4. Electoral participation and supporting enfranchisement

Voter enfranchisement

4.1With compulsory voting, Australia boasts one of the highest levels of electoral participation in the world. This is justly recognised as one of the key elements of Australia’s electoral system, and more broadly Australia’s political environment.

4.2However, submitters have highlighted the struggle certain groups experience when exercising their right to cast a ballot. This chapter explores how to better enfranchise and strengthen the electoral participation of the following cohorts in the Australian community:

• people with a disability
• older Australians, particularly those living in aged care
• Australian permanent residents
• New Zealand citizens living in Australia
• Australians overseas
• young Australians.
  3. Further, this chapter identifies and considers the barriers these groups generally face when participating in Australia’s electoral system, and those specifically ascribed to the 2022 federal election and the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as suggested solutions and avenues of reform.

Enfranchising those with a disability

4.4According to the Human Rights Law Centre (HRLC), those with a disability currently face too many obstacles when exercising their right to vote in federal elections.[1]

4.5The existence of these obstacles and the ‘ongoing failure’ to effectively mitigate them ‘raises anti-discrimination law and constitutional concerns’, considering the High Court’s recognition of Australians’ right to vote.[2]

4.6Furthermore, in terms of Australia’s international law obligations, there is doubt that Article 29 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) – which states that people with disability must be guaranteed the opportunity and right to vote on an equal basis with others[3] - is currently being met in Australia.[4]

4.7This section will review the current and unique barriers people with a disability are facing when exercising their right to vote both before and on polling day, and identify and explore any avenues to improve and strengthen their enfranchisement.

The ‘unsound mind’ provision

4.8Section 93(8)(a) of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 (Electoral Act) provides that ‘by reason of possessing an unsound mind’, a person is therefore ‘incapable of understanding the nature and significance of enrolment and voting’.[5]

4.9This is actioned by way of any person submitting an objection to enrolment which must be accompanied by a certificate from a medical practitioner citing the above reasoning, pursuant to subsection 118(4). The Electoral Commissioner must then provide notice of the objection to the ‘challenged elector’[6], and from there, the matter is determined by the Electoral Commissioner as soon as practicable after:

• the receipt by the Electoral Commissioner of the challenged elector’s response; or
• the end of 20 days after giving notice of the objection.[7]
  10. If the Electoral Commissioner determines that the elector is of unsound mind, they are removed from the electoral roll.[8] If a person is removed, they may re-enrol with the provision of a certificate from a medical practitioner, stating that the person is no longer ‘by the reason of unsound mind, incapable of understanding the nature and significance of enrolment and voting’.[9]
  11. The ‘unsound mind’ provision has been labelled ‘archaic’, ‘offensive’[10], ‘discriminatory and contrary to international law’[11]; its language both ‘derogatory and stigmatising’.[12] Indeed, Vision Australia made the following assessment:

Obviously, it has its most egregious impact on people with cognitive impairments. But in general, the language and the provision are relics of a bygone era and are certainly not consistent with the current thinking around the social model of disability that we use in Australia.[13]

4.12It was also deemed ‘incongruous’ that someone with an intellectual disability is restricted from voting, but those who do not possess such a disability yet ‘do not understand the significance of voting are still able to vote’.[14]

4.13As well as undermining the constitutionally protected right to vote[15], it was also highlighted that the ‘unsound mind’ provision goes against Australia’s obligations under the CRPD[16], to which Australia is a signatory.[17] Articles 5 and 29 were singled out in this regard, with the former prohibiting discrimination on the basis of disability.[18]

4.14Witnesses argued that this provision has a ‘disproportionate, disenfranchising impact[19]’ on people with intellectual disabilities and cognitive impairments, and is preventing some Australians from exercising their ‘most fundamental democratic freedom’,‘leaving them subject to a violation of their right to vote.’[20]

4.15The HRLC pointed data from the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) which showed that, between 2008 and 2012, over 28,000 people were removed from the electoral roll due to this provision, with nearly half of these removals occurring in 2010 during the federal election.[21] Yet the publicly available data does not include the circumstances in which these people were removed, and ‘it is therefore impossible to know whether people who may have the capacity to vote, with or without assistance, are being removed from the roll.’[22]

4.16Significantly, the HRLC also highlighted that there is no definition of ‘unsound mind’ included in the Electoral Act or in common law. Because of this, the provision is ‘vague and broad’, and could therefore be applied to persons with a suite of impairments, including intellectual and psychological disabilities, acquired brain injury or degenerative brain conditions, many of whom could, with or without assistance, vote.[23]

4.17Furthermore, this provision may disenfranchise people with episode mental health issues such as bipolar disorder or schizophrenia, who could be assessed by a medical practitioner as meeting the provision during some stages of their illness but could be capable of casting a vote independently on election day.[24]

4.18The AEC did, however, highlight that the provision ‘does not apply to any other medical or mental health condition or other form of disability.’[25]

4.19In support of the provision, it has been argued that it protects both those with intellectual disabilities from being penalised for failing to vote[26], and the integrity of the electoral process.[27]

4.20The latter argument was countered since there is minimal evidence of this, as the provision ‘deals with those electors who are incapable of understanding the nature and significance of enrolment and voting.’ Additionally, studies have shown that there is a tenuous link between intellectual disability and a lack of capacity to vote.’[28]

4.21Since it ‘pre-emptively disqualifies persons with an intellectual disability’, the former argument was also disputed, as the ‘unsound mind’ provision was assessed as disproportionate to the object of protecting such individuals from penalty. To support the aim of preventing persons with intellectual disabilities from being penalised, it was suggested that a new section 245(4)(e) should be enacted which provides that penalties do not apply to such individuals.[29]

Legislative reform

4.22The AEC is aware of the contention surrounding the terminology of this provision, acknowledging that it ‘may unsettle, offend and distress some citizens’ and is also ‘often the subject of complaints from people who are offended and believe it is outdated language.’Accordingly, the AEC and its Disability Advisory Committee (DAC) support legislative reform to amend this terminology.[30]

4.23There was, however, strong sentiment from submitters that the ‘unsound mind’ provision be repealed entirely.[31]

4.24The Australian Federation of Disability Organisations (AFDO) remarked:

There are definite problems with the provisions in section 93(8)(a) of the Commonwealth Electoral Act. They are blocking the ability of people with disability, particularly those with intellectual disabilities or with cognitive impairments, to be able to participate in the electoral system. We support the comments that have been made and the calls for a review of all of that, and we do need to ensure that we provide appropriate supports and undertake measures to ensure that all people are able … to undertake their democratic rights.[32]

4.25This call for its repeal is not new. In 2014, the Australian Law Reform Commission (ALRC) published ‘Equality, Capacity and Disability in Commonwealth Laws’, a report into the legal barriers people with a disability face, and made a number of recommendations for legislative reform[33], including the repeal of subsections 93(8) and 118(4) of the Electoral Act.[34]

4.26Rather than a new threshold test for enrolment or voting, the report also recommended the introduction of a new exemption from compulsory voting for those who lack decision-making ability in relation to voting.[35]

4.27In terms of its replacement, HRLC also suggested that the ‘unsound mind’ provision be ‘replaced with a provision that reflects the principles of non-discrimination, a presumption of legal capacity and supported decision-making.’[36]

4.28Similarly, Inclusion Australia also discussed how to better support such Australians, rather than make assumptions pertaining to their capacity to cast a vote:

It is very easy to get taken off the electoral roll but quite difficult to be put back on. So the unsound mind provisions really mean that for a lot of people there are assumptions made about their capacity to vote. … We make assumptions about people's capacity and assume that they cannot make decisions about things that are important to them. But if we are talking about the UN CRPD and human rights approach we actually come from the other direction, which is a presumption of capacity and what supports do we need to put around the person regarding that?[37]

4.29Broadly, the Law Council of Australia (LCA) recommended greater support for those with cognitive impairments and their families and/or carers regarding exercising their right to vote, as well as guidance and appropriate resources for the AEC to facilitate expert advice on cognitive impairments.[38]

The right to a secret and verifiable ballot

4.30The absence of a secret and verifiable ballot for voters with a disability was highlighted in a number of submissions.

4.31A ‘secret ballot’ refers to any voting method whereby a voter’s ballot is entirely private and only known to the voter. It is an essential feature to a fair election as it forestalls attempts to influence election outcomes through such tactics as intimidation, blackmail or vote buying.[39] It is a guaranteed universal human right in Article 25(b) of the ICCPR and in Article 29 of the CPRD.[40]

4.32Significantly, the Electoral Act does not include the term ‘secret ballot’; rather, section 233(a) provides that voters are given an occupied space in which to mark their ballot paper, in private.[41]Furthermore, the Act, whilst providing for assisted voting, does not require the person assisting to vote per the voter’s direction, nor keep their vote a secret.[42]The Federal Court has, however, held in Horn v Australian Electoral Commission that the secrecy attaching to ‘secret ballot’ means secrecy as to how a person has voted.[43]

4.33To fulfil the CPRD’s obligation to guarantee persons with a disability the right to vote on an equal basis with others, Remedy Australia stated that voting methods must be ‘equally accessible, independent, secret, secure and verifiable’.[44]

Telephone voting

4.34Electronically Assisted Voting is provided in the Electoral Act. The precise nature of it, however, is not specified; rather, it is left to the discretion of the Electoral Commissioner who determined to make telephone voting only available to those with visual impairments.[45]

4.35In highlighting that the secret ballot and electoral integrity are 'of utmost importance', the AEC explained the process of casting a vote through the telephone:

1The elector calls and registers, whereby the elector provides the required personal details to be marked off the roll and is asked to select a six-digit PIN. From there, the AEC contacts the elector back with an eight-digit telephone voting registration number.

2Once this registration number is received, the elector calls again to cast their vote, where they provide the registration number and PIN (not their name) and the system then automatically marks them off the roll which allows the elector to vote anonymously.

