|
Links: The links to the Bill,
its Explanatory Memorandum and second reading speech can be found on the
Bill’s home page, or through the Australian
Parliament website.
When Bills have been passed and have received Royal Assent,
they become Acts, which can be found at the Federal Register of Legislation
website.
All hyperlinks in this Bills Digest are correct as
at February 2019.
Purpose of the Bill
The purpose of the Electoral Legislation Amendment
(Modernisation and Other Measures) Bill 2018 (the Bill) is to amend the Commonwealth
Electoral Act 1918 (the CEA) and the Referendum
(Machinery Provisions) Act 1984 (the RMPA) to:
- require
candidates nominating for federal elections to complete a qualification
checklist relating to their eligibility under section 44 of the Australian
Constitution
- streamline
certain procedural provisions in relation to how the Australian Electoral
Commission (AEC) receives nominations and handles votes during the counting
process
- no
longer require AEC divisional offices to be pre-poll voting centres and
- change
the makeup of the redistribution committee for redistributions of the
Australian Capital Territory (ACT).
Structure of
the Bill
The Bill is in three schedules.
Schedule 1 relates primarily to the CEA and
contains a number of provisions that relate to the process of nominating as a candidate
for a federal election. It includes a proposed qualification checklist to be
included with the nomination form.
Schedule 2 contains amendments to the CEA
and the RMPA relating to voting and vote scrutiny processes.
Schedule 3 contains amendments to the CEA
relating to the composition of the redistribution committee for redistributions
of the ACT.
Background
The provisions of the Bill relating to the citizenship
declaration and the changes to the AEC’s vote handling process are responses to
inquiries undertaken by the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters
(JSCEM) during the 45th Parliament.
On 28 November 2017 the Prime Minister referred matters
relating to section 44 of the Australian Constitution to the Committee
for inquiry and report.[1]
In particular, the Terms of Reference included:
How electoral laws and the administration thereof could be
improved to minimise the risk of candidates being found ineligible pursuant to
section 44(i) (this could involve, among other matters, a more comprehensive
questionnaire prior to nominations, or assistance in swiftly renouncing foreign
citizenship).[2]
Further information regarding the inquiry, including the
full terms of reference, is available on the inquiry
homepage.
The reference from the Prime Minister followed seven
senators and two members of the House of Representatives either being
disqualified by the Court of Disputed Returns or resigning due to their
invalidity under section 44(i) of the Constitution, due to dual
citizenship. This series of disqualifications was referred to in the media as
Parliament’s ‘citizenship crisis’.[3]
Between the start of the 45th Parliament and the
introduction of the Bill a total of 15 Members of Parliament had been
disqualified or resigned due to section 44(i): seven members of the House of
Representatives and eight Senators.[4]
The Committee, in its report, noted that the problems with
the operation of section 44 were not new, and that ‘20 years of Parliamentary
Committee reports and a Constitutional Convention have all predicted that
without constitutional reform to parts or all of s. 44, challenges would occur
to otherwise qualified and validly elected Members of Parliament’.[5]
The Committee recommended that the Government hold a referendum to either
repeal or amend sections 44 and 45 of the Constitution in order to solve
the problem.[6]
The Committee noted the citizenship registers put in place
by resolution in the Senate and the House of Representatives in late 2017.[7]
While the Committee did not recommend implementing a citizenship declaration at
the time of nomination for election as part of its formal recommendations, it
did recommend ‘that all candidates for election be required to make a public
disclosure of family citizenship history at time of nomination’ in the short
term, pending a referendum being held. It recommended that ‘this disclosure
would be in the same format as that required by the citizenship registers of
current Members of Parliament’.[8]
In addition, the minority report authored by the Member
for Tangney, Liberal MP Ben Morton, recommended legislating ‘a requirement for
candidates to disclose, at the time of nomination, all information that may be
relevant to potential disqualification under Section 44’.[9]
The Explanatory Memorandum of the Bill notes that the Bill
responds to recommendation 3 of the report.[10]
That is:
In the event that a referendum does not proceed or does not
pass, that the Australian Government consider strategies to mitigate the impact
of section 44 as outlined in this report.[11]
In addition to the issue of citizenship and eligibility,
the JSCEM also considered more mundane issues of electoral administration
during the 45th Parliament.
