• Have undercover areas outside polling booths for voters in times of wet or hot weather • Have sufficient area outside the polling booth where signage can be displayed without causing lack of traffic visibility and constrained passing foot traffic on foot paths • Remove pre-poll requirements i.e. No different status required for pre-poll voters • Remove ALL booth volunteers off the booths and have HTV cards displayed or made available for voters – inside booth area or inside the 6-meter exclusion zone • Impose a cap on signage per candidate. Some pre-poll booths were heavily impacted by excessive signage from some candidates/parties, leaving no room for others to display • AEC provide a COST V BENEFIT report on all pre-poll booths to stop unnecessary budget over-spend
2: ELECTRONIC ELECTORAL ROLLS
In the 2016 Federal Election, over 18,000 voters voted more than once. Voters voted at one polling booth then repeated the process at other booths in the same electorate. The current system of paper-based electoral rolls is not inter- connected, so cross- checking between booths is not possible.
These ‘multiple-voters’ are an example of fraud that takes advantage of the shortcomings of paper-based electoral rolls, rather than a memory lapse by ‘political-tragics’. The concern is that extra (fraudulent) votes affect outcomes in tight- run election races. While these repeat offenders have been asked to ‘please explain’ no-one has been prosecuted.
“NSW, the most populous state, recorded 6760 instances of apparent multiple voting, compared with 4800 in Victoria and 2792 in Queensland. The Northern Territory recorded the fewest instances with 178. Despite nearly 8000 cases of suspected voting fraud at the 2013 federal election, “(2)
If electoral offenses are not able to be punished, the practice will continue. Paper-based electoral rolls are compromised and replacement by electronic electoral online rolls is needed. The following recommendations are suggested to reduce the number of fraudulent voters
• The implementation of an ONLINE interconnected NATIONAL ELECTRONIC ELECTORAL ROLL
An online, interconnected national Electronic Electoral Roll for Federal Elections, and the equivalent in State Elections, that digitally marks the voter’s name off the roll when voting, will eliminate ‘multiple- voting- fraud’
3: MANDATORY VOTER IDENTIFICATION TO REDUCE VOTER FRAUD
No personal identification is required to vote in federal elections. This lack of identification has allowed voters to abuse the system by voting under another person’s name and address.
After the 2016 federal election, 18,343 people were asked to explain why their name had been ticked off more than once. Despite the Australian Federal Police receiving 7743 allegations of voter fraud, only 65 were investigated and not one person was convicted.
3
Many establishments require identification to access their premises; sporting clubs, RSL clubs, nightclubs and surf clubs. Voting is one of the most important responsibilities of citizens. To ensure the system is not compromised by voter fraud, personal identification is an imperative.
Naturally there has been some resistance from those arguing on behalf of minorities who may not be able to produce identification. Labor and the Greens head the pack of howlers about ‘disenfranchisement’ of marginalized people yet offer no alternative solution. Over the past 10 years, the issue of voter ID has been discussed, debated and deleted. (3,4)
The Queensland State Government introduced voter identification in 2015. The system didn’t collapse; the process was simple and the negative impact on voter turnout was minimal at just 1.1%. If you live and vote in Queensland, an acceptable form of ID can be one of several documents, which every Australian of voting age, will hold. (5)
A national voter ID card, however, with a unique voter-number (VN) could be issued and required when voting.
