having the main queue outside and reducing the ability to use ‘mini-queues’ at each issuing point;
handing out single-use pencils; and
cleaning of issuing points and voting screens.
2.32
The AEC identified a clear impact on the cost of the by-election event. Compared to by-elections held between 2016 and 2019, the cost almost doubled from approximately $2 million to $3.954 million.
2.33
The cost increase was primarily from additional polling locations throughout the pre-poll period and on polling day, additional staff required for sanitising, managing crowds and queues, vote issuing and counting, PPE and other hygiene materials and new communication and training packages.
2.34
Should these requirements be necessary for a full general election the AEC stated:
Having multiple additional staff necessary at every polling location would have a significant impact on cost, particularly when applied to a national electoral event. This equates to an estimated 30 percent increase in polling staff required, costing approximately an additional $13 million.
Tasmanian legislative council elections
Pre-election
2.35
In 2020, periodic elections were scheduled to be held for the Tasmanian Legislative Council divisions of Huon and Rosevears. Following a declaration of a state of emergency on the 19 March 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic, a number of responses were initiated, including legislative and health responses.
2.36
Section 19(4) of the Constitution Act 1934 (Tas) (Tasmanian Constitution) provides for an election to be held on any Saturday in May in circumstances where the election is unable to be held on the first Saturday in May.
2.37
However, due to ongoing tighter state restrictions and public health directions, it was considered that opening polling places would directly contradict the Public Health Act 1977 (Tas). The Tasmanian Electoral Commission (TEC) held the view that a Tasmanian Parliamentary election ‘conducted solely by postal vote is not an election for the purposes of the Electoral Act (Tas)’ which meant that a 100 per cent postal vote was not a possible alternative and other solutions were required.
2.38
The Tasmanian Parliament passed the COVID-19 Disease Emergency (Miscellaneous Provisions Act (No 2) 2020 (Tas) on 5 May 2020, which extended the term of the current members until the declaration of the poll for the 2020 elections and provided the power for the Governor of Tasmania to appoint a new polling day on a Saturday in a month before 31 December 2020. It also provided broad heads of power for the Premier, the Treasurer and the Attorney-General, or delegated Ministers, to make decisions in certain circumstances to adjust the operation of a range of requirements, on the basis that compliance may not be sensible, or even possible, in a pandemic response situation.
2.39
As the pandemic risk abated, the writ was issued on 22 June 2020 for a 1 August 2020 polling day.
2.40
The Commission outlined three main elements that they considered when planning for a future election during COVID-19 such as creating a COVID-safe voting environment, changing voting services to provide safer and more accessible voting options, and developing a new communication strategy to inform electors of the new timetable and new arrangements.
2.41
Creating a safe environment included key elements such as social distancing, hygiene and staffing measures. Changing voting services included enhancing postal and pre-poll voting services by extending the election period, mailing out information packs containing a postal vote application, reply paid envelope and simple instruction card to every elector on the election rolls (postal vote eligibility did not change), extending the early voting period from three to four weeks and encouraging those in aged care and hospitals to apply for a postal vote rather than send out mobile polling teams.
The election
2.42
The Tasmanian Government’s health response to the challenge of COVID-19 during the election period was informed by advice from WorkSafe Tasmania, the Tasmanian Electoral Commission and Public Health Services, and included additional cleaning and hygiene, physical distancing and specific guidance to assist candidates and their election agents.
2.43
The Tasmanian Government submitted:
The public health advice also covered general wellbeing, including testing, close contacts, isolation, door-knocking and vulnerable members of the community, together with information on physical distancing, hygiene and cleaning and record keeping. Such advice could also be adapted as appropriate for any election held in a pandemic situation.
2.44
The Tasmanian Government listed the specific measures it put in place to ensure the safety of the voters and electoral officials in relation to this election:
voting screens taped off and positioned to increase the distance between voters;
floor tape to guide physical distancing in each polling place;
touch-free hand sanitisers at every entrance;
single use pencils for each voter;
additional staff at polling place entrances to manage capacity;
information and training to polling managers; and
banning traditionally held fundraising stalls.
Post-election
2.45
The TEC monitored voter trends post-election and reported that the participation rate was at 85.2 percent, an increase from 83.3 percent when the divisions last went to election in 2014. There was also a significant increase in early voting between Legislative Council elections held in 2019 and 2020:
postal voting as a proportion of votes increased from 4.9 per cent in 2019 to 46.9 per cent in 2020;
while pre-poll voting as a proportion of votes decreased from 19.6 percent in 2019 to 10 percent in 2020.