Following each federal election the Special Minister of
State typically provides a reference to the JSCEM to inquire into and report on
all aspects of the conduct of the federal election. While not specifically
included in the terms of reference for the inquiry into the 2016 federal
election, the provisions relating to AEC procedure arose from the Committee’s
third interim report released as part of that inquiry.[12]
In particular, the Bill provides a partial response to Recommendation 1:
The Committee recommends that the Commonwealth Electoral Act
(1918) and the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act (1984) be amended, based
upon the Australian Electoral Commission’s proposals contained in Appendix A of
this report.[13]
Further information regarding the inquiry, including the
full terms of reference, is available on the inquiry
homepage.
The AEC’s recommendations to the Committee, as referenced
in the Committee’s Recommendation, were relatively extensive, however mostly
dealt with technical provisions of the CEA.[14]
The AEC argued that the recommendations would allow it to run elections more
efficiently. The Committee referred to these as ‘technical amendments to
legislation’. For example, the AEC recommended removing the legislative
requirement that pencils be provided in polling booths, as the scanning of
ballot papers for counting might benefit from voters filling out the ballot in
a pen instead. The AEC also recommended making the AEC positions responsible
for certain activities or decisions under the CEA at an election more
generic, so the Electoral Commissioner could delegate to an appropriate AEC
officer.[15]
Specifically, the Committee summarised the AEC’s
recommendations as:
- improving
consistency between the referendum legislation and the electoral legislation
- allowing
the AEC to undertake electoral processes more efficiently without compromising
integrity
- aligning
legislation with contemporary AEC management structures and administrative
arrangements and
- correcting
minor errors and omissions in the electoral legislation.[16]
Beyond endorsing the AEC’s recommendations, the Committee
provided little additional commentary on the recommended changes or their
effect on the electoral system.
The remaining four Recommendations from the third interim
report would not require legislation. They related to funding of the AEC, AEC
systems and training, the use of electronic certified lists for voter mark-off,
and timelines for the AEC to report to the JSCEM.[17]
Committee
consideration
Joint Standing
Committee on Electoral Matters
The provisions of the Bill are a response to
recommendations of two inquiries by the JSCEM following the 2016 federal
election. These are discussed in detail in the Background section of this Bills
Digest.
Senate
Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills
The Bill was considered by the Senate Standing Committee
for the Scrutiny of Bills and reported in Scrutiny
Digest 15/18. The Committee noted that the requirements of the
qualification checklist could potentially require publication of personal
details of third parties who have not consented to the release of that
information, such as ‘citizenship and birth places of the applicant's parents,
grandparents (including biological or adoptive parents or grandparents) and
former or current spouses or similar partners’.[18]
This information will be made publically available on the AEC’s website (and,
although not mentioned by the Committee, when tabled in Parliament, potentially
be published as a Parliamentary Paper).
The Committee has sought the Minister’s justification as
to why that information could not be provided to the AEC without the
corresponding requirement that the AEC publish the information. The Committee
also sought the Minister’s advice as to whether the Bill could be amended to
require the AEC to consider the impact on the privacy of third parties when
publishing the information.[19]
At the time of publication the Committee
website noted that a response had been received from the Minister, however
the response had not yet been published.
Policy
position of non-government parties/independents
At the time of publication the Bill has been introduced in
the House of Representatives but has not been debated. There appears to have
been no public commentary on the Bill or its provisions by non-government
parties or independents.
Position of major
interest groups
The Bill does not appear to have attracted any commentary
or been discussed in the media at the time of publication. No interest groups
appear to have expressed any public views on the Bill.
Financial
implications
The Explanatory Memorandum to the Bill states that cost of
implementing the provisions in Schedule 1 of the Bill is estimated to be
$10 million over the forward estimates.[20]
It is likely that these costs relate to the requirements for the AEC to vary
the enrolment process to include the qualification checklist, potentially to
implement a system for the lodgement of those forms, and to process and publish
the contents of each nomination.
The current nomination forms, which are contained in
Schedule 1 of the CEA, require the name, address, date of birth,
occupation and signature of the candidate(s). Four qualification check boxes
are also required to be completed by candidates. The qualification checklist in
item 83 of Schedule 1 of the Bill contains 15 check boxes
and 21 free text fields (not all of the free text fields will have to be
completed by every candidate, depending on their responses and citizenship
history).
In 2016 a total of 994 candidates nominated for the House
of Representatives election and 631 candidates nominated for the Senate.[21]
If similar numbers of candidates nominate at the next election each of these
candidates will have to submit a qualification checklist to the AEC. The AEC
must also publish these nomination forms on its website (Schedule 1, item
54, proposed section 181A of the CEA) ‘as soon as
practicable’ after the declaration of nominations (24 hours after the close of
nominations, CEA section 176).
