After every Federal Election the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters holds an inquiry into the conduct of the election. Submissions are welcome from anyone. They differ widely---in some cases a handwritten letter one page long, in others a full scale academic article. The Committee Secretariat scans the paper copy into.PDF image and posts it on the internet. (It would be better if the documents submitted in electronic form were posted in that form - then they would be searchable.) The submissions relating to the 2004 election are now available at http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/em/elect04/subs.htm. They give an insight into the experiences and thoughts of politically aware citizens. The submissions can be grouped under the following topics:
Postal voting
Needs of disabled voters
Electronic voting
Prevention of fraud
Registration and naming of parties
Commercial use of electoral rolls
False advertising
Political discussion on the internet
Political funding
Compulsory voting
Optional preferential voting
"Above the line" voting
Robson rotation
Proportional Representation
Four year and fixed terms
Quality of political debate
Some submissions complain that privacy may be lost because so much information has to be provided on the outside of the envelope containing the ballot (see Stan Lewin, submission 29). The AEC presents a history of the envelopes and details the various problems that have arisen. It points out that already voters concerned about privacy may enclose their vote in two envelopes, the postal vote certificate envelope and an outer envelope merely addressed to the AEC. It proposes that votes submitted in an outer envelope but not within the postal vote certificate envelope should count as valid.
A number of submissions relate to the needs of blind and other disabled voters. See submissions 50, from People with Disability, and submission 68, from NSW Disability Discrimination Legal Centre. These submissions argue that disabled voters must be able to access political information, attend the polling place (if they choose), mark the ballot paper in private and put their vote in an independently verifiable voting box or receptacle, without having to rely on the help of another person. To achieve these things they suggest the increased use of Braille and the internet for dissemination of information (in audio and visual form). Like those who made submissions on postal voting problems, those concerned with the needs of the disabled advocate electronically assisted voting (see submission 68 again, submission 45, from RPH Adelaide, and submission 48, from George Williams and Bryan Mercurio).
US experience of electronic voting has shown that it has its hazards. See submission 48 and "Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT)". The vote must actually be audited by hand-counting the paper ballots. The real use of the computer is in printing ballots and doing a rapid preliminary count. Computers are used already in counting ballots; see submission 52 from Peter Brun (last page) on the difficulty for a scrutineer in checking the process.
Another set of submissions are concerned with the prevention of fraud -- fraudulent registration (e.g. in last minute registrations in marginal electorates), fraud in the casting of votes (such as multiple voting). A clear treatment of these topics is given by the Festival of Light, in submission 125, sections 2 and 5. Evidence casting doubt on the accuracy of the electoral roll is presented by Peter Brun (submission 52), Bruce Kirkpatrick (submission 35, in an attachment not posted on the website) and by David Patton (submission 123). Various suggestions are made---applicants for registration should have to produce proof of identity and proof of residence, electoral rolls should close immediately the election date is announced, provisional voting should be abolished, voters should have to produce identification, a voter should have to vote in a particular sub-division, etc. See submissions 6 (Stanley Roth), 30 (Alison Cousland), 35 (Bruce Kirkpatrick), 36 (Juliet Kirkpatrick), 52 (Peter Brun), 89 (Eric Jones), 92 (The Nationals Federal Secretariat), 95 (Liberal Party of Australia, Federal Secretariat), 120 (Jackie Kelly), 125 (Festival of Light), 128 (Phillip Ruddock).
On the other hand Geoff Gallop (submission 60) argues that stricter voter identification rules would disfranchise poorer people and indigenous voters. Brian Costar and David Mackenzie (submission 105) and Homeless Persons' Legal Clinic (submission 131) argue the importance of not disfranchising homeless people and propose that the "itinerant voter" provisions of the electoral act should be reviewed. The Liberal Party of Australia wants prisoners disfranchised (submission 95); Brian Costar argues against this (submission 106), and also against the closing of voter registration on the date of issuing the election writs. These two points are also made in submission 119, by Jon Stanhope.
Some submissions are concerned with and fraudulent or misleading practices in the registration or naming of political parties. There are complaints against "Liberals for Forests" (The Nationals Federal Secretariat, submission 92, and Bronwyn Smith, submission 38). The Nationals argue that new parties should not be allowed to use names that include components of the name of existing or former political parties. (Comment: This might have disallowed "Democratic Labor Party" and "Democrats". How far back should the history go? --- there were "liberal" and "national" parties in Australia before WWII.) The Nationals also argue that the number of supporting voters required for the registration of a political party should be increased. On the other hand, submission 121 from the Democratic Labor Party (which still exists!) argues that a party seeking registration should not be required to disclose the identities of any of its supporters, a requirement not imposed on parties that have existing members of Parliament. See also submission 73 (Anthony Green) on the definition of political party membership and the rules for registering parties.