3The AEC voting assistant records the elector’s vote and the second voting assistant present ensures this vote is ‘recorded as per the elector’s instructions to ensure accuracy and integrity’. Once completed, the voting assistant reads the elector’s ballot back to the elector to ensure its accuracy, and when the elector confirms so, the voting assistant places the ballot paper into an envelope that is sealed and deposited into a secure ballot box.[46]

4.36The AEC highlighted that both the voting assistant and second voting assistant ‘do not know who is calling’ and that they ‘do not match registration details to the name.’ Because of this, the vote remains a secret.[47]

4.37Nevertheless, a number of submitters stated that telephone voting is not aligned with the right to cast a vote in secret, nor is it verifiable[48], and Australia is therefore ‘failing to meet the commitments to equal political participation made in the ICCPR and CPRD.’[49]

4.38Remedy Australia stated that although telephone voting enables the voter to speak with an operator anonymously, ‘the act of disclosing voting intention to another person inherently lacks secrecy’ and ‘as voiceprint technology improves, a voter might be identifiable from their voice, and their ballot linked back to them.’[50]

4.39Vision Australia elaborated on this, arguing that telephone voting does not have the presumption of secrecy:

… our view is that when you have to dictate your voting preferences to someone else—even though you may have reason to believe that person that you are dictating those preferences to doesn’t know who you are—that still doesn't feel secret. You are dictating, you are verbalising your preferences rather than keeping them in your head and using an online process, for example, to record them. So our view is that a telephone voting service that requires you to dictate your preferences can never be truly secret.[51]

4.40Additionally, telephone voting rests on the operator accurately recording the caller’s voting intention, but does not allow the voter to verify this record. In most telephone voting systems, an operator answers the call and records the caller’s vote, but there is ‘no means by which the voter may verify whether their voting intentions have been recorded accurately’:

Human-assisted telephone voting [is] not verifiable because you can’t be sure that what you told them is what they’ve written down, even if they say they have two people monitoring things.[52]

4.41This absence of verifiability was also highlighted by Blind Citizens Australia (BCA), who stated that telephone voting ‘does little to allow a voter who is blind or vision impaired an opportunity to verify their ballot has been entered correctly’[53]and it forces the voter ‘to trust that the election workers are recording their voting preferences correctly, and will not change anything before the ballot is submitted.’[54]

4.42The AEC stated that for the 2022 election, as well as their own supervisors, ‘The entire thing was open to scrutineers to be there as the vote was being taken’, to ensure privacy and accuracy of phone-based voting.[55]

4.43Furthermore, telephone voting can be inconvenient or difficult, particularly when voting below the line on the Senate ballot:

As a user of iVote in NSW I am accustomed to being able to vote below the line. To do this using the telephone voting service would have required hours of preparation and a considerable amount of time dictating my preferences to the call centre staff, with no assurance that my vote would be recorded and submitted correctly, not to mention the pressure I would have felt that I was taking up too much of their time when there were other people waiting. So I felt compelled to vote above the line, which is not how I wanted to vote.[56]

4.44Vision Australia also highlighted this and recommended a ‘refreshing around the telephone service’ which ‘include working with that co-design approach to find more effective ways to assist people who want to vote below the line to do so.’[57]

4.45In terms of general accessibility, it was also noted that telephone voting is not accessible for all Australians with a disability; it is estimated that 1 in 500 Australians have severe communication disabilities or complex communication needs, which means that for tens of thousands of Australian voters, telephone voting is not an accessible alternative.[58]

4.46Although acknowledging the additional resourcing required and the issues pertaining to the lack of secrecy and verifiability, the HRLC recommended the expansion of telephone voting as it would strengthen the accessibility of voting for many Australians with a disability.[59]

4.47The HRLC stated that this could be done through amending Part XVB of the Electoral Act to allow people with disability to vote by telephone beyond the existing provision for blind and low-vision voters.[60]

4.48Noting the temporary expansion of telephone voting for the 2022 federal election due to COVID-19, the HRLC also suggested that telephone voting be accessible to voters experiencing illnesses of other kinds in the period following the postal voting deadline:

Numerous respondents to our Barriers to Voting Register raised the issue that expanded telephone voting would enable people with disability, or an infectious illness other than COVID-19, to vote in a more accessible manner than existing options. For example, one respondent with a disability told us that they became severely-unwell the day after postal voting closed. … Telephone voting was made available at scale to respond to COVID-19 in the 2022 federal election: there is no compelling reason why in future elections, voters with other infectious illnesses should not also have that option.[61]

4.49Regarding such an expansion, the AEC argued that it should be ‘tightly define[d]’ as to who could use telephone voting, so as to avoid a situation ‘where people are on the phone queuing for eight hours, waiting to deliver a vote’:

The other thing is that, if parliament were to legislate for us to provide telephone voting at the next event for particular categories of electors, what we would urge is a really early passage of that legislation so that we can start the planning for that very complex process straightaway. … It does seem, though, if it was really tightly limited to a small group of people, it would provide a failsafe to individuals who might not otherwise be able to vote.[62]

4.50The AEC also provided similar reasoning for the expansion of telephone voting to voters overseas, stating that although it could be a ‘useful safety net for these voters’, the eligibility requirements need to be ‘strictly defined and enforced to ensure that it does not become a voting channel for citizens who simply do not want to attend a polling place.’ Additionally, ‘operational constraints such as time differences would need to be navigated.’[63]

Electronic voting

4.51Some jurisdictions in Australia offer non-phone voting by internet, whereby a voter casts their vote using an internet-enabled electronic device. The most widely used system is iVote,[64] which has been ‘embraced by numerous disability advocacy groups as an accessible voting method.’[65]

4.52iVote was introduced in New South Wales (NSW) in 2011 to cater for blind or vision impaired voters. Voters cast their vote by internet or by telephone, and the iVote system provided blind or vision impaired voters with different options for voting that best suit their particular accessibility needs.[66] It was also used for a small number of voters in Western Australia’s 2017 state election.[67]

4.53According to BCA, iVote facilitated thousands of blind or vision impaired Australians – as well as those who have other disabilities or circumstances that render it difficult to access a polling station - to exercise their right to vote independently and participate equally in NSW elections.[68]

4.54Indeed, after previously relying on family or carers, the experience of using this tool was deemed ‘empowering’ by members of BCA, and data has shown both an increase in use and a high degree of satisfaction from electors who used it.[69] Additionally, had iVote not been available, about 10 per cent of electors who used the system would have been disenfranchised.[70]

4.55Despite this, iVote was suspended for the 2023 NSW State Election after a series of issues during the 2021 Local Government Elections.[71]

Security concerns with iVote and electronic voting

4.56iVote has verification problems, whereby ‘there is no opportunity to independently confirm that the ballot data entered by the voter is the same data processed by the system.’[72]

4.57Due to this lack of verifiability, iVote is ‘not an acceptable voting solution’. According to Dr Vanessa Teague:

If you’re filling it in yourself, you see what it is you’re sticking in the ballot box. But, when we start talking about accessible measures for voters with disabilities, and when we start talking about electronic voting options where you don’t directly see a piece of paper, the question of whether the electronic message that gets sent or recorded matches what you asked for really becomes an important issue.[73]

4.58Additionally, iVote is vulnerable to cyberattacks and data security breaches which may not be evident to administrators or voters:

iVote’s most serious problem is the risk of undetected errors or fraud leading to an election that may seem to have progressed without incident, but actually elects representatives who are not the ones chosen by the people. The main difficulty, which does not have a known and usable solution, is allowing voters to securely verify that their electronic vote accurately reflects their intention.[74]

4.59Remedy Australia asserted that because of this ‘it is foreseeable that third parties could access ballot data and invalidate or alter ballots cast validly or add ballots not cast by genuine voters.’[75]

4.60Broadly, iVote’s security issues are ‘not unusual among Internet voting systems’[76] and studies of similar systems have identified similar vulnerabilities.[77]

4.61In addition to deeming all forms of internet voting ‘inherently insecure’[78], Remedy Australia observed that there is no voting method that is entirely independent of any technology or other person. For example, a voter requesting human assistance in a polling place to fill in their ballot must depend on that person for privacy, or internet voting systems may malfunction undetectably.[79]

Other avenues for electronic voting

4.62Broadly, BCA urged exploration and investment in Technology Assisted Voting (TAV) that enables secret and verifiable voting, and suggested a reworked and updated model of iVote, or a new voting system developed for the AEC.[80]

4.63Council on the Ageing (COTA) Australia also suggested that in expanding voting technologies, that they are trialled to determine how they work for older people, including those with poor technology skills and cognitive decline.[81]

4.64To enable voters with a disability the chance to verify their vote, Dr Teague suggested electronic voting in a polling place with a voter-verifiable paper record, whereby voters would use a poll site computer, print out their ballot and verify their vote[82]:

I think that style of system, where people are invited to come into the polling place with everybody else and sit in a private booth like everybody else and have the assistance of a computer to produce, like everybody else, a ballot paper that then just goes into the ordinary scrutineering process with everybody else’s, is a secure and private solution that I think would work for a lot of people.[83]

4.65Remedy Australia, cautioning against internet voting, also proposed a stand-alone, off-line ballot marking device that is available in every polling place. It has two advantages:

• it is easier to protect the voter’s privacy, and
• it enables the voter the opportunity to see and verify their marked ballot paper, without depending on another person or software.[84]
  66. Similarly, Voting Solutions for all People (VSAP), is an electronic voting system used in Los Angeles, the United States of America (USA). Known as a ballot-marking device, VSAP entails electronic assistance for voters to complete a paper ballot in a polling place, whereby a voter attends a polling place and apprises a computer of their voting intention. The computer then prints their vote out, and this printout is then validated by the voter. If the voter is satisfied that the printout correctly represents their voting intention, they signal their approval, and their vote is automatically dropped into the ballot box. The important features of this system are:
• it is offline so it cannot be interfered with or hacked
• the person can verify their vote printout
• the printout is not obviously distinguishable from those filled in by pencil
• the printout is put into a ballot box without the intervention of another person.[85]
  67. Dr Teague also highlighted another voting system used in the USA whereby voters print out their ballot, which they then fill out and post:

So the idea would effectively be to make blank ballots available to people and let them print them out and either fill them in with a computer, if that were the system that they needed, or fill them in with a pencil, and stick them in the post. … . But, as a small thing for people who have suddenly become unwell, it strikes me as superior to phone voting for a variety of reasons. First of all, you can actually see what’s going on your ballot paper, which you cannot do over the phone. Secondly, there’s a much better guarantee of privacy, because you don’t have to worry about whether your voice is recognisable, because you’re not speaking.[86]

4.68Dr Teague acknowledged, however, that such a system is not without its limitations, as not all voters are physically able to undertake such a task, nor may have access to the Internet or a printer.[87]

4.69The AEC stated that they ‘have no other plan to introduce any other form of electronic or electronic assisted voting for any category of voter’:

I can tell you that at this stage we have no plans in the short, medium or long term to touch electronic voting. If and when the parliament decides that that’s something that we do, that will have to be trawled over in great detail, particularly the security issue for that.[88]

4.70BCA also acknowledged the security concerns in electronic voting systems, and a need to ‘work closely’ with security experts to balance those concerns with accessibility needs.[89]

4.71Similarly, Vision Australia argued that security concerns, while important, should not take precedence over the democratic right for Australians to vote:

I think the general point that we would make is that, while security is obviously important and critical to confidence in the electoral system, security should never be seen as extinguishing human rights. It is not an either/or. We should be able to design human systems that also promote human rights and we should not use security challenges as a lazy way of saying we are not going to promote human rights. … So I think we have a challenge as a society to make sure that we progress, innovate and uphold the rights, in the context of today’s inquiry, of people with disability, while at the same time managing those cybersecurity issues.[90]

Accessibility at polling places

4.72The Committee received significant evidence from disability advocates on the current challenges people with disabilities face when casting their vote at polling places.