While the CEA requires a nomination form to be
delivered or faxed to the AEC, Schedule 1 of the Bill includes
provisions to allow for the AEC to specify that the nomination may be made in
an approved manner, such as ‘by using a specified web portal’ (item 2). While
it is likely that the AEC will create an online form for submitting the
nomination and the additional required information (although it may not have
time to do so before an election in 2019, depending on the timing of the
passage of the Bill and the 2019 general election), these provisions will still
place a considerable data processing burden on the AEC.
The financial impact of the provisions in Schedules 2
and 3 are, according to the Explanatory Memorandum, either
unquantifiable or are to be absorbed by the AEC, respectively.[22]
Statement of Compatibility with Human Rights
As required under Part 3 of the Human Rights
(Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011 (Cth), the Government has assessed the
Bill’s compatibility with the human rights and freedoms recognised or declared
in the international instruments listed in section 3 of that Act. The Government
considers that the Bill is compatible.[23]
Parliamentary
Joint Committee on Human Rights
At the time of publication the Bill has not yet been
considered by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights.
Key issues and
provisions
The Bill makes a number of changes to the CEA (and some
equivalent changes to the RMPA) that are unlikely to be of specific
interest to anyone other than the AEC and its staff, and appointed scrutineers
who are observing the count. These generally relate to delegations and to ballot
paper handling procedures and will be discussed under Other Provisions, below.
The main proposed changes that will be noticed more widely
are:
- the
addition of the qualification checklist to the nomination process
- increasing
the nomination deposit to $2,000 (from $1,000) for House of Representatives
candidates
- mechanical
changes to the nomination process
- the
removal of divisional offices as pre-poll voting centres and
- the
replacement of the requirement to provide pencils to voters with more inclusive
requirements relating to the marking of ballot papers
These provisions will be discussed in turn in this
section. Unless otherwise noted, the items in this section relate to Schedule
1 of the Bill.
The
qualification checklist
The qualification checklist is added in item 83 of Schedule
1, and will constitute Form DB in Schedule 1 of the CEA. Schedule
1 of the CEA already includes forms such as the nomination forms for
House of Representatives and Senate candidates. Item 70 provides that
the form may be altered by disallowable regulation.
The purpose of the qualification checklist is to require a
candidate to consider whether they may be disqualified from standing for
election under section 44 of the Australian Constitution. An objects
clause for the checklist to this effect is provided in item 29.
The requirements of section 44 of the Constitution
are:
Any person who:
- is under any acknowledgment of allegiance, obedience, or adherence to a
foreign power, or is a subject or a citizen or entitled to the rights or
privileges of a subject or a citizen of a foreign power; or
- is attainted of treason, or has been convicted and is under
sentence, or subject to be sentenced, for any offence punishable under the law
of the Commonwealth or of a State by imprisonment for one year or longer; or
- is an undischarged
bankrupt or insolvent; or
- holds any office of profit under the Crown, or any pension
payable during the pleasure of the Crown out of any of the revenues of the
Commonwealth; or
- has any direct or indirect pecuniary interest in any agreement
with the Public Service of the Commonwealth otherwise than as a member and in
common with the other members of an incorporated company consisting of more
than twenty‑five
persons;
shall be incapable of being chosen or of sitting as a senator
or a member of the House of Representatives.
The checklist will not in itself determine the eligibility
of a candidate, as this can only be determined by the High Court, sitting as
the Court of Disputed Returns.
The AEC will be required to publish the completed
checklist ‘as soon as practicable after nominations for an election are
declared’ (item 54, proposed subsection 181A(1)) and the AEC must
submit the checklists completed by candidates elected to Parliament to the
respective chamber for tabling ‘as soon as practicable after the return of the
last writ for the election’ (proposed section 181B). Under proposed
subsection 181A(2) the documents must also remain publically available (it
is implied but not stated that they will remain on the AEC website) ‘until a
petition disputing the election or return can no longer be filed under section
355’, which is 40 days after the return of the writs .
Proposed Form DB is essentially similar to the
qualification checklist used in the by-elections of Longman (Qld), Mayo (SA),
Braddon (Tas.), Fremantle (WA) and Perth (WA) held on 28 July 2018.[24]
The inclusion of the checklist in the nomination form was enabled by the Electoral
and Referendum Amendment (Eligibility) Regulations 2018 (the Regulations), which
amended the Electoral and Referendum Regulation 2016 and included the checklist
itself in Schedule 3 to the primary Regulations.[25]
While proposed Form DB covers the same general
topics as the by-election form, it does so in considerably more detail. The
proposed form also explicitly provides for the possibility that the answer to
the question may not be known by the candidate, which was not a feature of the
forms in Schedule 3 of the Regulations.