As a footnote on the subject of electoral rolls, there are a number of submissions on the availability of the Electoral Roll for commercial purposes: Several submissions argue that the Electoral Roll should be available for use in credit assessments; see 70 (Australian Institute of Credit Management), 109 (Australian Financial Conference). Other submissions complain about the use of the electoral roll for marketing purposes; see 113 (Lawrence Milburn). Submission 104 (from Peter Van Onselen and Wayne Errington) draws attention to the use of the Electoral Roll as the basis of the major parties' databases of information on constituents.
False advertising is complained of in submissions 39 (Bob Brown), 48 (George Williams and Bryan Mercurio), 103 (Waverley Greens), 107 (Australian Greens), 111 (Tasmanian Greens), 112 (Helen Hutchinson), and 124 (Braidwood Greens). (Comment: None of these submissions discusses the problem thoroughly. Perhaps there would not be much risk to the freedom of political discussioni if candidates and parties were penalized for making false statements about rival parties or candidates. But it would be difficult to draw a line between falsely attributing a certain policy to a party and falsely claiming that its policies would lead to some bad result. Only the first kind of falsehood should be penalized.)
Political discussion on the Internet. Submission 44 (John Quiggin) argues against the application to internet sites of Section 328 of the Electoral Act, which requires anyone who publishes material relevant to an election to identify themselves and provide an address. See also 117 (David Edgar). Submission 59 (William Bowe) is concerned with the possible application of defamation law to internet sites. Submission 89 (Eric Jones), on p. 7, argues that telemarketing and internet material should conform to the authorization standards for political advertising.
There are several submissions on political funding and the use of parliamentary allowances. See submission 97 (Democratic Audit of Australia), pp. 2-3 and 15, which suggests there should be upper limits to campaign expenditure, upper limits to individual donations and prohibition of purchase of air time, that incumbents' use of taxpayer-funded staff should cease when an election is called, and that use of printing and postal allowances on electioneering should be prohibited. The Liberal Party of Australia (submission 95) argues that the threshold for declaration of political donations should be raised and that tax deductibility of political donations should be increased. Submission 114 (Trevor Khan), pp. 3-7, points out that a candidate may accept the tax-funded "payment per vote" without seriously fighting the election, thereby diverting public money to their own use; he suggests that payment should be limited to what was actually spent on the campaign. Submission 125 (Festival of Light), p. 5, argues that there should be no payment of public money per vote. Submission 130 (Peter Andren) argues that in the tax deductibility of donations and liability to GST, political parties are given more favourable treatment than independents. The JSCEM is conducting a separate inquiry on disclosure of donations.
Michael Doyle (submission 13) argues against compulsory voting. His arguments turn on definitions---voting is a "right", therefore something that need not be exercised; "freedom" excludes compulsion; attending the polling booth and getting your name crossed off is not "voting". (Comment: Definitions should not shape what we do, only the language we use. And in fact there are some rights that sometimes ought to be exercised (e.g. a parent's rights), an action can be both free and obligated. As for "compulsory voting", let's just take this as shorthand for the requirement to attend the polling place and get your name crossed off the list. That this is in a strict sense not "voting" is not a reason against the requirement.) Two other submissions also oppose compulsory voting: submission 21, from G. H. Schorel-Hlavka, and 66, from Michael Wilson.
Several submissions support compulsory voting: 33 (Beverley Stubbs), 22 (Ilona Renwick), 40 (Christopher Bayliss), 56 (John Kilcullen), 58 (Lisa Hill and Jonathon Louth), 60 (Geoff Gallop), 125 (Festival of Light, p. 5). Submission 58 refutes an argument based on statistics of voter turnout in various countries that compulsory voting does not much raise voting participation: Hill and Louth argue that in countries where compulsory voting has good institutional support and enforcement, the turnout is significantly higher than in voluntary voting countries with otherwise similar institutions and standards of law enforcement. Submission 125 points out that the US government spends large sums of money in an attempt to persuade citizens to vote for the party of their choice, and that such advertising may deliberately not target categories of voters expected to favour certain candidates. Submission 56 (page 7) argues that an end to compulsory voting would inevitably lead to "turnout campaigning", involving an intensification of partisan feeling, a direction of political energies away from persuasion to locating supporters, and violations of voter privacy as political parties try to gather information on voters' likely intentions. (Privacy is already an issue with campaigns concentrated on undecided voters in marginal seats; see submission 104, from Peter Van Onselen and Wayne Errington.)
