Chapter 2 Issues in the Bill
During the inquiry into the Electoral and Referendum Amendment
(Improving Electoral Procedure) Bill 2012 (the Bill) the committee focused its
attention on certain key issues in the Bill that it felt warranted closer
attention: proposed changes to postal voting arrangements, nomination
requirements, and provisions that prevent a person from being an elector if
they are of ‘unsound mind’. These issues are discussed in this chapter.
The Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 (the Electoral Act) provides
for various means by which Australians can vote for their federal
representatives. In addition to attending a polling place on Election Day,
electors can vote prior to Election Day in person at a pre-poll station or by
To vote by post, electors can register as General Postal Voters—if they
meet certain criteria—and the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) will automatically
send them a postal vote package (PVP), which contains the relevant ballot
Section 184 of the Electoral Act provides that an elector (a person who
is on the Commonwealth Electoral Roll) can also apply for a postal vote for a specific
election. The application is to be made to a Divisional Returning Officer
(DRO). A DRO is an AEC officer who is responsible for maintaining the roll
and conducting the election in a particular division.
The majority of postal vote applications (PVAs) are processed through
the Automated Postal Vote Issuing System (APVIS). The AEC uses three production
and delivery methods for PVPs: central print, local print or hybrid print. The
AEC advised that central print, involving the centralised automated production
and dispatch of PVPs on behalf of the AEC by a contracted provider, is the most
common method for producing and distributing PVPs. The AEC also noted that for
the next federal election, the changes in the Electoral and Referendum
Amendment (Modernisation and Other Measures) Act 2010 provide for online
PVAs, which will also feed into APVIS.
The Bill proposes to make certain changes to postal voting procedures.
In particular, proposed amendments in Schedule 1 will give the Electoral
Commissioner primary responsibility for postal voting, and provide a
legislative basis for the centralised processing of applications and
distribution of PVPs. It will also enable a ‘person’ rather than an ‘elector’
to apply for a postal vote and to receive a PVP. The AEC will not have to
establish that the applicant is on the electoral roll before the PVP can be
The AEC stressed that the changes proposed to postal voting are ‘not
about changing fundamentally any of the current processes for dealing with
postal vote applications’.
These changes are intended to have the current practices reflected in the
Electoral Act. The AEC advised:
This is primarily an amendment that is designed to reflect
the fact that the application for postal vote information system is now highly
centralised while the act reflects a postal vote processing system which was
designed 100 years ago. All we are trying to do here is get an act that
reflects the practice.
Replacing references to ‘elector’ with ‘person’
At the roundtable discussion on 16 July 2012, the AEC explained that the
intention behind allowing a ‘person’ rather than an ‘elector’ to apply and
receive PVPs, is to ‘to give maximum opportunity for a person who is applying
for a postal vote to get the postal vote certificate material as quickly as we
The AEC advised the committee that in practice, it already sends PVPs to
‘all applications who have submitted a correctly completed postal vote
application’. Each applicant’s
enrolment status is reviewed prior to issuing the PVP. Applicants who are found
on the electoral roll are classified as ‘matched’, and those who cannot be
matched to an enrolment record or for PVAs outside Australia, are classified as
‘unmatched’. For the 2010 federal election, of the 967 010 PVPs issued,
30 534 were unmatched. Following scrutiny of postal voter certificates
(PVCs) returned, 24 437 were subsequently matched to an enrolment record
and admitted to the count.
Completed ballot papers received from postal voters will still be
subject to further scrutiny. The AEC advised that the process is similar to
that currently in place for other declaration votes:
If a person goes to a polling place and cannot be found on
the electoral roll, then they are given an opportunity to put in a provisional
vote. Subsequent checking as to whether they are on the roll occurs at scrutiny
stage. ... The checking of the enrolment status is done as part of APVIS,
up-front. For those that cannot be matched, we do not remove the opportunity
for them to cast a ballot—in the same way that a person casting a provisional
vote at a polling place is given an opportunity to cast a ballot. When the
postal vote certificate comes back we then seek further information to
determine whether the person is validly on the roll. If they are—for some
reason they were not on the certified list—then the vote will be admitted. If
they are not, then the vote is not counted.