The form also, in question 10a, requires that any
candidates who have ever been a subject or a citizen of any country other than
Australia must provide at least one document that the candidate is satisfied
supports their eligibility. The form notes that this may be an official
document or a statutory declaration.
The form is also similar, though considerably more
detailed, to the Citizenship Register established for Members and Senators
through resolution in the 45th Parliament.[26]
Unlike the parliamentary Citizenship Register the proposed qualification
checklist does not allow the candidate to make an assertion of lack of dual
citizenship which is not backed by documentation. The proposed form also
includes questions in relation to ineligibility under section 44 other than
section 44(i) (that is, the dual citizenship provision), whereas the
parliamentary Citizenship Registers only contain questions in relation to
citizenship.
Given the proposed requirement to table the completed
qualification checklist with the respective chamber for successful candidates there
remains a question as to whether the Parliament will require a separate
Citizenship Register in the future. It is also unknown whether the Senate will
require the same detailed eligibility information as per proposed Form DB
for senators who are appointed to casual vacancies under section 15 of the Constitution
and who have therefore not contested an election. The Explanatory Memorandum
notes that that section 15 appointments do not constitute an election, and that
the eligibility of individuals so appointed is a matter for the Senate.[27]
While completing ‘every mandatory question’ is a requisite
for a valid nomination under section 170 of the CEA (item 27),
the nomination is still valid if answers to the questions are incorrect, false
or inadequate (proposed subsection 170(1A), item 28). Any
question in the checklist where the answer is yes, no, unknown or N/A is a
mandatory question (item 6)—that is, every question in the questionnaire
that is not a free text field.
Documents that support the assertions made in the
nomination form of a candidate that they have renounced citizenship of another
country or lost the status as citizen or subject must also be provided with the
nomination for it to be valid (proposed subsection 170(1B), item 28).
Further details about the form and content of this documentation are provided
in proposed section 170B (item 29).
The AEC cannot use the information on the checklist to
determine the eligibility of the candidate to stand for election (only whether
the candidate has answered every mandatory question, item 29, proposed
subsection 170A(2)).
However if the nomination is accepted by the AEC but
either all of the mandatory questions were not answered or the documentation
was not provided, that does not invalidate the nomination and hence any
resulting election (proposed subsection 170A(4)).
The CEA includes provisions under Division 1 of
Part XXII to petition the Court of Disputed Returns to dispute the validity of
any election. Paragraph 355(c) allows the petition to be submitted by a
candidate in the disputed election or any person qualified to vote in that
election, and paragraph 355(e) requires the petition to be filed within 40 days
after the return of the writ for the election.
It is highly likely that unsuccessful candidates and
voters in an election may attempt to use the information contained in the
qualification checklist of a successful candidate to dispute the successful
candidate’s election by petition to the Court of Disputed Returns on the
grounds of invalidity under section 44 of the Constitution. The
requirement that the forms be available specifically for the period of time in
which the election can be appealed to the Court of Disputed Returns suggests
that the forms are designed to aid such challenges.
The effect of this Bill may be that such petitions to the
Court of Disputed Returns become a common post-election occurrence.
Under section 357 the AEC is also entitled to file a
petition disputing an election.
The nomination
deposit
Section 170 of the CEA requires that as a requisite
for nomination for election, an amount (referred to by the AEC as the nomination
deposit) must accompany the nomination paper (subsection 170(2)) as legal
tender or a bank cheque (subsection 170(3)). The amount of the nomination
deposit is $2,000 for nomination as a Senator or $1,000 for nomination as a
member of the House of Representatives.
Item 28 of Schedule 1 to the Bill repeals
and replaces subsections 170(2) and (3) and imposes a nomination deposit of
$2,000 for nominations to both the Senate and the House of Representatives. It
also requires that the nomination deposit be made in a manner approved by the
Electoral Commissioner, including electronic funds transfer (proposed
subparagraph 170(2)(b)(ii)) and provides that the Electoral Commissioner
may in writing approve a manner of giving a deposit (proposed subsection 170(3)).
The Explanatory Memorandum notes that the increase in the
nomination deposit for the House of Representatives brings it to parity with
nomination to the Senate.[28]
Changes to the nomination deposit were not among the recommendations from the
JSCEM’s report.