4.73This section explores the current limitations and unique challenges those with both physical and intellectual disabilities face when casting their ballot and ways to improve and strengthen this accessibility.

4.74In light of this, the Committee notes that Article 29 of the CRPD includes ‘ensuring that voting procedures, facilities and materials are appropriate, accessible, and easy to understand and use’ and ‘protecting the right of persons with disabilities to vote by secret ballot’.[91]

4.75Every polling place is given an accessibility rating by the AEC, which is published on their website, as well as information regarding venue accessibility.[92] These ratings are: wheelchair accessible, assisted wheelchair access, or not wheelchair accessible.[93]

4.76The AEC stated that where possible, polling premises have:

• a level, firm and obstacle-free path of travel to the polling place
• circulation space in the voting area for use by those using mobility devices
• clear directional signage
• access to accessible parking spaces
• easy access to public transport (ideally within 400 metres of a bus/train stop, or 800 metres to other forms of public transport)
• an alternate voting room with adjustable lighting, if possible, to make voting more accessible for people with sensory sensitivities
• a rest area between the site boundary and the polling place to support cognitive, sensory and anxiety self-regulation.[94]
  77. The AEC also stated that they aim to ensure the internal set-up has:
• accessible voting screens placed in line with other voting screens
• two-person tables with accessible voting screens to facilitate assisted voting
• other tables and chairs for seated voting.[95]
  78. In relation to assisted voting, the AEC also noted that when the polling official is assisting a voter, certain rules apply to ensure transparency. Additionally, training is also provided in relation to voter assistance - for example, queue controllers look out for people in the queue and ensure any elderly or frail voters are escorted to the front.[96]
  79. The AEC conceded that ‘securing polling places is a challenging aspect of conducting an electoral event’. Due to the absence of fixed federal election dates, the AEC has a minimum of 33 days’ notice to secure over 7,000 polling venues, and with the ‘scale and complexity of the AEC’s temporary polling operations, fully accessible venues are not always possible.’[97] For the 2022 federal election, 21.6 per cent of polling places had full disability access, 62.3 per cent had assisted access, and 16.1 per cent did not meet access requirements.[98]
  80. Notably, Remedy Australia highlighted that the Electoral Act does not require that all polling places be physically accessible to all disabled voters:

Where a voter cannot enter the polling place, a ballot paper may be brought outside to the voter, to be completed there. Beyond that, the Electoral Act does not provide for voters with physical and/or communication disabilities. Voters are permitted to request the assistance of an electoral officer or other person in filling out a paper ballot. However … such assistance does not meet Australia’s obligations under CRPD Article 29, as it necessarily requires a voter to reveal their voting intention to another person.[99]

4.81Similarly, the LCA deems it ‘limiting’ that the AEC’s own criterion for polling places’ accessibility only pertains to wheelchair accessibility.[100] Furthermore, AEC guidance does not make reference to the provision of assistance that may be required before arrival at a polling place[101], and therefore ‘appears to assume that non-ambulant voters, or voters with restricted mobility, will be able to be driven by another person to a location close enough to the polling place for someone to attract the attention of the relevant AEC worker.’[102]

4.82COTA also highlighted the unique challenges older voters face, such as the length of walking required at polling sites:

… [it] is not just whether it is flat but how long it takes you from the school gate to get to the hall. How far is that? Some school grounds can be quite long and quite exhausting. So thinking about accessibility through the lens of being able to drive in and drop off and come back and pick up in a short distance, with somebody on a walker not having to walk that far, is another element that I think possibly could be explored by the AEC.[103]

4.83Indeed, BCA explained the wider, systemic issues on building inaccessibility, which was informed by discussions on the accessibility of polling places through the AEC’s equal access to democracy reference group for people with a disability:

What we were told was quite disappointing. It was basically that because polling booths need to be found at short notice and they have a lot of requirements that they need to meet, they do have ideal standards for accessibility. However, if they can’t be met, they can't be met. It’s more important that they find a venue. If it doesn’t meet standards but it's the only venue available, so be it. I think we have a much bigger problem here. We’re talking about building accessibility, building standards and building codes, which is probably at the root of the problem. This is just a sign of how big it is that we cannot meet our accessibility needs for something that we know is going to come about every couple of years.[104]

4.84The LCA stated that new standards should be developed to ‘take into account the accessibility of the venue by public transport and private vehicle, as well as accessibility within the venue’[105],and suggested that:

• Information about accessibility of local polling places should be distributed to the offices of local members and candidates.
• Staff should be located at the entrance of polling venues to direct voters and to provide information and assistance, including about accessible parking, seating, and toilet facilities.
• These staff should be provided with a means of enabling ready contact with polling supervisors to arrange for ballot papers or other assistance.[106]

Mobile Polling

4.85Mobile polling booths/kiosks was highlighted as a form of accessible voting to better support voters with a variety of disabilities, including those who have a motor impaired related disability.[107]As well as providing greater security than iVote, many mobile kiosks are easy to transport, which benefits voters living in regional and remote areas.[108]

4.86Such kiosks have a number of accessible features including large button controllers for those unable to use touch screens; built-in printers and scanners; both audio and visual output; and a headphone jack for those who require audio instructions.[109]

4.87Although not a ‘silver bullet’, BCA asserted that mobile kiosks could be an ‘important part of the solution, especially if they were augmented with other technologies, such as electronic braille displays. That could go a long way to helping a lot of voters cast their ballot in an accessible way.’[110]

4.88Mobile polling booths are also ‘commonplace at aged care homes across Australia.’[111] For the 2022 federal election, however, this service was significantly reduced. According to COTA, there are approximately 220,000 people in aged care homes, and 2,671 aged-care homes across Australia, and for the election, the AEC indicated that they visited 86. This is ‘3.2 per cent of aged-care homes, which, on the back of an envelope by proportion of residents per home, means that about 213,000 citizens didn't have access to a polling station.’[112]

4.89This significant reduction was due to COVID-19. The AEC explained that, having received advice from the Department of Health and Aged Care, they undertook a risk assessment to ‘determine the proposed approach to mobile polling in aged care homes’, and in December of 2022, all Chief Health Officers ‘endorsed a modest offering of mobile polling in aged care facilities.’[113]

4.90The AEC explained that these decisions ‘were based on careful consideration of the risk of elector disenfranchisement balanced against the risk of residents, facility staff or AEC staff contracting or transmitting COVID-19.’[114]

4.91According to the AEC, those aged care homes that were not serviced by mobile polling booths supported by AEC staff who ‘provided facilities with information, materials and support to ensure residents knew their voting options and were able to vote this election.’[115]

4.92Additionally, in the lead up to and during the election period, all registered aged care facilities were provided with additional help to access voting services including postal voting through AEC support cells across the country.[116]

4.93Nevertheless, according to Professor Catherine Renshaw and Dr Starla Hargita, ‘the social and psychological effects of being unable to vote were significant’ for some older Australians[117] with one participant in their study stating:

I was extremely disappointed. I wanted to vote. We were talking about it here amongst ourselves as to what was happening but obviously there was nothing happening….we were expecting something to happen…..that someone would come and say ‘we have organised something so you can vote’ but nothing happened….there was no COVID here at the time…we were open.[118]

4.94The AEC confirmed with the Committee that mobile voting at residential aged-care facilities will revert to its previous rates and provided further elaboration on the COVID-related reasoning for its reduction in the first place:

We worked very closely with residential care facilities and, indeed, state health authorities about what we were allowed to do and not allowed to do, and which centres wanted us to go in and which centres were worried about it becoming a super-spreader event. Normally, we visit a fairly large number of residential care facilities; we intend to do the same thing in the future. … For the aged-care facilities we didn’t visit, we worked closely with the staff of those facilities to make sure residents were aware of what their options were to vote, but, again, it was a COVID-safe measure.[119]

4.95Because mobile polling was reduced during the 2022 federal election, alternative forms of voting were available to some residents of aged care homes, such as posting voting, telephone voting, early voting, and attending a polling place on election day. Nonetheless, ‘these options may have unsatisfactory hurdles for this voting population’.[120]

4.96According to the AEC, postal voting was promoted to voters in aged care homes that were not serviced by mobile polling teams[121], however, COTA deemed it ‘administratively burdensome to the point of disenfranchising voters.’[122]

4.97For example, voters with low vision, tremors and other disabilities struggled to complete the relevant forms[123], as that process of voting ‘can be quite tiresome for the person even if they have the physical capacity to do it themselves.’[124]

4.98Furthermore, it is not ‘realistically achievable’ that postal votes must be issued and returned within the last three days of the election because of slow post times and the physical requirements of returning a ballot to a post box for those with low mobility.[125]

4.99For some older voters with cognitive decline, the postal voting experience was also described as stressful and confusing due to the high level of coordination required involving their multiple supports like carers, family and friends.[126]

Pre-poll voting centres

4.100The AEC highlighted that voting prior to election day continued to grow in popularity, with pre-poll growing from 28.4 per cent in 2019 to 32.8 per cent in 2022.[127] Anticipating this, the AEC increased its number of pre-poll voting locations from 511 in the 2019 federal election, to 540 in 2022.[128]

4.101Early voting methods like pre-poll ‘are an important component in ensuring accessible and equitable voting services’[129], however, much like the concerns expressed regarding polling places’ accessibility and suitability, the Committee received evidence related to pre-poll venues.

