Chapter 1 Introduction
Background to the inquiry
1.1
Electronic voting in the Chamber of the House of Representatives is a
matter of long-standing interest to those interested in the operations of the
House. Although the Standing Committee on Procedure (the Committee) has
conducted two inquiries into the conduct of divisions generally,[1]
it has never examined electronic voting in detail.
1.2
The topic has become more immediate for several reasons. First, technological
advances are resolving many of the reliability and security issues associated
previously with electronic voting systems. Second, generational change is
producing a cohort of Members of Parliament who expect to operate in a modern
technological environment. Finally, the close numbers in the House in the 43rd
Parliament invite a closer focus on the effectiveness of the processes for
handling divisions and the possibilities for improvements. Accordingly, on 29
November 2012, the Committee resolved to inquire into electronic voting in the
House of Representatives.
1.3
Apart from the two inquiries by the Committee into the conduct of
divisions, there have been other relevant inquiries in the context of the
Australian Parliament. This chapter summarises the findings of those inquiries
before setting out details of the conduct and scope of this inquiry.
1.4
At the outset, the Committee acknowledges the truncated nature of this
inquiry—resulting from the election timing and a need to conclude another
inquiry concurrently.[2] It also acknowledges the tentative
nature of this report (which might better be regarded as a discussion paper).
Previous inquiries
Procedure Committee inquiries
1.5
A previous Procedure Committee inquired into divisions in 1996 to
examine ways of mitigating the delays caused by the recording of divisions. That
Committee declined to examine electronic voting in detail. It concluded that
the cost of installing and maintaining an electronic voting system, combined
with the time required to develop and install it, precluded its consideration as
a viable option.[3] A dissenting report,
while acknowledging the costs involved, maintained that an electronic voting
system was the most effective way to streamline division procedures.[4]
1.6
In 2003 the Committee again reviewed the conduct of divisions and, this
time, considered electronic voting in more detail. It was particularly
interested in the time taken for divisions and found that, in 2002,
approximately 3.6% of the House’s time was taken up with divisions. If the
ringing of the bells were excluded, the figure was reduced to 2.4%.[5]
The Committee considered that, before the technological alternatives and costs
of establishing and implementing an electronic voting system were to be examined,
the House should ‘fully consider the general principle of electronic voting’.[6]
The Committee did not recommend that electronic voting be implemented then but
that provision be made for the House to debate the topic.[7]
1.7
During a study tour in 2006 members of a previous Procedure Committee examined
electronic voting systems and procedures in a number of parliaments, including
the Scottish Parliament, the National Assembly of France, and the Assembly of
Wales.[8] The Committee observed
that the ‘time-saving benefits of electronic voting were certainly obvious in
the parliaments visited’. It also learnt that many of the issues that had been
of concern in the early days of electronic voting were no longer relevant, for
example: Members being uncertain of the question, recording the wrong vote, or
arriving in the Chamber without their voting cards, had all been addressed.[9]
Other inquiries
1.8
Apart from the Committee’s own inquiries into electronic voting a number
of other inquiries provide useful information although they relate to chambers
that are different from the House of Representatives. As far back as 1982, Mr
K.A. Bradshaw, the then Clerk Assistant of the House of Commons of the United
Kingdom, undertook an extensive examination of voting methods, including electronic
voting. Mr Bradshaw’s survey included the views of 43 national parliaments.[10]
1.9
Overall Mr Bradshaw was satisfied that electronic voting systems
improved the efficiency of the division process. He was particularly impressed
with the reliability of the electronic voting systems available and with the
time savings gained by their use.[11] He noted that openness
of the parliamentary process was enhanced by the display of information and
results of voting on display panels.[12]
1.10
However, Mr Bradshaw cautioned that the systems could be open to abuse
by Members casting a vote on behalf of another Member.[13]
He also indicated that the introduction of an electronic voting system could
lead to an increase in the votes called for.[14]
1.11
In 1990 in response to a resolution of the Senate the President
presented a paper on electronic voting. The paper weighed the advantages and
disadvantages of electronic voting systems and provided a limited review of the
systems in operation elsewhere. The paper identified two advantages of
electronic voting. It would:
n save some of the time
spent in divisions; and
n allow the speedy
production of a record of divisions which could be incorporated into the
Journals and Hansard electronically.[15]
1.12
However, the paper concluded that in the case of the Senate, the time
savings in both instances would not be substantial enough to warrant the
expected cost of implementing electronic voting. The paper also identified some
disadvantages:
n it would remove part
of a pause in the proceedings which is often convenient;
n activities which now
take place during the count may be transferred to other components of the time
spent on divisions, so that little time would in fact be saved;
n the current practice
of Senators sitting to the right or left of the Chair has some advantages which
would be lost; and
n more divisions may be
called.[16]
1.13
The paper was referred to the Senate Procedure Committee for
consideration and, in its subsequent report, that Committee stated that the
Senate ‘should not make a decision on electronic voting at this stage’ and
advised that it would continue to monitor the issue.[17]
The Senate has not considered the matter further.[18]
1.14
In 1993 the then Speaker, the Hon Stephen Martin MP, undertook a study
tour to examine electronic voting systems in several parliaments. He was
accompanied by his senior adviser, the Clerk of the House and two technical
officers from the Parliamentary Information Systems Office (PISO). The report
prepared by Mr Martin provides a comprehensive survey of the systems observed,
including technical details. The Speaker summed up the possible advantages and
disadvantages of electronic voting for the House:
Advantages
n a saving in the time
of the House and its Members;
n the immediate
availability in both electronic and hard copy form of complete details of a
division, with the ability to have this information electronically incorporated
in the official record of the proceedings (the Votes and Proceedings) or Hansard
report and its storage for future use;
n the ability to show
on the electronic display panel the question or other matter before the House;
and
n electronic recording
of voting results leads to far more statistical information being available for
analysis.