The nomination
process
In addition to the nomination deposit and the
qualification checklist, the Bill would implement a number of other changes to
the mechanics of the nomination process. These changes largely fall into two
categories. The first is removing references to a ‘nomination form’ and
replacing the form with a less paper-centric nomination process, allowing for
online lodgement of nominations. The second is removing the requirements that
nominations be to a specific AEC officer, allowing the Electoral Commission
more flexibility in delegating these functions.
The process of nomination is governed by Part XIV of the CEA.
Subsection 170(2) specifies that a nomination is not valid unless the ‘nomination
paper or a facsimile of it’ is received by a specified AEC officer. The CEA
defines a facsimile as ‘a copy of a nomination paper that has been reproduced
by facsimile telegraphy or any other means’ (subsection 4(1)). Fax machines,
however, are no longer the ubiquitous form of communication they once were, and
reference to facsimile is removed from section 170 by item 28 while the
definition of facsimile in subsection 4(1) is repealed by item 5.
A number of items in the Bill serve to replace the
requirement to fill out a paper nomination form (which in most cases is simply
a printed version of a document the candidate has downloaded from the AEC’s
website) with a more flexible requirement that the Electoral Commissioner ‘may
determine, in writing, the manner in which nominations are lodged’ (item 13,
proposed section 167). Item 2 includes an amendment to
subsection 4(1) that notes that an ‘approved form’ might be published on the
AEC website, and might involve giving a notice through ‘a specified web
portal’.
The removal of the requirement to complete a paper-based
form means that the Bill contains a number of provisions removing reference to
a ‘nomination paper’ or ‘nomination form’, and substituting that with
‘nomination’ (eg., items 9, 11, 12 and 26).
Further, in place of a facsimile, the Bill requires only that the ‘nomination
is received’ (item 28).
Enabling an online submission of a nomination also allows
for a means of transmitting any additional information required by the
qualification checklist to the AEC. Proposed subsection 170B(1) (item
29) requires that documents supporting claims made in the qualification
checklist must be provided with the nomination form, and proposed paragraph
170B(2)(b) provides that the Electoral Commissioner may determine the
documents be in a particular electronic format. This provision appears to serve
the dual purpose of enabling a submission of the required documentation, but
also enabling the publication of that documentation by the AEC, as required by proposed
section 181A (item 54).
These proposed changes also generally include provisions
that formalise the ‘bulk nomination’ process, which is the process by which a
registered officer of a political party may nominate multiple endorsed
candidates to House of Representatives seats (eg., items 4 and 13).
While the concept of bulk nominations exists in the CEA, the way these
nominations are referred to across the Act is not consistent (for example,
while bulk nominations are currently enabled by subsection 167(3), the
term ‘bulk nomination’ is only actually used in the Act in section 177). Item 13
repeals section 167 and replaces it with a section that makes explicit the
capacity for bulk nominations without substantially changing the operation of
that section.
A number of other items are purely consequential to the
Bill’s use of the term bulk nominations. These include items 31, 36
and 53.
The CEA requires that nominations for election to
the House of Representatives must be made to the Divisional Returning Officer
(DRO) of the division to which the candidate is nominating and nominations for
election to the Senate must be made to the Australian Electoral Officer (AEO)
of the state to which the candidate is nominating (section 176). Bulk
nominations may be made to the AEO of the state in which the candidates are
nominating.
A substantial proportion of Schedule 1 of the Bill
relates to removing the provisions containing references requiring specified
officers to receive nominations and the like, and replacing those with
references to the Electoral Commissioner for those purposes, and consequential
amendments flowing from this change. This includes items 12, 13, 14,
15, 16, 18, 20, 22, 28 (proposed
subsection 170(2)), 29 (proposed subsection 171(2)), 30,
37, 40, 44 and 45 (Electoral Commissioner added to
the officers who can conduct a declaration of nominations), 46, 48,
and 51. The nomination forms in Schedule 1 of the CEA are also
amended to address the nomination to the Electoral Commissioner (items 71,
74, 76, 78 and 81).
In addition, several references to the Electoral Commission
are replaced with references to the Electoral Commissioner. This includes items
10, 19 and 21.
The AEC’s recommendations to the JSCEM included giving the
Electoral Commissioner more discretion to delegate certain specific functions,
however not specifically in relation to the nomination process.[29]
While the AEC submission did recommend amendments to the CEA to allow
nominations by means other than fax (such as email), the submission does not
appear to envisage that nominations be made to anyone other than the relevant
DRO or AEO.[30]
The CEA requires either the DRO or AEO to conduct a
declaration of nominations (section 176) where the AEO or DRO publicly produces
all nomination papers and declares the names of the candidates and their
addresses. The Bill introduces provisions to allow the Electoral Commissioner
to nominate an officer to conduct the declaration of nominations (items 37,
40, 44 and 45), to no longer publicly produce the nomination
papers (items 38 and 41), and requires the declaration only of
the candidate’s town or suburb of residence (items 39 and 42).