4.102Zali Steggall OAM MP stated that the suitability of the pre-poll voting centre in Brookvale was ‘questionable’. Her assessment stemmed from a number of reasons including its minimal accessibility for those with mobility concerns and its proximity to a major road and bus stops which generated loud noise and large foot-traffic – the latter also meant there was ‘a lack of safe pedestrian space’.[130]

4.103Furthermore, Dr Monique Ryan MP explained that Kooyong’s pre-poll centre was ‘in a small and narrow street with minimal parking’ and that the signage for the single disabled parking site was ‘flimsy’ and prone to falling over. Long queues and 15–20-minute wait times also proved difficult ‘in a narrow street with no seating options for older and less mobile people.’[131]

4.104Professor Renshaw referred to her experience with two unsuitable pre-polling centres when she ran as a candidate for the seat of North Sydney, stating:

One of them was utterly inaccessible for anyone with any sort of impairment whatsoever. Another was allegedly an accessible pre-poll station, but it relied on the operation of a lift that was out of order for one-fifth of the time of the whole two-week pre-polling time. Even when it was working, it put people who needed to use it in the very undignified position of having to wait in the cold and rain at the time for the operator to come and make the machine work. It was totally inadequate, yet that was the best available option. … The effect on older persons was to make them feel like they were a burden on the system and holding up the queue.[132]

4.105Further, in her submission with Dr Hargita, it was noted that much like their experience voting at a polling place on election day, residents of residential aged care homes attending pre-poll still often require ‘the assistance of a friend, relative, or staff member for transport or mobility issues.’[133]

4.106Democracy Matters also highlighted the AEC’s eligibility criterion for pre-poll, stating that that voters have ‘valid reasons beyond those found on the AEC eligibility list,’ such as having a disability:

How might the eligibility list be amended to make these voters feel welcome in pre-polling centres? A strict observance of the eligibility list would require these people to return on election day or complete a postal vote, if there is sufficient time to do so and which they may not be confident they are completing correctly.[134]

4.107The AEC explained the challenge in identifying a comprehensively accessible venue in the short lead up to an election:

The choice of the pre-poll centres, and in fact the choice of polling places, is a vexed issue for us. Four weeks notice, and quite often you’re hostage to whatever you can get and in some areas it's almost impossible to get anything. We really have a huge program in place to try to identify the most appropriate pre-poll and polling centres. We take into account a number of factors, including disability access, parking, et cetera. Not all of that lines up, and sometimes people get frustrated with us because they say it’s a really bad polling place. Guess what? It really is, but that's the only place that we could get in the entire district that’s free.[135]

The overwhelming nature of polling sites

4.108The Committee heard that polling sites can also be a ‘complex, busy, rushed environment’ for those with a disability[136],and can therefore trigger sensory overloads.[137]

4.109Vision Australia told the Committee how those with both intellectual and physical disabilities can experience this:

In our survey, we found that 36 per cent of respondents said that they had additional disabilities … a number indicated that they were neurodivergent and so potentially do experience sensory overload. But also quite a substantial number of people indicated that they have a hearing impairment of various degrees. Whilst the experience of sensory overload for someone with a hearing impairment may be qualitatively different from someone who is neurodivergent, the effect is very similar in that it becomes overwhelming and it quickly becomes very difficult. If you are trying to hear someone at a polling booth and they are just overwhelmed with noise because of a hearing impairment and not being able to filter out the different sources of noise, it becomes very difficult.[138]

4.110In terms of better assisting voters who may struggle in such an overwhelming environment, it was suggested that staff at poll sites should be equipped with the relevant knowledge, awareness and experience, as well as the ‘confidence to ask people how they can be helped or whether they actually do need help. It is following the 'approach, offer, ask, assist' method.’[139]

4.111Similarly, Inclusion Australia remarked on the need for polling site staff ‘who are clearly identifiable, who are patient, who take the time, who understand what you need.’[140]

4.112For those with an intellectual disability, it is more challenging to measure accessibility requirements than those pertaining to physical accessibility.[141] Inclusion Australia highlighted the notion of ‘supportive decision-making’ as a means of better supporting people with an intellectual disability when casting their votes at poll sites.[142]

4.113This would entail an individual providing ‘neutral support’ whereby they would not influence a voter’s decision; rather, they would assist in talking through and explaining it:

It is very important if someone with disability needs help, because I obviously need help because I get confused without the top line of what—to fill out the numbers. So like, when I do vote I get in a fluster and very mixed up and I have to ask my mum for support. So finding a person that people really do trust, and obviously will not influence your decision. I know who I want to vote for, but I ask mum how to do it, and what numbers I should put first, for that person. So the right support is what someone with a disability needs to have if they are getting a bit tricky.[143]

4.114Beyond staff training, in assisting those who are neurodiverse, the LCA suggested the provision of a quiet room, or a room without fluorescent lighting.[144] Further, to support those who are hearing-impaired, the LCA also recommended the AEC provide Auslan access by video, hearing loop systems and other supports; introduce measures to mitigate background noise and poor acoustic qualities of some venues.[145]

Accessing information about enrolment and voting

4.115Through its commitment to ‘greater equity to voting services’[146], the AEC provides the following support to voters:

• Auslan videos on access to voting
• Easy Read guides on how to enrol and vote
• videos which focus on oral explanation of voting processes
• an education program for those with a learning disability
• ReadSpeaker on the AEC website
• flipbooks at polling places which provide simple ballot formality instructions
• an Official Guide that is sent to every household before an election or referendum that is available in large print, e-text, MP3 audio files/CD, DAISY and Braille.[147]
  116. Additionally, the AEC says they will offer text-to-speech pens and hearing loops in a polling place in every electoral division nationally, as well as access to a virtual Auslan interpreting service in every polling place.[148]
  117. Nevertheless, there continues to be strong support for ensuring that voting information and communication is delivered in accessible and inclusive formats.[149]
  118. BCA informed the Committee that its members felt that ‘more could be done to improve minimum standards’ for voting information materials,[150] and expressed interest in the prospect of the AEC standardising ‘how to vote’ pamphlets in an inclusive format[151]:

When we explored this issue during a consultation session, members agreed that the AEC could play a role in requiring all political parties and candidates provide all communications – including how to vote cards – in an accessible formats including large print hard copy, braille, electronic or audio.[152]

4.119The Committee also heard that it is useful for people, particularly those with an intellectual disability, to have access to information beforehand regarding the voting process and what to expect on the day.

4.120The Easy Read documents are an example of this; however, it was noted that they are difficult to locate and are not available on polling day.[153]

I think voting is very hard. They give you too many papers when you go and sign in. There is nothing in Easy Read to follow how to vote. I know people will tell you there are some instructions, but it is still confusing for me. When I go voting I am always with family. They help me slightly and make sure that I am okay. But when my family have voted, I am taking up the time. My mum comes up and gives me some help. At the start, when you walk through the car park and there are people waving their cards at you for voting, it starts getting me confused. They need to make voting easier for me and other people with disability, giving me some more time at the stand to vote.[154]

4.121BCA also noted that the AEC had promised voters who are blind or vision impaired could request a list of candidates in an audio, e-text, large print or braille format to be sent by calling them. However, accessing this material proved difficult:

We received multiple calls and emails from voters who had attempted to do this, but encountered phone operators who did not seem to know about the service. Some of these situations were resolved when the voter asked to speak to a manager or team leader at the call centre who was then able to assist; but other voters reported being spoken to rudely and dismissively. As one member put it: “they made me feel like I was wasting their time”.[155]

4.122Similarly, Vision Australia highlighted that a ‘lack of [AEC] staff training and awareness in relation to voting and associated processes for people who are blind or have low vision has been a recurring theme of the feedback we have received after every federal election.’[156]

The importance of co-designing voting methods

4.123The Committee received a strong body of evidence on the need for engaging with people with a disability and relevant organisations when developing and improving voting methods, standards for polling places, and supporting materials.

4.124BCA asserted that co-design ‘needs to run through all aspects of any reform that is undertaken’[157], and Inclusion Australia argued that ‘in order to develop systems, services, programs that work for people with disability, they need to be designed with people with disability.’[158]

4.125This sentiment also extended to older voters, whereby Professor Renshaw and Dr Hargita stated that when making key decisions in relation to voting practices, this cohort need to be engaged with:

We also recommend that future decisions relating to voting practices of older Australians be made with the active participation and involvement of the key stakeholders – older Australians themselves. This recommendation is in line with international law and constitutional law in providing accessibility, timeliness, and secrecy.[159]

4.126AFDO also highlighted to the Committee that co-design would ‘raise the differences and the complexities of various disabilities and what the requirements might be for people with disability in those more rural, remote and regional areas’, as location influences accessibility.[160]

4.127Inclusion Australia reiterated that due to the diversity of needs, it is important to hear from a range of people with different disabilities:

On designing models, I think probably the important thing to say is that it might look different—one model might not work for everybody. Different people need different things—and so being able to talk to lots of different people about their needs, but also being able to design and offer things in different ways and in different modes. Not everybody needs Easy Reads, but for some people it is really important.[161]

4.128Similarly, Remedy Australia remarked that there is ‘no single existing solution that completely meets the needs of Australian voters, but there is ample opportunity for Australia to design our own, in consultation with the voters who need it.’[162]

4.129The AFDO recommended the AEC engage with representative organisations and those with a disability to develop appropriate staff training which would build stronger awareness and expertise:

From our point of view, we would like to see the AEC working closely with disability representative organisations to work on that training. … The reason is that in our organisation and for a number of my colleagues, the training developed relates to awareness training for particular disabilities by people with disability and delivered by people with disability … I think there’s nothing better for people who don't have a disability to understand or gain a better understanding than to actually hear from those with lived experience of disability.[163]

4.130Of relevance is the AEC’s DAC, which serves as a mechanism to consult, collaborate and co-design with leaders and peak bodies in the disability community.[164]

4.131Chaired by the Deputy Electoral Commissioner, the DAC has been in existence for over a decade and serves to promote ‘greater accessibility, inclusion and participation in the electoral process by people with disability’.[165] The DAC convenes multiple times a year and includes members from all state and territory electoral commissions which facilitates ‘enhanced consistency across jurisdictions where feasible.’[166]

4.132According to the AEC, the priorities of the DAC are to:

• seek feedback from relevant Australian peak disability organisations on the services and programs that the AEC deliver
• understand new and emerging issues for those with a disability
• collaborate with their Electoral Council of Australia and New Zealand partners through the delivery of accessible electoral services across other jurisdictions, and
• learn about initiatives being developed in other sectors for people with a disability.[167]

Enfranchising Australian permanent residents and new Australian citizens

4.133Expanding the franchise to Australian permanent residents received mixed responses, with a common argument from the community stemming from the belief that only citizens of Australia should vote.[168] This sentiment was particularly strong in relation to enfranchising New Zealand citizens living in Australia.[169]

4.134The Liberal Party, National Party, and the NSW Young Liberals all stated that only Australian citizens should decide who governs Australia[170], with the latter stating:

The distinction between an Australian permanent resident and an Australian citizen in large part is defined by the right to vote. To remove this distinction would abrogate a significant incentive for citizenship and the commitments it entails.[171]

4.135Section 93 of the Electoral Act generally requires citizenship for the ability to vote in federal elections, however, Professor Joo-Cheong Tham asserted that this is ‘deeply flawed’, and that a ‘better approach is to treat citizenship as a sufficient condition for voting rights but not a necessary requirement’.[172]

4.136Indeed, a number of submitters refuted the notion that citizenship is a core requirement since it also has no basis in the Australian Constitution.[173] Within this vein, Dr Elisa Arcioni stated:

Citizenship is not required constitutionally as a basis for eligibility to vote … The Parliament has the choice to extend the vote beyond citizens to other persons who are substantively part of the Australian community and so with a claim to membership of the electorate. In order to determine when a person is ‘truly’ a member of the community is a matter of degree and judgement. Permanent residency is a good proxy for such membership, which avoid individual applications or arduous factual disputes.[174]

4.137The concept of community membership and contribution was emphasised, in that many permanent residents work and pay taxes, and should therefore have the opportunity to vote.[175]