2.46
The cost to run the Legislative Council election during the pandemic in 2020 increased considerably compared to the 2019 Legislative Council Election. The cost per elector in 2019 was $13.70 compared to $21.93 in 2020. The TEC stated that the increased cost per elector as a result of COVID-19 was $5.62. An additional $43,507 was spent on election awareness as a result of COVID-19.
2.47
While the majority of submitters agreed that elections held over the last 12 months under emergency situations were conducted well, the Tasmanian Government noted ‘it may not always be possible to manage public health risks in a way that does not impact the conduct of an election.’
2.48
The Tasmanian Government recommended that in a pandemic environment an election should endeavour to maximise the use of remote voting options, as allowed under the Electoral Act 2004 (Tas), as remote voting is less likely to be directly impacted by changes in public health directions or to pose a health risk.
Northern Territory general election
Pre-election
2.49
The 2020 NT general election was held on 22 August 2020. The NTEC developed a COVID-19 strategy similar in scope to those outlined above, involving safety protocols for both electors and staff.
2.50
However, the Northern Territory also has a specific demographic which, coupled with Federal Government biosecurity zones restricting access to remote communities put in place to protect the health and wellbeing of residents, required specific remote area voting plans.
2.51
In addition to general social distancing guidelines, hygiene measures and approaches to health, specific to the NT environment and demographics, the NTEC sourced more outdoor mobile voting sites where suitable and developed procedures when traveling to remote communities that minimised contact with community members, which included:
only NTEC staff entering remote locations where possible;
isolating support individuals such as pilots and additional drivers when at rest in a remote communities; and
minimising interactions with the community except for reasons such as purchasing and consuming meal.
2.52
The biosecurity zones also delayed the planned rollout of the remote enrolment field program, which commenced two months later than planned when the biosecurity restrictions were lifted. The remote enrolment field program was considered critical to increasing the accuracy of the electoral roll in remote communities. The NTEC noted that should access to these remote areas be restricted in future emergency situations then an election may need to be delayed.
The election
2.53
Postal and pre-poll voting is universally available to NT electors. This supported the NT Management Plan by limiting crowds at polling places and limiting travel between communities. The impact on early voting trends resulted in 60 per cent of Territorians casting their vote early at one of the early voting centres, the majority of which were from urban areas (pre-poll voting was 36 per cent in 2016).
2.54
On-the-day enrolment provisions resulted in over 1,700 additional votes to be admitted, with the majority of these from remote divisions.
Post-election
2.55
Voter turnout was marginally higher than the 2016 Territory Election (74.9 per cent up from 74 per cent). However, this was not even spread across regions. Five of the more remote electoral divisions only achieved turnouts in the low 50 percent rage. In a more acute pandemic environment, this disparity would only increase.
2.56
Declining postal services due to the pandemic were identified as a potential challenge to being able to vote by post. Despite these challenges, the number of postal votes issued increased by nearly forty per cent, compared to the 2016 election.
2.57
However, when considering future elections, the NTEC noted that relying in future on postal voting in a pandemic situation should be cautionary as the timely delivery of postal services was severely impacted by the pandemic over the course of 2020, making it difficult to return some completed ballots in time.
2.58
In addition, the lack of reliable digital services in many remote parts of the NT was another logistical challenge that that the NTEC advised should be considered in relation to alternative methods of voting. Any future online or internet voting options may be ‘limited should a suitable system be developed in the future.’
2.59
The low levels of access to IT equipment in remote communities and general computer literacy levels were also quoted by the NTEC as another significant challenge should online internet voting be considered.
2.60
The NTEC identified a number of additional key issues that would need consideration to be able to deliver electoral services to remote communities in future times of emergency situations including accessible alternative voting options for remote Territorians; clear guidelines for NTEC voting staff to enter remote or restricted areas (such as designated biosecurity zones); a lack of reliable postal services to remote areas of the NT; the ethical considerations of electoral staff accessing communities at times when it may be against residents’ wishes; and a need for clear strategies and protocols to inform about, to conduct, or delay elections in emergency situations.
2.61
The NTEC report summarised that the only viable option for delivering voting services to remote areas of the NT is remote mobile voting regardless of when the election was held, during a pandemic or otherwise, and that any emergency situation that impacted or restricted the ability of the NTEC to conduct remote mobile voting would mean that over a quarter of the electorate would be denied an opportunity to vote.