Divisional
offices as pre-poll polling places
Subsections 200D(1) and 200DD(1) of the CEA provide
that ‘the office of the DRO during ordinary office hours or during the hours of
polling on polling day’ is a polling place for pre-poll votes. Items 7–9
and 12 of Schedule 2 of the Bill repeal the relevant provisions,
leaving designated pre-poll voting centres the only venues for pre-poll voting.
The Explanatory Memorandum for the Bill notes that divisional offices could
still be declared to be pre-poll polling places under section 200BA of the CEA.[31]
While the AEC has historically had ‘divisional offices’ in
each electoral division, it has been increasingly consolidating to fewer
offices that hold more AEC staff as the functions for which it once used a
‘shopfront’, such as enrolment, have primarily moved online. This amendment
will allow the AEC more flexibility in how it physically locates its staff and
other resources for an election.
Pencils in
polling places
In one of its recommendations to the JSCEM the AEC recommended
that ‘that section 206 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act (1918) be
amended to remove the prescription for pencils and allow for pens or pencils to
be provided in polling booths’.[32]
The AEC argued that it should have the flexibility to provide pens rather than
pencils as pens may aid the electronic scanning of Senate ballot papers.[33]
Items 23 (for the CEA) and 95 (for
the RMPA) of Schedule 2 of the Bill enact these changes for
election day polling places. Item 13 does likewise for pre-poll polling
places (for the CEA).
Other provisions
The bulk of Schedule 2 of the Bill, apart from
those provisions discussed above, relates to scrutiny processes. Scrutiny is
the term used to describe checking and counting of the ballot papers and the
logistical processes that make that possible.[34]
The term scrutineer, as used in sections 200DA and 200DB of the CEA, is
not so much from their role in providing scrutiny over the vote counting
process, but in that they are observers of the scrutiny. As such, in general
the usage of the term scrutiny in this context does not refer to observers but
rather the process of counting the votes.
Items 1 through 93 of Schedule 2
contain provisions implementing amendments to the CEA and items 94
onwards contain essentially identical amendments to the respective provisions
of the RMPA. As these simply repeat the CEA provisions they will
not be discussed separately here.
Only a small number of the items in Schedule 2 are
likely to be noticed by anyone who is not working at a polling place as a
polling official or a scrutineer. One main change in the legislation that
affects voters is the three questions asked of voters (their name, their
address and have they already voted) will be less prescriptive. The CEA
states an officer must ask the voter the ‘following questions’ (subsections
200DI(1) and 229(1)) whereas the proposed amendments require the asking of ‘questions
in order to ascertain’ that same information (item 15 for pre-poll
voting and 52 for election day voting).
Another voter-facing change is that the CEA
requires the officer to mark the voter off the certified list after handing the
voter the ballot paper(s), whereas the proposed amendments state the name is to
be marked off before the ballot paper is given to the voter (item 17 for
pre-poll voting and 56 for election day voting). It is likely that this
change simply reflects common practice (if a polling officer has just looked up
a voter on the certified list it would make sense that they would mark off that
voter before handing the voter the ballot papers, rather than risk losing their
place in a long list of names).
Item 2 repeals the prohibition on the AEC sending
postal ballot papers by means such as fax or email where the material may not
have sufficient time to reach the voter by post, and authorises the AEC to send
the material in a way that is ‘the most reasonable and practicable in the
circumstances’.
Item 24 responds to recommendation 7 from the AEC
to the JSCEM to allow the AEC to place administrative markings on ballot
papers.[35]
This would mean, for example, that batch numbers of scanned ballot papers could
be printed on a ballot paper to more easily reconcile the ballot paper and its
scanned image.
Item 22 allows the Electoral Commissioner to
delegate certain functions in relation to the scrutiny of declaration votes,
which the CEA requires be performed by a DRO. Declaration votes are
votes that are placed in an envelope and must undergo additional checks before
they are entered into the count. These include pre-poll votes cast outside the
elector’s home division and postal votes, which must be returned to the home
division to be counted, and provisional votes, where the elector could not be
found on the certified list.