4.138Professor Tham considers social membership as the ‘basis for the ability to vote in federal elections’. His assertion is based on a theory of social membership that seeks to address when membership of society arises:

The answer, according to this theory, rest upon the connections a person has to their place of residence, their sense of belonging to the society in which they live — ‘the relationships, interests, and identities that connect people to the place where they live’. The theory advances length of residence as a proxy for these dense connections.[176]

4.139Furthermore, Professor Tham highlighted that the original Commonwealth Franchise Bill had ‘one ground only, as giving a right to vote, and that is residence in the Commonwealth for six months or over by any person of adult age’.[177]

4.140The Liberal Party referred to sections 7 and 27 of the Australian Constitution, which require that parliamentarians for both houses are directly chosen by ‘the people’.[178]

4.141However, as noted by Professor Luke Beck:

The Constitution requires that parliament be directly chosen by the people of the Commonwealth and, for the Senate, by the people of the states. But the Constitution doesn’t really tell us who or what ‘the people’ are. Very plainly, Australian citizens are part of the people, and Australian citizens can vote. There’s then a question of whether or not ‘the people’ is a broader concept than just citizens, how far that might extend and whether it includes long-term permanent residents et cetera. That’s a legal question where there are question marks.[179]

4.142Similarly, Professor Kim Rubenstein also noted that at the time of Federation, ‘the people’ were not Australian citizens as there was no concept of it.’[180]

4.143The Australia Institute noted that there should be no concerns regarding citizens of hostile powers voting in Australian elections, stating ‘I think we've seen that permanent residents and citizens who have immigrant backgrounds have always put Australia's interests first, and there haven't been issues there.’[181]

Historical precedence

4.144There is an existing precedent of non-citizens voting in Australia; permanent residents can vote in Tasmanian, Victorian and South Australian local government elections.

4.145Additionally, existing laws enfranchise British subjects (citizens of a Commonwealth country) who were enrolled in a federal electoral division in Australia prior to 26 January 1984.[182] This included Canadians, the British and – relevantly – New Zealanders.[183] Professor Anne Twomey summarised this below:

The concept of permitting people to vote in Australia if they live here, even though they are not Australian citizens, is a long-standing one, albeit tied to a notional allegiance to a shared monarch.[184]

4.146Despite the voting qualification being changed in 1984 to require Australian citizenship, ‘there was grandfathering of those British subjects who were already on the electoral roll’.[185] This meant there were and are still people who enrolled before then and are therefore still entitled to vote in Australian elections, despite remaining permanent residents.[186]

The barriers on the path to citizenship

4.147In its submission to the inquiry, the HRLC highlighted the difficulty in taking up citizenship. Some permanent residents are from countries that do not allow dual citizenship meaning that to vote in Australia they would be forced to renounce their citizenship of their country of birth.

4.148Furthermore, administrative delays in processing citizenship indirectly serve as a barrier to voting. For example, increasing processing times obstruct ‘the voting rights of members of the community who would otherwise be eligible to vote.’[187]

4.149Professor Beck informed the Committee that ‘Constitutionally a very safe pathway forward would be to make the pathway to citizenship easier.’[188]

4.150The Australian Greens voiced support for this prospect, stating that they ‘would like to see pathways to citizenship, and associated voting rights, made easier for all Australian residents.’[189]

4.151The Committee notes that as of October 2023, for those who have applied for Australian citizenship by conferral, 90 per cent of applications are processed within 10 months and 90 per cent of approved applicants will have the opportunity to attend a ceremony within 6 months of approval. Additionally, the wait time is significantly less for those applying for citizenship by descent.[190]

Reciprocation with New Zealand

4.152Since 1975, New Zealand has granted any permanent resident who has lived in the country for more than twelve months the right to vote.[191] In light of this, several submitters referred to the prospect of reciprocation.[192]

4.153The Liberal Party, however, warned that ‘Extending the right to vote in Australian elections to the citizens of just one other country, would appear to introduce a discriminatory element to our electoral system.’[193]

4.154To avoid ‘selecting any particular country for special treatment’[194], the Australia Institute floated the broader idea that voting rights be extended ‘on a reciprocal basis to permanent residents who are citizens of countries that allow Australians to vote in their national elections.’[195]

4.155The Liberal Party also warned of constitutional and legal risk if New Zealanders are enfranchised:

There are over half a million New Zealand-born people living in Australia. An addition to the electoral roll of this size where there are uncertainties as to the validity of New Zealand citizens’ right to vote as people of the relevant State, or of the Commonwealth, could create significant constitutional and legal risk for election results.[196]

4.156The aforementioned difficulty in obtaining Australian citizenship is also particularly acute for New Zealanders. The HRLC highlighted that the Trans-Tasman Travel Arrangement which enables New Zealand citizens to work, live and study in Australia indefinitely, ‘does not provide clear and accessible pathways’ to obtain permanent residence and Australian citizenship.[197]

4.157Professor Beck discussed how the path to citizenship can be quite challenging for New Zealanders:

The mechanism for New Zealanders to become an Australian citizens is quite complex and expensive in some cases, so it’s actually very difficult for these people to become citizens. If we made it easier for these people to become citizens, then that’s a very simple pathway forward. If you are an Australian citizen, not only can you vote but you must vote. If there is a desire to expand the franchise, then I think what you might be getting at is making it easier for these people to become Australian citizens.[198]

4.158Significantly, the Committee noted the Department of Home Affairs’ recent announcement of a direct pathway to Australian citizenship. As of 1 July 2023, New Zealand citizens who have been living in Australia for four years or more are now eligible to apply directly for Australian citizenship, and will no longer be required to first apply for and be granted a permanent visa.[199]

Enfranchising Australians abroad

4.159Currently, there is no legislative requirement for the AEC to open overseas voting centres.[200] Nonetheless, in addition to postal voting, the AEC provides in-person voting services for Australians overseas.

4.160In-person voting services are provided through cooperation between the AEC, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) and Austrade. Voting services ‘are dependent on the local environment and may be subject to many constraints including security, health and logistic challenges.’[201]

4.161Voting in a federal election is also not compulsory for Australians overseas.[202] The AEC stated that current electoral legislation ‘acknowledges the specific difficulty of overseas voting by rendering absence from Australia on voting day as one of the few valid and sufficient reasons for not voting.’[203]

4.162To be eligible to enrol to vote overseas, an individual must be an Australian citizen aged 18 years or older and intending to return to Australian within six years.[204] An eligible overseas elector may remain overseas longer if an extension is applied for and approved. According to the AEC, an ‘unlimited number of one-year extensions of registration may be approved if the elector originally intended to resume residing in Australia not later than six years after ceasing to reside in Australia, and they still intend to return to reside in Australia in the future.’[205]

4.163The AEC undertake monthly reviews of eligible overseas electors to identify whose registration expiration date is nearing (a reminder email is sent), whose registration has expired and have not requested an extension (these electors’ enrolment is cancelled). Cancellation decisions are not reviewable under the Electoral Act.[206]

4.164A number of submitters highlighted concerns with this ‘6-year intention rule’. The Australian Greens noted that such intentions for many are either unknown or may change[207], and similarly, ALP Abroad highlighted the fact that when applying for an overseas vote, Australians overseas must indicate when they are planning to return, which is ‘something many voters have no idea of when they leave Australia.’[208]

4.165Professor George Williams noted that other countries do not limit their citizens’ right to vote in this way:

The UK has just removed its limit on expats voting, and we’ve got this really unfortunate and convoluted approach where, if you intend to come back to Australia within six years, you can vote, but who knows what they intend to do? It's a really difficult test. We’re disenfranchising our own citizens in ways other countries don’t.[209]

4.166Furthermore, ALP Abroad asserted that Australians abroad are ‘discriminated against’ by sections 94 and 94A of the Electoral Act, as the rules for enrolling differ for them:

• Australians need to enrol as overseas voters if they are going overseas for an extended period.
• There is a three year limit on enrolling to vote as an overseas voter from overseas when leaving Australia.
• Once off the electoral roll, Australians overseas cannot get back on the roll unless they return to Australia for at least 1 month.[210]
  167. ALP Abroad also highlighted that the requirement to re-enrol every year to vote as an overseas voter and the fact that overseas voting is not mandatory are ‘designed to discourage’ Australians from exercising their right to vote:

Australians raised in a culture of universal compulsory voting assume that they will always be able to vote when overseas and are unaware that they have to take special steps to keep their vote and when they become aware find it difficult to keep themselves enrolled. Australian citizens have a fundamental right to be enrolled to vote in elections taking place in their country and the law needs to be changed to enshrine that right. The current system has effectively restricted the franchise of overseas Australian citizens to those who can overcome the barriers to voting currently in place.[211]

4.168In light of this, ALP Abroad recommended that the Electoral Act be amended so that Australian citizens can enrol as an overseas voter at any time, that this enrolment remain valid and subject to the same provisions as other enrolled voters and that compulsory voting extends to overseas voters.[212]

4.169Similarly, Professor Williams recommended that voting rights be extended to Australians living overseas[213], and Professor Rubenstein stated that the Electoral Act should be amended to allow Australians overseas ‘their continued entitlement to vote without any restrictions.’[214]

The impact of COVID-19 on overseas voting

4.170Due to the pandemic and other international security concerns, the AEC conducted a joint risk assessment with the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and Austrade which resulted in 19 in-person overseas voting centres and an additional 88 overseas embassies and consulates serving as postal vote collection centres.[215]

4.171Usually, the AEC relies on standard post, but due to the reduction of in-person services[216], the AEC, for the first time, engaged a contracted courier to deliver postal votes directly to overseas voters.[217] Postal votes could be returned to overseas missions where they were included in the diplomatic post back to Australia.[218]

4.172The Committee received, however, personal submissions from Australians overseas expressing frustration at the difficulty in casting their vote via mail.[219]

The closure of voting stations

4.173For the 2019 federal election, 85 overseas posts operated, and 60,710 votes were cast overseas. For the 2022 federal election, however, only 19 overseas posts operated, and 41,615 Australians voted from overseas.[220]

4.174The closure of voting stations was deemed as ‘adversely affecting voters in the 2022 election’[221], and drew particular concern from the major political parties:

• The Liberal Party deemed this an unwelcome development, stating that ‘Administering in-person voting services for Australian elections is one of the core functions of our overseas missions’.[222]
• The Australian Greens urged that the number of polling places be re-considered for future elections to improve enfranchisement of those abroad[223], and
• ALP Abroad stated that the AEC ‘failed in its duty to Parliament’.[224]
  175. In explaining why there was such a significant drop in overseas voting stations, the AEC stated:

We worked with DFAT constantly during that period to see what we could possibly do because we were subject not only to our own health orders but to whatever the health orders were in the countries where we offered the vote. In 2019 we offered the vote in, I think, 85 overseas missions and this time it was down to 19. It was purely based on COVID. We had to work with DFAT and whatever the local rules were.[225]