There are a number of submissions arguing in favour of Optional Preferential Voting and against compulsory preferential voting, i.e. the obligation to number every square on the Senate ballot paper. See submissions 15 (Anne Bailey), 18 (Peter Bayliss), 22 (Ilona Renwick), 37 (Garry Meehan), 40 (Christopher Bayliss), 42 (Brian McRae), 56 (John Kilcullen), 69 (Colin Hughes), 73 (Anthony Green), 81 (S.A. Ward), 100 (Electoral Reform Society of South Australia), 107 (Australian Greens), 108 (John Wright), 118 (Danna Vale).
In favour of compulsory preferential voting, Eric Jones (89, page 4) suggests that optional preferential voting is a move toward a "de facto" first past the post system. (Comment: The objection to "first past the post" is that in some circumstances voters may be forced into "tactical" voting and the tactic may misfire. This objection does not apply to optional preferential voting, because in similar circumstances voters can if they choose indicate an order of preferences.) John Cherry (submission 96) favours compulsory preferential voting because otherwise the last vacancy may be filled with less than a quota. (Comment: Why should this matter?)
A number of submissions criticize "above the line" (ATL) voting for the Senate, because the preferences of ATL voters are allocated, usually without their knowledge, in accordance with preference deals among the parties. See the submissions of Ilona Renwick (22), John Kilcullen (56), Gerald Breen (65), Michael Wilson (66), Dino Ottavi (67), Helen Hutchinson (112), Braidwood Greens (124), the Festival of Light (125), and there are others. (See also Anthony Green's article in the SMH.) Some advocate retention of ATL voting, but with the provision that voters who use it must (or may) indicate preferences above the line, and that preferences of ATL voters be distributed only in accordance with the preferences they indicate. See the submission by Bob Brown (submission 39) and a number that support his submission (submissions 75, 76, 77, 79, 80, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 90, 102, 103, 111, 116). Criticism of Brown's proposal is made by the Electoral Reform Society of South Australia (submission 100, on p. 5). They advocate that ATL voting simply be abolished in favour of optional preferential voting.
Robson Rotation: Submission 19 (Marcus Beresford), refers to "random rotation of names on ballot papers". Submission 56 (John Kilcullen), p. 3, advocates "Robson rotation" in the printing of ballot papers and in the allocation of ATL votes (if that system is retained) as a means of enabling those voters who have a preference among a party's candidates to determine which of those candidates is elected. Submission 100 (Electoral Reform Society of SA), p. 4, advocates "Robson rotation" as a way of canceling out the "donkey vote".
Proportional Representation for the House of Representatives as well as the Senate is advocated in submissions 19 (Marcus Beresford) and 107 (Australian Greens). Two submissions recommend that Proportional Representation be the object of an inquiry: 56 (John Kilcullen) and 127 (Glenn Ryall).
Four-year terms and fixed terms: Submission 66 (Michael Wilson) advocates a four-year term for both the House of Representatives and the Senate. Submission 107 (Australian Greens) argues for a fixed term, because the PM's power to set the election date gives the government an unfair advantage. For the same reason submission 127 (Glenn Ryall), p. 17, argues for a fixed three year term. Submission 56 (John Kilcullen), p. 6, argues that if a fixed term is adopted, it should still be possible for the Prime Minister to call an election short of term if she/he loses the confidence of the House or important government legislation is defeated. Similar provisions exist in most of those States in which a fixed term has been adopted.
My own submission (Kilcullen, submission 56) is concerned with the quality of political debate in this country, as this is influenced by the electoral system. The excessive focus on undecided voters in marginal electorates needs to be corrected. Ways are suggested for giving parties and candidates reason to take every voter seriously in every electorate:- the obligation to attend the polling place should remain, but the ballot paper should have a box for "I do not wish to vote" and a space for comment (the undecideds should not be pushed into voting); ATL voting should be abolished and expression of preferences should be optional (so that parties that want second preferences will have to persuade voters to give them); ballot papers should be printed according to the "robson rotation" (so that voters who support a party but not any particular candidate will not be channeled toward the party's preferred candidate---the candidate will need to campaign effectively); parties should nominate at least two candidates for each H or R seat (so that the election will incorporate a "primary"). In addition, between elections there should be parliamentary sponsorship of "deliberative polling" and discussion meetings between the local (sub-)branch members of the rival political parties. (For a recent use of the "deliberative polling" technique in Canada see "Canada's new voting system" on Crikey.com.au.)
Return to Improving our Political System
Return to Teaching
Materials on Politics
Return to Home
Page