Items 33 through 50 respond to
recommendation 16 of the AEC in relation to declaration vote processing.[36]
The amendments create a role for an Assistant Returning Officer, appointed by
the Divisional Returning Officer, in receiving votes from polling places. The
amendments create a requirement for recording of processing and documentation
for all of the officers who handle the declaration votes.
Recommendation 17 of the AEC to the JSCEM relates to the
procedures in the CEA around counting and packaging ballot papers to
‘speed up procedures without compromising any element of the process’.[37]
These recommendations are implemented in items 65 through 77.
Items 78 through 87 amend a number of
provisions in section 340 to either consolidate and simplify the provisions, or
expand provisions that apply to polling places to also apply to pre-poll
polling places. These include the restriction on certain activity, such as
canvasing for votes, within six metres of a polling place or pre-poll polling
place, as noted by the Minister in his second reading speech.[38]
Item 91 replaces Form E, the Senate ballot paper
layout, to correct a number of drafting errors identified by the AEC in their
recommendation 9 to the JSCEM.[39]
A number of the provisions seek to modernise the language
in the Acts without changing their meaning. Items 35, 36, 45,
51 and 57 simply replace the word ‘shall’ with ‘must’. This is
consistent with the Office of Parliamentary Counsel’s Plain English Manual.[40]
Schedule 3 contains a number of provisions that replace
the requirement for the senior DRO for the ACT be appointed to the
Redistribution Committee for a redistribution of the ACT’s electoral divisions.
The Electoral Commissioner may appoint an AEC staff member to the position
instead. The Explanatory Memorandum for the Bill notes that this appointed
staff member would be a more senior position to the DRO (who is usually an APS6
officer) and more in line with the requirements for other state redistributions
that require the AEO for the state being appointed (usually a Senior Executive
Service AEC officer).[41]
Concluding comments
With the possible exception of the increase of the House
of Representatives candidate deposit to $2,000, the provisions of the Bill are
likely to be uncontroversial. If the Bill is to pass in the 45th Parliament,
the currently proposed Parliamentary sitting calendar leaves little time for
the provisions of the Bill to commence and for the AEC to put in place the legislated
changes to their processes before any elections in 2019.
The vast majority of the provisions in the Bill are a
result of the highly prescriptive nature of the federal electoral process. The
requirement to legislate to allow the AEC to, for example, change the manual
handling processes for declaration votes or to provide pens for voters, is at
odds with the AEC’s efforts to be an efficient and effective statutory agency.
And while it is understandable that Parliament would want some oversight of the
AEC’s practices, enshrining those practices in legislation appears overly
restrictive. Electoral legislation of the sort presented by the Bill is likely
to be a low priority in terms of the overall legislative agenda of most
governments, and introducing such legislation with an election imminent,
requiring last minute changes to AEC training and processes, creates
considerable risk for the electoral process.
Moving these mechanical elements out of the CEA and
into a disallowable legislative instrument would allow the AEC to be much more
responsive to its own identified needs, such as ballot paper security
practices, while still allowing executive policy making and Parliamentary
oversight of these practices.
Many of the AEC’s recommendations to the JSCEM have not
been implemented in this Bill. Some of the recommendations relate to the
electoral finance provisions of the CEA, and might be addressed in
specific future legislation. However some of the recommendations which were not
addressed, such altering the form specifying the format of the House of
Representatives ballot paper to include the year to ensure consistency with the
Senate ballot paper, seem reasonably uncontroversial and would conceivably have
been within the scope of this Bill. The Government has not commented on why
these missing recommendations have not been addressed, however the Explanatory
Memorandum notes that further changes to the CEA are envisaged in the
future.[42]
[1]. Joint
Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, Inquiry
into matters relating to Section 44 of the Constitution, inquiry homepage.
[2]. Joint
Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, Inquiry
into matters relating to Section 44 of the Constitution, Terms of Reference,
Canberra, 2017.
[3]. See,
for example, G Pemberton, ‘Exactly
when did Britain become a foreign power?’, The Australian, 7
November 2017, p. 14.
[4]. M
Killoran, ‘Citizenship
poll risks remains’, The Herald Sun, 9 July 2018, p. 6.
[5]. Joint
Standing Committee on Electoral Matters (JSCEM), Excluded: the
impact of section 44 on Australian democracy, JSCEM, Canberra, May
2018, p. x.
[6]. Ibid.
[7]. House
of Representatives, ‘Citizenship
register – 45th Parliament’, Australian Parliament website; Senate, ‘Citizenship
register’, Australian Parliament website.
[8]. JSCEM,
Excluded,
op. cit., p. 60.
[9]. B
Morton, Minority report, JSCEM, Excluded,
op. cit.