• A “NO VN = NO VOTE” campaign to be run 12 months out from next Federal Election to allow voters to request or register for voter ID • Voters without a VN refused voting rights and their details recorded for follow-up
It is suggested that Voter-identification in the form of a unique Voter Number (VN) should be a requirement of all future Federal Elections to ensure electoral-system security and integrity
4: ELECTRONIC ONLINE VOTING
In the 18 May 2019 election, 830,000 Australian cast informal votes for the lower house, on paper-based ballot papers. (6)
Online electronic voting would help reduce the number of informal votes through mandatory ‘fill-boxes’ similar to other online registration processes. The current model of paper-based ballot slips, manual scrutineering and counting of votes comes at a huge cost to taxpayers, is time consuming and it is subject to human error. There are many benefits for online/digital voting;
• Decreased cost to taxpayers • Better access for people with disabilities • Reduced number of informal votes • Reduced human error in counting votes • Delivery of election results faster • Eliminating voter fraud thru electronic rolls and voter ID • Reducing the environmental impact of paper-based materials • To bring voting in line with other digital transactions • To run elections in times of national lock-downs due to health or security concerns
The need for system safety and security of electronic elections is also important. In the digital world where personal banking, confidential communications, online education, share trading, international money transfers, management of 4 border security, international relations and other ‘sensitive’ activities are conducted online, encrypted online electronic voting is possible and preferable to the current paper-based, manual system.
A Joint Standing Committee (JST) in 2014 noted the following benefits of online voting:
• provision of a secret ballot for blind and low-vision voters • easier delivery of remote voting services and • secure ballot-handling
The JST reported there were equal concerns surrounding costs, transparency, integrity and security with some believing if the ‘system isn’t broken, don’t try and fix IT’ (7). If it isn’t broken – questions should be asked why there are so many inconsistencies and cases of fraud?
Secure and encrypted online electronic voting is possible and preferable to the current manual, paper-based process which is open to fraud and human error.
5: OPTIONAL PREFERENCTIAL VOTING
In the May 2019 Federal Election, votes were only counted as ‘formal’ when they met AEC requirements. This meant marking EVERY box on the ballot slip, allocating preferences to candidates the voter would NOT ordinarily support.
Numerically this advantages major parties where preference deals have been arranged - many without voter’s knowledge. An example is the consistent and regular 80% + preference flows from Greens candidates to Labor candidates. (Of lower impact, but still relevant, are preference flows from minor conservative candidates to major party candidates.) (8)
There are three ways votes can be assessed. Each has advantages and disadvantages; however, one method is truly democratic and more accurately reflects voters’ intentions – i.e. Optional Preferential Voting (OPV). (9) The three options to access votes are:
• One vote – one value. (first past the post regardless of 50% + majority) • Optional preferential voting (numbering 1 or more preferred candidates) • Mandatory preferential voting (numbering every candidate whether preferred or not)
Mandatory Preferential Voting was the system of the House of Reps. In the May 2019 Federal Election where every square on ballot papers had to be filled to record a formal vote.
“Full preferential voting sets a high bar for voters. Preferences must be expressed for all candidates, whether known or unknown. To have their first preference counted as formal, voters must distinguish between every candidate on the ballot paper, even between candidates equally disliked, as well as between every serial nutjob who has managed to get on the ballot paper. “(10)
MPV has been in place since 1919 and has historically benefited the Liberals over Labor, however that changed in the 1980’s, with Labor benefiting from their close association with The Greens. Overall, optional preferential voting has a principled advantage over full preferential voting in cutting the informal rate, and in not forcing voters to express preferences they don’t have.
5
MPV have also been misused as a net-transfer of votes by ‘hostile preferencing’ against other parties and candidates in an act of virtue signaling, retaliation or as a way of addressing political grievances. While voters are reminded ‘preferences belong to them’ many still faithfully follow party HTV cards.
MPV has often returned an ‘upset result’ in elections where the candidate with the most primary votes is defeated by collective coercion by others. A good example is the 2018 Wentworth by-election. Dave Sharma (Liberal) polled 43.08% of PV, Dr Kerryn Phelps (Independent) 29.19% PV. Kerryn Phelps won the seat on the back of preferences from Labor, the Greens and other ‘independents, yet Dave Sharma polled, by far, the most primary votes. (11)
In the November 2017 Queensland State Election, preferencing by One Nation against sitting LNP members, resulted in a net-transfer of conservative votes across to Labor, assisting them (Labor) to win seats and form a majority government.
Optional Preferential Voting will help reduce major party’s ability to ‘deal-out-of-the-electoral-process’ independent and minor-party candidates. It will also place democratic voter intentions back into the hands of voters themselves.