Replacing references to DROs
In response to questioning on the substitution of ‘Divisional Returning
Officer’ with ‘Australian Electoral Commissioner’ for the purposes of receiving
PVAs, the AEC explained that:
Under the legislation as it stands at the moment, the primary
responsibility for dealing with postal vote applications is with divisional
returning officers. All the amendments that are included in schedule 1 of the
bill replace the DRO with the Electoral Commissioner and a delegate of the
Evidence from the AEC indicated that postal vote applications are
already being processed through a central system. For the 2010 federal
election, the AEC issued 957 322 PVPs, with 891 125 (93 per cent) of
these issued through the central print system. The AEC advised:
Over the last decade, the system has been that the data is
entered through data processing operators right across Australia in every
divisional office and indeed some of our state offices because of the large
volumes. That data is then transmitted to a central system, APVIS, and the
APVIS collects all of that data and makes decisions about whether the postal
vote certificate will be sent to a central printer for printing and dispatch or
whether it will be sent back to a divisional returning officer to dispatch the
postal vote certificate.
The AEC conceded that it had received advice in 1999 that the
centralised processing of PVAs was acceptable under the Electoral Act. The
AEC’s current approach to the centralised processing of PVAs could continue if
the amendments proposed in the Bill were not passed:
Mrs BRONWYN BISHOP: It goes to the divisional office
now. What happens under this proposal?
Mr Killesteyn: Exactly the same; it will not change.
Mr Killesteyn: That allows for that, but it is
primarily a centralised process where the data is collected from all of our
data entry points across Australia. The data is then centralised into our APVIS
and the APVIS processes the data and makes the decision about how the postal
vote certificate should be issued, whether it is issued by a major despatching
house or whether it is issued by our divisional returning officers.
Mrs BRONWYN BISHOP: Before I return to the second
reading speech of the minister, which is now in some danger of being incorrect,
is that process you have just described happening now?
Mr Killesteyn: Yes.
Mrs BRONWYN BISHOP: Right. So you did not need any
change to the legislation for that to occur?
Mr Killesteyn: We had some advice back in 1999 that
the centralised processing was acceptable under the act.
However, the AEC argued that it sees the changes proposed in Schedule 1
as an opportunity to reflect the current practice.
The AEC commented:
We wanted to make sure all the processes were being correctly
reflected in the act so that we had no issue with our administrative practices
being at all argued to be different to what was in the act.
The AEC contended that this change reflects ‘the modern drafting
approach where ultimate responsibility rests with the Chief Executive Officer
and functions and powers are delegated as appropriate’.
The EM stated:
The effect of these amendments is to enhance the flexibility
to delegate processing tasks to a greater range of officers.
The Electoral Commissioner confirmed that he would delegate powers in
relation to postal voting to DROs and other AEC officers:
Mrs BRONWYN BISHOP: So you are giving me an
undertaking today that you will in fact delegate to DROs?
Mr Killesteyn: Indeed.
Mrs BRONWYN BISHOP: Good. So there will be no attempt
to not delegate to them? I accept your word that you will delegate to DROs.
Mr Killesteyn: The process that you see as a member of
parliament or, rather, will see as a candidate, where you would take your
postal vote applications to your local office, will still be there.
Mrs BRONWYN BISHOP: Good. As the chair has pointed
out, this is evidence under oath, so I accept that that will continue to occur.
The changes proposed in the Bill in relation to postal voting seem to
largely reflect existing AEC practices.