[10]. Explanatory
Memorandum, Electoral Legislation Amendment (Modernisation
and Other Measures) Bill 2018, p. 3.
[11]. Excluded,
op cit., p. xix.
[12]. JSCEM,
Third interim report on the
inquiry into the conduct of the 2016 federal election: AEC modernisation,
Canberra, JSCEM, June 2017.
[13]. Ibid,
p. xiii.
[14]. Australian
Electoral Commission (AEC) Submission
to the Inquiry into and Report on all Aspects of the
2016 Federal Election and Related Matters, [submission
66], various dates.
[15]. JSCEM,
Third interim report, op.
cit., pp. 38–39.
[16]. Ibid.,
p. 16.
[17]. Ibid.,
pp. xiii–xiv.
[18]. Senate
Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, Scrutiny
digest, 15, 2018, 5 December 2018, p. 7.
[19]. Ibid.,
p. 10.
[20]. Explanatory
Memorandum, p. 5.
[21]. AEC,
House of Representatives Nominations
by state and Senate Nominations
by state, 2016 Federal Election Tally Room, AEC website.
[22]. Explanatory
Memorandum, p. 5.
[23]. The
Statement of Compatibility with Human Rights can be found at page 7 of the
Explanatory Memorandum to the Bill.
[24]. AEC,
Changes
to nomination process for candidates, media release, 31 May 2018.
[25]. Electoral and
Referendum Amendment (Eligibility) Regulations 2018 and
Electoral and
Referendum Regulation 2016.
[26]. C
Pyne, ‘Proposed
Citizenship Register’, House of Representatives, Votes and proceedings,
88, 2016–17, 4 December 2017, p. 1235; G Brandis, ‘Proposed
Citizenship Register’, Senate, Journals, 68, 2016–17, 13 November
2017, p. 2179.
[27]. Explanatory
Memorandum, op. cit., p. 20.
[28]. Ibid.,
p. 22.
[29]. AEC,
Submission,
op. cit.
[30]. JSCEM,
Third interim report, op. cit., pp. 37-38.
[31]. Explanatory
Memorandum, op. cit., p. 42.
[32]. JSCEM,
Third interim report, op. cit., p. 38.
[33]. Ibid.
[34]. AEC,
‘Scrutineers
Handbook: The Scrutiny’, AEC website, 1 June 2018.
[35]. Third
interim report, op. cit., pp. 31–32.
[36]. Third
interim report, op. cit., pp. 35–36.
[37]. Third
interim report, op. cit., p. 37.
[38]. A
Hawke, ‘Second
reading speech: Electoral Legislation Amendment (Modernisation and Other
Measures) Bill 2018’, House of Representatives, Debates, 29 November
2018, p. 11979.
[39]. Third
interim report, op. cit., p. 32.
[40]. Office
of Parliamentary Counsel (OPC), Plain
English manual, OPC, Canberra, 1993.
[41]. Explanatory
Memorandum, op. cit., p. 70.
[42]. Explanatory
Memorandum, op. cit., p. 4.
For copyright reasons some linked items are only available to members of Parliament.
© Commonwealth of Australia
Creative Commons
With the exception of the Commonwealth
Coat of Arms, and to the extent that copyright subsists in a third party,
this publication, its logo and front page design are licensed under a Creative Commons
Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Australia licence.
In essence, you are free to copy and
communicate this work in its current form for all non-commercial purposes, as
long as you attribute the work to the author and abide by the other licence
terms. The work cannot be adapted or modified in any way. Content from this
publication should be attributed in the following way: Author(s), Title of
publication, Series Name and No, Publisher, Date.
To the extent that copyright subsists
in third party quotes it remains with the original owner and permission may
be required to reuse the material.
Inquiries regarding the licence and
any use of the publication are welcome to webmanager@aph.gov.au.
Disclaimer: Bills Digests are prepared to support the work of the Australian Parliament.
They are produced under time and resource constraints and aim to be available
in time for debate in the Chambers. The views expressed in Bills Digests do
not reflect an official position of the Australian Parliamentary Library, nor
do they constitute professional legal opinion. Bills Digests reflect the
relevant legislation as introduced and do not canvass subsequent amendments
or developments. Other sources should be consulted to determine the official
status of the Bill.
Any concerns or complaints should be
directed to the Parliamentary Librarian. Parliamentary Library staff are
available to discuss the contents of publications with Senators and Members
and their staff. To access this service, clients may contact the author or
the Library’s Central Enquiry Point for referral.
Top
|