6: CHANGES TO CANDIDATES ‘HOW TO VOTE’ CARDS
In the May 2019 Federal Election, candidate How-To-Vote (HTV) cards were NOT required to display the candidate names AND the party (or independence) they represented. Ballot Papers display these details at the polling booths. This inconsistency should be addressed to remove voter ‘accidental or deliberate confusion’.
Volunteers and candidates handed out HTV cards in the May 2019 Federal Election, with ONLY their party (or independence from political parties) clearly marked, and all others listed with ‘name only’. A good proportion of voters seem to be disengaged, making voting a ‘hit-and-miss’ affair for this sector of the Australian community.
Too many voters were unaware of their electorate or the candidates running in their electorate, and therefore HTV cards played an important role in informing them.
Labor voters rightly expected that their preferences would go to Greens or other ‘progressive’ candidates with similar policy positions. It was confusing for some conservative voters, however, that during the May 2019 Federal Election no party was displayed under candidates’ names and on inquiring further information (about the other candidates) that some Liberal Ballot papers preferenced Labor above other minor party conservative candidates. In several instances’ frustrations were expressed to Rite-ON! booth volunteers, that the ‘conservative’ HTV card they were handing out was poorly thought-through. They were confused (and some were openly angry) that the preferences recommended by their party of choice, were being directed towards Labor.
Worth noting is that GetUp handed out HTV cards with the Labor and/or Green candidate names and parties clearly marked, but all other candidates listed name only. GetUp were not seeking election, only supporting their preferred candidate/s. Rite-ON! on the other hand, handed out HTV with the candidates AND party names clearly marked to provide transparency and avoid unnecessary confusion.
There were also other actors on the booths who were handing out ‘Value Score Cards’ which further confused voters, and other handing out general information about policy impacts on Self-Funded Retirees or Vegetation Legislation on rural voters.
6
• All HTV cards should display both the candidate name AND the political party – or independence • All HTV cards should be marked clearly ‘NOT a Ballot Paper’ • No other ‘confusing- information- slips’ should be allowed, other than recommended and registered HTV cards • All HTV cards should be made available within the polling booth area supervised by AEC staff • NO HTV cards should be handed to voters by booth volunteers or ‘political-actors, such as GetUp’ • Booth volunteers and all other ‘political actors’ should be banned from polling booths
Consistency between HTV cards and Ballot Papers will remove voter confusion and also highlight preferences made by major political parties, giving voters MORE information, and therefore, choice how they will complete their ballot slip
7: POLITICAL ADVERTISING, BOOTH VOLUNTEERS AND ADVERTISING MATERIALS
7:1 Political Advertising
During the May 2019 Federal Election, we saw the rise of Clive Palmer’s United Australia Party with big spending in advertising, and a bevy of young paid- booth-volunteers. (12)
This was the start of what appeared to be ‘democracy by the dollar’ in a spending-spree that was not able to be matched by any other political party or candidate. Road signs, television and radio advertising and social media blitzes – no expense was spared. Whereas it did not result in buying a Senate Seat for Mr. Palmer himself, or indeed getting any candidate elected to either houses of parliament, it did signal a definitive shift in our democracy, towards giving those with deep pockets and significant funding sources an unfair advantage.
The ability of conservative candidates and parties to fund-raise for elections was restricted by some state laws (e.g. Queensland) while Labor and the Greens parties had access to funding from the Unions, GetUp and other progressive groups. Prior to 1 January 2019, some of these groups had received significant funding from overseas. (e.g. GetUp). This created an unfair advantage for this side of the political divide, and therefore the among spent on political advertising and paid staff. Whereas it could be argued that Clive Palmer levelled the playing field somewhat in the May 2019 Federal Election, the amount of advertising should be capped to deliver fairness and equal opportunity.
We suggest that: Political advertising spend should be capped for each candidate and each political party
7:2 Booth Volunteers
Premium position on polling booths were secured early in the day in many instances, by volunteers who then did not allow others equal access to voters by other volunteers.