4.176Nonetheless, the AEC stated that it is their intention – assuming there is not a further or ongoing pandemic – to return to previous levels of overseas voting locations[226]:

The intention at the next election—and I’ve already met the relatively new head of DFAT—is to return to full service delivery overseas, with voting in whatever missions we can actually get into at that point, depending on what’s occurring globally.[227]

Lower vote count

4.177The significant disparity between 2019 and 2022’s overseas vote count drew subsequent attention, with the Australian Greens calling this drop in numbers ‘a significant concern’.[228]

4.178In response to this discrepancy, the AEC reiterated the complexity of facilitating overseas voting in the pandemic environment, the reliance on a third party to deliver votes, and that there were fewer voters overseas – a high number of Australians had returned to Australia for that period.[229]

4.179Furthermore, the AEC also noted that overseas voting, irrespective of the circumstances, does entail unique challenges:

… for each election, regardless of the pandemic, there are voters overseas who will miss out because they are not close to an overseas post, an embassy or a high commission or their postal vote doesn’t arrive in time. It’s very challenging, given the short time frames for voting. That happens at elections, regardless of the circumstances.[230]

Young Australians

4.180The Committee also received evidence from a number of submitters on extending the franchise to 16- and 17-year-olds.[231]

4.181It was noted that arguments against the enfranchisement of this cohort often stems from their perceived lack political maturity and knowledge on how government works.[232] Such issues, however, are not contained to just one cohort; rather, a lack of political engagement or knowledge can be found across all Australian age groups.[233]Furthermore, the HRLC observed that young people today ‘have extraordinary access to information, and are more engaged than ever before on issues that affect them and the world that they live in’.[234]

4.182The HRLC also noted that neurological and psychological evidence has indicated that ‘the type of decision-making engaged in deciding who to vote for in elections is mature by age 16.’[235]

4.183A number of submitters highlighted the fact that at 16, young people can - among other responsibilities - work, drive, pay taxes, and yet they cannot cast a vote[236], with Professor Williams stating:

Voting at 16 would be consistent with other changes and opportunities at this age. People under 18 can leave school, get a job, drive a car and pay taxes. They can also enlist in the Australian defence forces, become a parent and, in exceptional circumstances, get permission to marry. If the law permits them to undertake these activities, it is hard to see why they cannot also vote.[237]

4.184There is international precedence with voting in national or local elections occurring from age 16 in Switzerland, Scotland, Germany, Austria, the Philippines, Argentina, Ecuador, Brazil, Norway, and Nicaragua.[238]

4.185There is also historical precedence, whereby in 1973, Australia lowered the voting age to 18, with bipartisan support. This was in line with a number of other countries, including the United Kingdom and the USA, enfranchising 18-year-olds.[239]

4.186In terms of the benefits of enfranchising this cohort, the HRLC remarked that it would induce greater political participation and engagement because it ‘provides a practical foundation for an interest in politics and a willingness to vote, which in turn increases feelings of empowerment and ameliorates a lack of interest in political matters.’[240]

4.187One suggestion is that, were 16- and 17-year-olds to be given the right to vote, it could be done on a voluntary basis.[241] Voluntary voting would serve as an introduction to participating in Australian democracy[242], and would be strengthened when combined with civics education at school.[243]

4.188Nonetheless, there was concern that voluntary voting would not accurately capture the views of this demographic, and that enabling voluntary voting for only one group of voters would ‘erode the bedrock of compulsory voting in Australia.’[244] Indeed, Mr Ben Raue noted how comprehensively embedded compulsory voting is in Australia’s culture and how this view on voting could be affected if it was initially voluntary:

People in this country are culturally trained to vote from the start. We’ve had compulsory voting since before my grandparents were born. I talk to people overseas and it’s so embedded in this country. None of us remember a time when we didn't have it. Maybe that would be a problem about people when they’re first starting not being compulsory. I think we do rely a lot on just people doing it without really being forced to, even though we have it on the books. There is evidence from other countries that, when they try and induce compulsory voting and they don’t have that culture, it’s a lot harder to do because we can’t enforce it against everyone. We mostly rely on the fact that people know that it’s a duty. … I think that is a legitimate concern, and something worth bearing in mind.[245]

4.189Mr Raue also noted how the nature of Australia’s three-year electoral cycles minimally affects 16- and 17-year-olds:

I would also say about the people who are 16 and aren’t excited about this that in the end we’re really talking about half an electoral cycle. I was a 16-year-old living in Werriwa. There was no federal election while I was 16 and 17. I got to vote when I was 18. In the end, these people are going to have to vote a couple of years later anyway. It doesn’t really make a tremendous difference to them. Maybe it’s one more federal election where they’re forced to trudge down to the polling booth and they’re not very enthusiastic about it. They’re going to have to do it anyway in a couple of years.[246]

Committee comment

4.190Ensuring that every Australian can freely and fully exercise their right to participate in this country’s democratic process is the bedrock of Australia’s democracy. This experience of casting a vote, however, often varies, person to person, cohort to cohort, depending on their individual situation.

4.191Submitters have raised numerous suggestions to improve the franchise and in doing so help support every Australian to have the opportunity to vote.

4.192The ‘unsound mind’ provision of the Electoral Act is archaic, discriminatory and arbitrary, and it disenfranchises vulnerable Australians. Such a provision has no place in modern Australian society and the Committee recommends its repeal before the next federal election. This is a view that was shared by a number of submitters.

4.193The Committee recommends the repeal of subsections 93(8)(a) and 118(4) of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918.

4.194The Committee recognises the work the AEC has been doing with its Disability Advisory Committee to improve voting experiences for people with disability.

4.195There is further work that could be done to provide people with disability with independent, secure and accessible voting options and the Committee believes this work is most likely to be successful when it is informed by the views, expertise and experience of the disability community.

4.196The Committee also notes the complexity and difficulty in identifying a voting method that is truly independent, verifiable and secret. In this regard, the Committee acknowledge the promise that electronic voting holds, with new technologies emerging that can better serve a wide range of disabilities. Nonetheless, due to security concerns, it requires further exploration and deliberation.

4.197The Committee recommends that the AEC co-design independent, secure and accessible voting options with disability advocacy organisations and people within the disability community.

4.198In light of the diversity of needs in the disability community and of older voters, the AEC’s current physical accessibility criteria for polling places is limited and requires expansion.

4.199Furthermore, the Committee acknowledges the importance of accessible voting material, and believes the AEC is best placed to standardise such material into accessible formats.

4.200The Committee notes that efforts to improve accessibility should be supplemented by AEC poll-site staff who are appropriately trained in disability awareness and support.

4.201Staff training modules, the expansion of accessibility criterion and the standardisation of voting material should all be co-designed with the disability community to ensure accuracy and suitability.

4.202The Committee recommends that the AEC:

• expand the accessibility standards for both pre-poll and polling centres
• standardise its voting material in accessible formats
• ensure staff in polling centres are appropriately trained in options for assisting people with disability to vote.
  203. Although the Committee acknowledges that telephone voting does not align with the principles of being a fully verifiable and secret vote like a paper ballot does, the Committee agrees with the HRLC’s assessment that its expansion would strengthen the accessibility of voting for many Australians with a disability.
  204. Notwithstanding the welcome return of overseas voting centres to their previous numbers, the Committee considers the expansion of telephone voting a potentially suitable alternative to strengthen accessible voting for Australians overseas when in-person voting is not feasible. In acknowledgement of the AEC’s comments and the complexity in rolling this voting method out, the Committee recommends that the AEC being exploring and canvassing policy and legislative options for telephone voting overseas.
  205. Although the Committee did not receive a large body of evidence pertaining to the expansion of telephone voting to remote communities, the Committee acknowledges the difficulties such communities face when casting a ballot, particularly when pre-polling centres are inaccessible. Enfranchising remote communities generally is further explored in Chapter 2 within the context of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander voters.

4.206The Committee recommends that the Government expand Part XVB of the CommonwealthElectoral Act 1918 to enable more people to vote via telephone, including:

• people with disability (beyond the Electoral Act’s existing provision for blind and low-vision voters)
• Australians overseas but otherwise eligible to vote
• people in remote communities without access to a remote polling station.
  207. The Committee acknowledges the disappointment many older Australians felt towards the general absence of this program during the 2022 federal election due to COVID-19, and therefore welcomes the AEC’s commitment to its reinstatement to pre-pandemic levels for the next federal election.

4.208The Committee recommends the AEC continue to run its mobile polling program for older Australians living in aged care.

4.209The Committee notes that the COVID-19 pandemic presented unique challenges for the AEC in the providing Australians abroad the opportunity to vote in the 2022 federal election and acknowledges the AEC’s effort in adapting to this challenging global landscape.

4.210The Committee also welcomes the AEC’s intention to return to its pre-pandemic levels of overseas voting locations. It is important that Australians overseas are offered as many options as feasible to exercise their right to vote and participate in our democracy, regardless of their location.

4.211Broadly, the administrative burden of voting overseas is an ongoing issue that can induce frustration for this cohort and indirectly disenfranchise them. The 6-year intention rule, for example, is impractical and the Committee agrees that it should be removed.

4.212Although voluntary, the Committee considers that voting overseas should be accessible, explicit and seamless, and therefore recommends that the AEC reduce the administrative burden that overseas voters encounter.

4.213The Committee recommends that the administrative burden of voting overseas is reduced.

4.214The Committee notes the large body of submissions received expressing open concern and opposition towards the enfranchisement of permanent residents.

4.215The Committee also acknowledges that historically, permanent residents have been allowed to vote, and some continue to do so, despite their lack of citizenship. The citizenship qualification is relatively new in Australia’s history.

4.216The Committee believes that in general the desire of people who have chosen to make Australia their home to be able to vote in elections is a positive thing, and that supporting this participation is best achieved by the Australian Government ensuring there are clear pathways to citizenship and associated voting franchise.

4.217The Committee recommends that the Australian Government continue to support people who wish to become Australian citizens and take up their associated voting franchise to do so.

4.218The Committee is pleased by the engagement and passion shown by young Australians towards the democratic process, and acknowledges that some desire the lowering of the voting age to sixteen.

4.219Nonetheless, the Committee is also aware that the latter sentiment is not universal amongst this cohort.

4.220Furthermore, the Committee is also concerned about the introduction of an ‘opt-in’ voting system for young Australians at sixteen, given the potential for this to undermine Australia’s long-standing compulsory voting system and warp the expectations of young Australians about enrolling and voting over their lifetime.

4.221The Committee is keen to see young Australians equipped with knowledge on Australia’s elections and democratic institutions to support them in making an informed vote and believes an enhanced civics education program would best facilitate this.

4.222The Committee recommends that the Australian Government consider ways to strengthen civics education programs in Australian schools to better equip and prepare the next generation of voters to cast their first vote.