Disadvantages
n the loss of an
opportunity for a pause or ‘cooling off’ period in the proceedings which can
often assist in the smoother transaction of later business;
n if Members vote from
their own places in the Chamber instead of the traditional ‘ayes to the right,
noes to the left’, it would not be readily apparent to the gallery or
television observer how a particular Member voted;
n the possibility of
one Member voting for an absent colleague or other similar abuses;
n the possibility of
additional divisions being called for because of the availability of the
equipment; and
n the significant cost
involved particularly of installation.[19]
1.15
The report concluded that, in the interests of efficiency, it was
reasonable to support a proposal to install an electronic voting system in the
House. The recommendation set out a detailed plan to instigate the process and
ensure that the concerns raised in the report were addressed.[20]
1.16
In 2003 the then Clerk of the House, Mr Ian Harris, as President of the
Association of Secretaries General of Parliaments, circulated an informal
questionnaire on electronic voting to 64 parliaments. Of the 53 parliaments
that responded, 32 used an electronic voting system.[21]
The questionnaire canvassed issues including:
n financial aspects;
n technological issues;
n security issues; and
n procedural or context
issues.[22]
1.17
The responses highlighted similar advantages and disadvantages to those identified
in the reports reviewed above. Concerns were expressed over the technical
reliability and effectiveness of electronic voting systems and their security.[23]
On the other hand, there was positive feedback on time saved during divisions
by the use of electronic voting and the immediate availability of results of
divisions both to the Chamber and the public.[24]
Scope of the inquiry
1.18
The Committee acknowledges the work of previous Procedure Committees as
well as Speakers, Clerks of the House of Representatives, and the Senate. Their
reports have provided extensive case studies and background on the experience
of parliaments in establishing and using electronic voting systems. They also
identified the advantages and disadvantages of such systems.
1.19
Previous Committee reports have not examined the topic in detail nor
considered the practical implications of developing, installing and maintaining
an electronic voting system in the Chamber of the House. Rather they have
focussed more generally on conducting divisions.
1.20
It is time to undertake an in-depth inquiry into the desirability and
feasibility of establishing and maintaining an electronic voting system. Unfortunately
time constraints have required the Committee to limit this inquiry to an
examination of the information available in the public domain and a review of the
evidence from previous inquiries, supplemented by written submissions to this
inquiry.
1.21
The Committee wishes to use the information and evidence it has
gathered—limited as it is—to identify the major issues involved and prepare
this report that can be the foundation for a comprehensive inquiry by a future
Procedure Committee.
Terms of reference and conduct of the inquiry
1.22
The terms of reference were published on the Committee’s website and
written submissions invited. The formal terms of reference provide for the
Committee :
To inquire into and report on the conduct of divisions,
including but not limited to:
(a) the procedures for
counting and reporting the vote using an electronic voting system;
(b) the possible use of
electronic voting in the Chamber of the House of Representatives; and
(c) the cost of
establishing and providing such a service.
Structure of report
1.23
Chapter 2 considers the current process for conducting divisions and then
examines electronic voting systems.
1.24
Chapter 3 discusses—in a necessarily general way—the use of an
electronic voting system in the Chamber, including procedural and contextual
issues, cost and design and heritage concerns. It also suggests some of the
issues a future in-depth inquiry may wish to consider.