On booths where Rite-ON! volunteers were working throughout pre-poll and on election day, paid booth workers for UAP were present, however, most were young people who were more interested in socializing than working, and some young UAP girls clearly ‘dressed to attract attention’. While UAP booth volunteers mainly acted with respect and good manners, the same cannot be said about some GetUp volunteers.
On the booths in the electorate of Dickson, GetUp volunteers were highly visible, and some engaged in hostility towards voters and booth volunteers. Some GetUp volunteers mislead voters with regards the reduced health spending, others harassed voters standing in queues, and some advised voters not to take HTV cards on the basis ‘they were racist’ cards. 7
Many engaged in ‘scripted conversations’ clearly aimed at influence and intimidation, working along waiting queues of voters.
We suggest that: Booth volunteers are unnecessary to the electoral process and should be removed off all polling booths.
7:3 Volume of advertising material
While there are AEC rules on the size of signage, places where they cannot be placed, there is NO restriction on numbers of signs in any given space. During the May 2019 election, the number of (legal under the AEC rules) signs was overwhelming, and in some cases restricted movement of people and vehicles. Those candidates and parties with large budgets covered all available spaces, shading out others.
Late in the evening of Friday 17th May, large groups from the major parties commandeered premium space at the major polling booths. Security staff were placed overnight in some areas, to protect this material from being vandalized by the opposing team. Large areas of available fence space was dominated with hundreds of meters of plastic wrapping leaving little space for any other candidate to display signage. Corflute signs left overnight were destroyed or removed totally in a bid to ‘silence the opposition’ and give their team an unfair advantage. The situation of display advertising got totally out of hand.
In addition to the cost of producing large numbers of signs, there must be consideration given to the environment when disposing. Some signs and plastic wrapping were dumped in areas that impacted vegetation and wildlife. A ban on plastic wrapping should be considered. It is costly to candidates and parties, and costly to the environment.
7:4 Unacceptable behaviour and a new ‘Code of Conduct’
The May 2019 Federal Election exposed unacceptable behaviors, and in particular the attacks from GetUp on their ‘hit- list’ of conservative politicians. In total 16 sitting members were targeted with derogatory and untruthful campaigns aimed to intimidate, damage and destroy lives and reputations.
In particular, GetUp’s hate-filled campaign against Tony Abbott in Warringah was appalling, and most fair-minded Australians were disgusted. GetUp’s actions against Nicole Flint in Boothby also caused this MP significant mental anguish, and she reported feeling unsafe in her own home environment as people associated with GetUp stalked her. The hate campaign against Peter Dutton was also a new level in political lows with his family’s safety being threatened. On the booths in Dickson we observed three (3) plain clothed AFP Officers standing-off the booths, stationed to keep him safe. At no stage did GetUp target ANY Labor or Greens sitting member or threaten their safety. (13)
This part of our political process has become toxic and does not serve the nation’s majority, or the nation itself. The tactics of GetUp are similar to that of other (international billionaire) George Soros funded international organizations. GetUp’s foundation board in Australia included Bill Shorten, with seed funding supplied by the AWU and later the CFMMEU along with cash injections from George Soros and other ‘international-climate-change’ organizations. It follows their focus is to change the political landscape in Australia, and until 1 January 2019 were able to accept large cash donations from overseas to achieve this.
We suggest that: Restrictions on advertising materials/signs per candidate be imposed, all plastic wrapping banned, and caps be placed on advertising spend. Unacceptable behavior on booths and in election activities should be clarified and specified in a new ‘Code of Conduct’ under AEC rules.
8
8: REPORTING TRANSPARENCY AND OVERSEAS FUNDING
The AEC requires all donations over the amount of $13,800 to be declared by all parties participating in Federal Elections. These parties include candidates, political parties, political campaigners and other independent third party- disclosure entities (such as Rite-ON!).
We believe this transparency is critical to ensure that those participating in elections are not acting on behalf of outside or international interests, in order to change Australian election outcomes. Funding of political activist groups is a critical component that facilitates influence in Australian politics. Of these groups GetUp has in the past, received significant overseas funding from overseas sources. (14,15)
On 1 January 2019, legislation came into effect that prohibited any of the groups participating in Australia’s electoral process to accept overseas funds. (16)
AEC reporting requirements for the year 2018-2019 included a change in legislation halfway through the reporting year.