Footnotes

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

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

[3]Inclusion Australia, Submission 340, p. 4.

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

[5]Law Council of Australia, Submission 1379, p. 13.

[6]Law Council of Australia, Submission 1379, p. 13.

[7]Law Council of Australia, Submission 1379, pp. 13-14.

[8]Law Council of Australia, Submission 1379, p. 14.

[9]Australian Electoral Commission, Submission 330.10, p. 2.

[10]Inclusion Australia, Submission 340, p 4; Human Rights Law Centre, Submission 418, p. 27.

[11]Law Council of Australia, Submission 1379, p. 27.

[12]Law Council of Australia, Submission 1379, p. 27.

[13]Vision Australia, Committee Hansard, 27 April 2023, p. 4.

[14]Australian National University Law Reform and Social Justice Research Hub, Submission 354, p. 3.

[15]Human Rights Law Centre, Submission 418, p. 27.

[16]Australian National University Law Reform and Social Justice Research Hub, Submission 354, p. 4.

[17]Inclusion Australia, Submission 340, p. 2.

[18]Australian National University Law Reform and Social Justice Research Hub, Submission 354, p. 4.

[19]Human Rights Law Centre, Submission 418, p. 27.

[20]Inclusion Australia, Submission 340, p. 4.

[21]Human Rights Law Centre, Submission 418, p. 28.

[22]Human Rights Law Centre, Submission 418, p. 28.

[23]Human Rights Law Centre, Submission 418, p. 27.

[24]Human Rights Law Centre, Submission 418, p. 27.

[25]Australian Electoral Commission, Submission 330.10, p.2.

[26]Australian National University Law Reform and Social Justice Research Hub, Submission 354, p. 4.

[27]Australian National University Law Reform and Social Justice Research Hub, Submission 354, p. 2.

This is the joint judgment of High Court Justices Gummow, Kirby and Crennan JJ in Roach v Electoral Commission stated that s 93(8) ‘plainly is valid’ as it ‘protects the integrity of the electoral process’.

[28]Australian National University Law Reform and Social Justice Research Hub, Submission 354, p. 3.

[29]Australian National University Law Reform and Social Justice Research Hub, Submission 354, p. 4.

[30]Australian Electoral Commission, Submission 330.10, p. 2.

See paragraph 3.24 for further information on the DAC.

[31]Human Rights Law Centre, Submission 418, p. 28; Australian National University Law Reform and Social Justice Research Hub, Submission 354, p. 4; Inclusion Australia, Submission 340, p. 4; Law Council of Australia, Submission 1379, p. 14. Professor George Williams AO, Submission 7, p. 2.

[32]Australian Federation of Disability Organisations, Committee Hansard, 27 April 2023, p. 4.

[33]Inclusion Australia, Submission 340, p. 4.

[34]Law Council of Australia, Submission 1379, p. 14

[35]Law Council of Australia, Submission 1379, p. 14

[36]Human Rights Law Centre, Submission 418, p. 28.

[37]Inclusion Australia, Committee Hansard, 27 April 2023, p. 4.

[38]Law Council of Australia, Submission 1379, p. 14.

[39]Remedy Australia, Submission 400, p, 15.

[40]Blind Citizens Australia, Submission 409, p. 5.

[41]Remedy Australia, Submission 400, p. 15.

[42]Remedy Australia, Submission 400, p. 8.

[43]Remedy Australia, Submission 400, p. 15.

[44]Remedy Australia, Submission 400, p. 14.

[45]Remedy Australia, Submission 400, p. 12.

Telephone voting is also available for electors who are working in Antarctica.

[46]Australian Electoral Commission, Submission 330.9, p. 2.

[47]Australian Electoral Commission, Submission 330.9, p. 2.

[48]Vision Australia, Submission 415, p. 2; Remedy Australia, Submission 400, p. 14; Blind Citizens Australia, Submission 409, pp. 6-7.

[49]Blind Citizens Australia, Submission 409, p. 5.

[50]Remedy Australia, Submission 400, p. 15.

[51]Vision Australia, Committee Hansard, 27 April 2023, p. 8.

[52]Remedy Australia, Submission 400, p. 16.

[53]Blind Citizens Australia, Submission 409, p. 5.

[54]Blind Citizens Australia, Submission 409, p. 6.

[55]Australian Electoral Commission, Committee Hansard, 3 November 2022, p. 17.

[56]Vision Australia, Submission 415, p. 5

[57]Vision Australia, Committee Hansard, 27 April 2023, p. 8.

[58]Remedy Australia, Submission 400, p. 14.

[59]Human Rights Law Centre, Submission 418, p. 26.

[60]Human Rights Law Centre, Submission 418, p. 26.

[61]Human Rights Law Centre, Submission 418, pp 26-27.

[62]Australian Electoral Commission, Committee Hansard, 3 November 2022, p. 17.

[63]Australian Electoral Commission, Submission 330.10, p. 4.

[64]Remedy Australia, Submission 400, p. 11.

[65]Remedy Australia, Submission 400, p. 14.

[66]Blind Citizens Australia, Submission 409, p. 6.

[67]Remedy Australia, Submission 400, p. 11.

[68]Blind Citizens Australia, Submission 409, p. 6.

[69]Blind Citizens Australia, Submission 409, p. 6.

[70]Blind Citizens Australia, Submission 409, p. 6.

[71]Blind Citizens Australia, Submission 409, p. 7.

[72]Remedy Australia, Submission 400, p. 16.

[73]Dr Vanessa Teague, Private capacity, Committee Hansard, 3 November 2022, p. 51.

[74]Remedy Australia, Submission 400, pp. 15-16.

[75]Remedy Australia, Submission 400, p. 16.

[76]Associate Professor Vanessa Teague, Submission 282, p.10.

[77]Associate Professor Vanessa Teague, Submission 282, p.10.

[78]Remedy Australia, Submission 400, p. 3.

[79]Remedy Australia, Submission 400, p. 17.

[80]Blind Citizens Australia, Submission 409, p. 7.

[81]Council on the Ageing Australia, Committee Hansard, 27 April 2023, p. 17.

[82]Associate Professor Vanessa Teague, Submission 282, p. 11.

[83]Dr Vanessa Teague, Private capacity, Committee Hansard, 3 November 2022, p. 52.

[84]Remedy Australia, Submission 400, p. 18.

[85]Remedy Australia, Submission 400.1, p. 1.

[86]Dr Vanessa Teague, Private capacity, Committee Hansard, 3 November 2022, p. 52.

[87]Dr Vanessa Teague, Private capacity, Committee Hansard, 3 November 2022, p. 52.

[88]Australian Electoral Commission, Committee Hansard, 3 November 2022, p. 15.

[89]Blind Citizens Australia, Committee Hansard, 27 April 2023, p. 5.

[90]Vision Australia, Committee Hansard, 27 April 2023, p. 5.

[91]Law Council of Australia, Submission 1379, p. 12.

[92]Australian Electoral Commission, Submission 330.9, p. 3.

[93]Australian Electoral Commission, ‘Information for people with disability and mobility restrictions’, viewed 25 October 2023, https://www.aec.gov.au/assistance/files/factsheet-disability-and-mobility-voting.pdf.

[94]Australian Electoral Commission, Submission 330.9, p. 3.

[95]Australian Electoral Commission, Submission 330.9, p. 3.

[96]Australian Electoral Commission, Submission 330.9, p. 4.

[97]Australian Electoral Commission, Submission 330.9, p. 3.

[98]Australian Electoral Commission, Submission 330.9, p. 3.

[99]Remedy Australia, Submission 400, p. 12.

[100]Law Council of Australia, Submission 1379, p. 12.

[101]Law Council of Australia, Submission 1379, p. 12.

[102]Law Council of Australia, Submission 1379, p. 12.

[103]Council on the Ageing Australia, Committee Hansard, 27 April 2023, p. 19.

[104]Blind Citizens Australia, Committee Hansard, 27 April 2023, pp. 13-14.

[105]Law Council of Australia, Submission 1379, p. 12.

[106]Law Council of Australia, Submission 1379, p. 13

[107]Blind Citizens Australia, Submission 409, p. 7.

[108]Blind Citizens Australia, Submission 409, p. 7.

[109]Blind Citizens Australia, Committee Hansard, 27 April 2023, p. 9.

[110]Blind Citizens Australia, Committee Hansard, 27 April 2023, p. 9.

[111]Professor Catherine Renshaw and Dr Starla Hargita, Submission 424, p. 2.

[112]Council on the Ageing Australia, Committee Hansard, 27 April 2023, p. 17.

[113]Australian Electoral Commission, Submission 330.10, p. 9.

[114]Australian Electoral Commission, Submission 330, p. 28.

[115]Australian Electoral Commission, Submission 330.10, p. 9.

[116]Australian Electoral Commission, Submission 330.10, p. 9.

[117]Professor Catherine Renshaw and Dr Starla Hargita, Submission 424, p. 3.

[118]Professor Catherine Renshaw and Dr Starla Hargita, Submission 424, pp. 3-4.

[119]Australian Electoral Commission, Committee Hansard, 3 November 2022, p. 4.

[120]Professor Catherine Renshaw and Dr Starla Hargita, Submission 424, p. 4.

[121]Australian Electoral Commission, Submission 330, p. 28

[122]Council on the Ageing Australia, Submission 1382, p.1.

[123]Council on the Ageing Australia, Submission 1382, p.1.

[124]Council on the Ageing Australia, Committee Hansard, 27 April 2023, p. 21.

[125]Council on the Ageing Australia, Submission 1382, p.1.

[126]Council on the Ageing Australia, Submission 1382, p. 2.

[127]Australian Electoral Commission, Submission 330, p. 13.

[128]Australian Electoral Commission, Submission 330, p. 27.

[129]Australian Electoral Commission, Submission 330, p. 26

[130]Zali Steggall OAM MP, Submission 1381, p. 5.

[131]Dr Monique Ryan MP, Submission 414, p. 4.

[132]Professor Catherine Renshaw, Private capacity, Committee Hansard, 27 April 2023, p. 19.

[133]Professor Catherine Renshaw and Dr Starla Hargita, Submission 424, p. 3.

[134]Democracy Matters, Submission 352, p. 2.

Voters can vote early either in person or by post if on election day they: are outside the electorate where you are enrolled to vote; are more than 8km from a polling place; are travelling; are unable to leave your workplace to vote; are seriously ill, infirm or due to give birth shortly (or caring for someone who is); are a patient in hospital and can't vote at the hospital; have religious beliefs that prevent you from attending a polling place; are in prison serving a sentence of less than three years or otherwise detained; are a silent elector, or have a reasonable fear for your safety or wellbeing.

[135]Australian Electoral Commission, Committee Hansard, 6 September 2023, p. 8.

[136]Inclusion Australia, Committee Hansard, 27 April 2023, pp. 6-7.

[137]Blind Citizens Australia, Committee Hansard, 27 April 2023, p. 10.

[138]Vision Australia, Committee Hansard, 27 April 2023, p. 11.

[139]Blind Citizens Australia, Committee Hansard, 27 April 2023, p. 10.

[140]Inclusion Australia, Committee Hansard, 27 April 2023, p. 7.

[141]Inclusion Australia, Committee Hansard, 27 April 2023, p. 10.

[142]Inclusion Australia, Committee Hansard, 27 April 2023, pp. 5-6.

[143]Inclusion Australia, Committee Hansard, 27 April 2023, p. 6.

[144]Law Council of Australia, Submission 1379, pp. 14-15.

[145]Law Council of Australia, Submission 1379, p. 13

[146]Australian Electoral Commission, Submission 330.9, p. 3.

[147]Australian Electoral Commission, Submission 330.9, pp. 3-4.

[148]Australian Electoral Commission, Submission 330.9, p. 4.

[149]Blind Citizens Australia, Committee Hansard, 27 April 2023, p. 15; Vision Australia, Committee Hansard, 27 April 2023, p. 15; Australian Federation of Disability Organisations, Committee Hansard, 27 April 2023, p. 15.

[150]Blind Citizens Australia, Submission 409, p. 8.

[151]Blind Citizens Australia, Committee Hansard, 27 April 2023, p. 7.

[152]Blind Citizens Australia, Submission 409, p. 9.

[153]Inclusion Australia, Committee Hansard, 27 April 2023, p. 7.

[154]Inclusion Australia, Committee Hansard, 27 April 2023, p. 4.

[155]Blind Citizens Australia, Submission 409, p. 8.

[156]Vision Australia, Submission 415, p. 8.

[157]Blind Citizens Australia, Committee Hansard, 27 April 2023, p. 5.

[158]Inclusion Australia, Committee Hansard, 27 April 2023, p. 5.

[159]Professor Catherine Renshaw and Dr Starla Hargita, Submission 424, p. 5.

[160]Australian Federation of Disability Organisations, Committee Hansard, 27 April 2023, p. 13.

[161]Inclusion Australia, Committee Hansard, 27 April 2023, p. 5

[162]Remedy Australia, Submission 400, p. 17

[163]Australian Federation of Disability Organisations, Committee Hansard, 27 April 2023, p. 12.

[164]Australian Electoral Commission, Submission 330, p. 25; Australian Electoral Commission, Submission 330.9, p.1.

[165]Australian Electoral Commission, Submission 330.9, p.1.

[166]Australian Electoral Commission, Submission 330.9, p.1.

The DAC also the following disability peak bodies: Australian Federation of Disability Organisations, Australian Human Rights Commission, Blind Citizens Australia, Council for Intellectual Disability, Deaf Australia, National Disability Insurance Agency, National Ethnic Disability Alliance, and Vision Australia.

[167]Australian Electoral Commission, Submission 330.9, p.1.

[168]Greg Smith, Submission 1273, p. 1; Kevin Doyle, Submission 1455, p. 1; Name withheld, Submission 353, p. 1; Name withheld, Submission 398, pp. 1-2; Stella Young, Submission 347, p. 1; Alan Dormer, Submission 1194, p. 1; Vote Australia Incorporated, Submission 305, p. 4.

[169]Thomas Derum, Submission 1229, p. 1; Jeremy Buxton, Submission 315, p. 1; Martin Cole, Submission 1313, p. 1; Sebastian Ferrando, Submission 670, p. 1.

[170]The National Party of Australia, Submission 399, p. 5;Andrew Hirst Liberal Party of Australia, Submission 382, p. 7; NSW Young Liberals, Submission 374, p. 1.

[171]NSW Young Liberals, Submission 374, p. 2.

[172]Professor Joo-Cheong Tham, Submission 377, p. 1.

[173]Professor Joo-Cheong Tham, Submission 377, p. 2; Dr Elisa Arcioni, Submission 215, pp. 1-2.

[174]Dr Elisa Arcioni, Submission 215, pp. 1-2.

[175]Human Rights Law Centre, Submission 418, p. 36; Electoral Reform Society of South Australia, Submission 392, p. 6.

[176]Professor Joo-Cheong Tham, Submission 377, p. 3.

[177]Professor Joo-Cheong Tham, Private capacity, Committee Hansard, 17 October 2022, p. 5.

[178]Andrew Hirst Liberal Party of Australia, Submission 382, p. 7.

[179]Professor Luke Beck, Private capacity, Committee Hansard, 17 October 2022, p. 5.

[180]Professor Kim Rubenstein, Submission 375, p. 5.

[181]The Australia Institute, Committee Hansard, 26 October 2022, p. 6.

[182]Human Rights Law Centre, Submission 418, p. 38.

Foreign citizens who were enrolled prior to the aforementioned date are allowed to vote in federal and local government elections as well as referendums.

[183]Professor Anne Twomey, Submission 407, p. 5.

[184]Professor Anne Twomey, Submission 407, p. 5.

[185]Professor Anne Twomey, Submission 407, p. 6.

[186]Professor Anne Twomey, Submission 407, p. 6.

[187]Human Rights Law Centre, Submission 418, p. 37.

[188]Professor Luke Beck, Private capacity, Committee Hansard, 17 October 2022, p. 5.

[189]Australian Greens, Submission 432, p. 12.

[190]Department of Home Affairs, Citizenship processing time, viewed 14 September 2023, https://immi.homeaffairs.gov.au/citizenship/citizenship-processing-times/citizenship-processing-times.

[191]Travis Jordan, Submission 245, p. 20.

[192]Human Rights Law Centre, Submission 418, p. 39; Accountability Roundtable, Submission 343, p. 13; FUSION Science, Pirate, Secular, Climate Emergency, Submission 304, p. 5.

[193]Andrew Hirst Liberal Party of Australia, Submission 382, p. 8.

[194]The Australia Institute, Committee Hansard, 26 October 2022, p. 6.

[195]The Australia Institute, Submission 412, p. 3.

[196]Andrew Hirst Liberal Party of Australia, Submission 382, p. 7.

[197]Human Rights Law Centre, Submission 418, p. 38.

[198]Professor Luke Beck, Private capacity, Committee Hansard, 17 October 2022, p. 5.

[199]Department of Home Affairs, Direct pathway to Australian citizenship for New Zealand citizens, viewed 20 October 2023, https://immi.homeaffairs.gov.au/news-media/archive/article?itemId=1085.

[200]Australian Electoral Commission, Committee Hansard, 3 November 2022, p. 14.

[201]Australian Electoral Commission, Submission 330.10, p. 3.

[202]Australian Electoral Commission, Submission 330.10, pp. 2-3.

[203]Australian Electoral Commission, Submission 330.10, p. 4.

Unique circumstances that can hinder a person from voting can include those in transit overseas, travelling city to city, or cruising on the water.

[204]Australian Electoral Commission, Submission 330.10, pp. 2-3.

[205]Australian Electoral Commission, Submission 330.10, p. 4.

[206]Australian Electoral Commission, Submission 330.10, p. 4.

[207]Australian Greens, Submission 432, p. 12.

[208]ALP Abroad, Submission 338, p. 5.

[209]Professor George Williams, Private capacity, Committee Hansard, 17 October 2022, p. 21.

[210]ALP Abroad, Submission 338, pp. 4-5.

[211]ALP Abroad, Submission 338, p. 5.

[212]ALP Abroad, Submission 338, p. 5.

[213]Professor George Williams AO, Submission 7, p. 2.

[214]Professor Kim Rubenstein, Submission 375, p. 2.

[215]Australian Electoral Commission, Submission 330, p. 28.

[216]Australian Electoral Commission, Committee Hansard, 8 March 2023, p. 12.

[217]Australian Electoral Commission, Submission 330, p. 28.

[218]Australian Electoral Commission, Committee Hansard, 3 November 2022, p. 5.

[219]Adrian McMahon, Submission 1380, p. 1; Laura Phillips, Submission 6, p.1.

[220]Australian Electoral Commission, Committee Hansard, 8 March 2023, p. 12.

[221]Law Council of Australia, Submission 1379, p. 15.

[222]Liberal Party of Australia, Submission 382, p 1.

[223]Australian Greens, Submission 432, p. 11.

[224]ALP Abroad, Submission 338, p. 5.

[225]Australian Electoral Commission, Committee Hansard, 3 November 2022, pp. 4-5.

[226]Australian Electoral Commission, Committee Hansard, 28 September 2022, p. 9.

[227]Australian Electoral Commission, Committee Hansard, 3 November 2022, p. 5.

[228]Australian Greens, Submission 432, p. 11.

[229]Australian Electoral Commission, Committee Hansard, 8 March 2023, p. 12.

[230]Australian Electoral Commission, Committee Hansard, 8 March 2023, p. 12.

[231]Mr Ben Raue, Private capacity, Committee Hansard, 23 June 2023, p. 20; Professor George Williams AO, Submission 7, p. 3; Human Rights Law Centre, Submission 418, pp. 32-36; Stephen Bates MP, Submission 368, pp.1-3; Australian Greens, Submission 432, pp. 11-12; NSW Council for Civil Liberties, Submission 359, p. 5; Dr Monique Ryan MP, Submission 414, p. 5; Thomas Maxwell, Submission 2, p. 2.

[232]Professor George Williams AO, Submission 7, p. 3.

[233]Professor George Williams AO, Submission 7, p. 3; Mr Ben Raue, Private capacity, Committee Hansard, 23 June 2023, p. 20.

[234]Human Rights Law Centre, Submission 418, p. 34.

[235]Human Rights Law Centre, Submission 418, p. 33.

[236]Professor George Williams AO, Submission 7, p. 3; Stephen Bates MP, Submission 368, p. 2; Australian Greens, Submission 432, p. 11; NSW Council for Civil Liberties, Submission 359, p. 5; Dr Monique Ryan MP, Submission 414, p. 5; Human Rights Law Centre, Submission 418, p. 33.

[237]Professor George Williams AO, Submission 7, p. 3

[238]Professor George Williams AO, Submission 7, p. 3.

[239]Stephen Bates MP, Submission 368, p. 1.

[240]Human Rights Law Centre, Submission 418, p. 35.

[241]Professor George Williams AO, Submission 7, p. 2.

[242]Mr Ben Raue, Private capacity, Committee Hansard, 23 June 2023, p. 20; Human Rights Law Centre, Submission 418, p. 35.

[243]Professor George Williams AO, Submission 7, p. 3. Human Rights Law Centre, Submission 418, p. 35.

[244]Human Rights Law Centre, Submission 418, p. 35.

[245]Mr Ben Raue, Private capacity, Committee Hansard, 23 June 2023, pp. 23-24.

[246]Mr Ben Raue, Private capacity, Committee Hansard, 23 June 2023, p. 24.