It is noted that in the Political Campaigner Disclosure Report to the AEC, GetUp listed a donation of $495,000 from the Sunrise Project, and another donation of $92,998 from the European Climate Foundation in Den Haag, Holland. It is known that the donation from Sunrise Project happened several days prior to the new legislation coming into effect, however it is not known when the overseas donation from the European Climate Foundation was received by GetUp.
An inquiry was put to the AEC to secure the date of this donation, however they advised they did not require this information – in a year when legislation changed that was specific to donations after 1 January 2019.
This is a failure of the AEC to properly reflect government policy. We suggest that proof this donation of $92,998 from the European Climate Foundation in Holland, be requested from GetUp by the JSCEM, to ensure transparency and to ensure it was received PRIOR to 1 Jan 2019 in line with the new legislation.
We suggest that: To ensure legislation is upheld by the AEC, full disclosure of donations should also include dates of receipt, in anticipation of ‘date-sensitive’ legislative changes in the future. GetUp should also be required to provide this further evidence for donations during the 2019 Federal Election year, on request from the JSCEM.
9
9: CONCLUSION
Our experience engaging in several elections, but in particular the May 2019 Federal Election as a ‘third-party’ and not a candidate or political party, gave us an opportunity to critically observe the way our elections have changed over a period of time. While many aspects are exemplary and professional, others, if changed would improve the transparency and security of the electoral process and would create a better voter experience – and therefore an increased willingness by them, to be politically engaged.
Therefore, we conclude:
• Pre-poll period should be reduced to max 2 weeks and be classified as ‘an election-period’ • Pre-poll booths needs to be chosen with more focus on suitability and cost • All electoral rolls should be electronic and interconnected • Voter ID is an imperative • Online electronic voting should be considered for ALL future elections • HTV cards should have consistent candidate information with that of Ballot Papers • All booth volunteers should be banned • A cap should be placed on political advertising expenditure and display materials • The AEC should advise a guide to ‘acceptable political campaigning behaviour’ • Political Reporting must include dates donations were received
References:
1. https://www.riteon.org.au/federal-electoral-reform/ 2. https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/more-than-18000-people-asked-to-explain-why-they-voted-twice-at- election-20161019-gs5cal.html 3. https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/government-mps-call-for-mandatory-voter-identification-at-federal- elections-20181205-p50kfb.html 4. https://www.afr.com/news/politics/new-voter-id-rules-recommended-for-federal-elections-20181205-h18s7s 5. https://theconversation.com/queenslanders-now-have-to-prove-their-identity-to-vote-but-why-35956 6. https://www.news.com.au/technology/online/expert-says-there-are-830000-reasons-to-change-the-way-we- vote-at-federal-elections/news-story/fbab0f17876ef19e76a8c9c5971e24e1 7. https://www.aph.gov.au/About Parliament/Parliamentary Departments/Parliamentary Library/pubs/Briefing Book45p/ElectronicVoting 8. https://www.aec.gov.au/Elections/candidates/files/ballot-paper-formality-guidelines.pdf 9. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-01-10/green-the-case-for-preferential-voting/4459594 10. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-01-10/green-the-case-for-preferential-voting/4459594 11. https://www.abc.net.au/news/elections/wentworth-by-election-2018/commentary/ 12. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-05-21/clive-palmer-55m-federal-election-ad-spend/11135636 13. https://www.riteon.org.au/getups-election-failure-may-2019/ 14. https://www.riteon.org.au/get-up-their-socialist-left-connections/ 15. https://www.riteon.org.au/getup-exposed-who-are-they/ 16. https://www.aph.gov.au/About Parliament/Parliamentary Departments/Parliamentary Library/pubs/BriefingB ook46p/PoliticalFinance
10
Thanks to the JSCEM for accepting this late submission.
With Regards
11