In the case of issuing postal vote packages to a ‘person’ rather than
specifically to an ‘elector’, the AEC has indicated that it already issues PVPs
to (unmatched) applicants that are not found on the electoral roll at the time
of application. The unmatched postal vote certificates returned are then
subjected to further scrutiny and admitted to the count only if the person’s
electoral record can be matched. The committee agrees that this is in keeping
with the approach taken with declaration voters who can make a declaration vote
which is then subject to further scrutiny before their vote is admitted or
The other key change in Schedule 1 of the Bill is to provide that PVAs
be returned to the ‘Electoral Commissioner’ rather than the ‘Divisional
Returning Officer’. The committee accepts the Electoral Commissioner’s
assurance that he will delegate his powers in relation to postal votes to DROs
and other AEC officers. This change will not affect the way in which
individuals and political parties interact with their DROs on postal voting
Postal vote applications and political parties
One of the issues not covered in the Bill, but raised in evidence to the
committee, is the practice of political parties distributing postal vote
applications. It involves PVAs being
mailed out with accompanying material about the party’s candidates. The
completed applications are returned to the political party, which make a record
of the applicant’s details in the party database before forwarding the
application to the AEC.
In previous inquiries, submitters have expressed concern about this
practice. In particular, that it is misleading as recipients may assume it is
from the AEC, and that returning the application to the political party rather than
directly to the AEC delays the issuing of the PVP to the applicant. Proponents of
the practice argue that it provides a service to electors.
The matter was also discussed in the second Electoral Reform Green Paper.
For many years this was accepted as standard practice by the political
parties. Of the 967 010 PVAs received by the AEC, a significant number
were forwarded by political parties, including the Australian Labor Party
(254 678), Liberal Party (231 101), the Nationals (10 365) and
However, during the committee’s inquiry into the conduct of the 2010
federal election, the ALP and the Australian Greens expressed support for a
change. In its report on that inquiry, the committee recommended legislative
change ‘to provide specifically that completed postal vote application forms
must be returned directly to the Australian Electoral Commission for processing’
The committee acknowledged the importance of candidates and political
parties being able to communicate with electors, and supported candidates and
political parties being able to distribute postal vote applications and
campaign material to electors. To address the fact that if applications are
returned directly to the AEC, the parties would no longer receive data on
electors, the committee recommended enabling the AEC to provide prescribed
information to the candidates and political parties for elections in the
elector’s division (recommendation 14). The Liberal Party and
the Nationals objected to changing the current practice.
The Government has not addressed recommendations 13 and 14 in the Bill.
As noted in the EM and the Special Minister of State’s second reading speech,
the proposed changes implement recommendation 12 for the automated distribution
At the roundtable on 16 July 2012, the committee discussed whether the
changes to postal voting procedure proposed in the Bill could affect the
practice of political parties issuing and receiving completed PVAs. The AEC clarified
that this was not the intent of the changes in the Bill, stating ‘this bill
will not have any impact on the way in which political parties currently issue
postal vote applications’. The AEC confirmed that:
It does not contemplate and nor does it seek to change the
way in which political parties send out postal vote applications to whoever
they see fit, along with whatever political advertising they wish. There is no
attempt in this bill to change that at all.
The AEC explained that a proposal to provide that postal vote
applications be returned directly to the AEC was contained in the Electoral and
Referendum Amendment (Modernisation and Other Measures) Bill 2010. However, that
amendment was withdrawn by the Government prior to that Bill’s passage through
the Senate. The AEC stated:
So as the act currently stands, with the amendments that are
proposed here, it is not possible for the Electoral Commissioner to prevent the
political parties sending out the PVAs, receiving them back and then forwarding
them on to the AEC. There is no change.
If the Bill is passed, the AEC anticipates that political parties will
be able to provide PVAs to their DROs, as is currently the practice. The AEC
Political parties will be able to take those postal vote
applications to the divisional office and it has already been arranged that the
divisional office—in fact it happens every election and we are already planning
for it to happen at the next election—will data enter all of those postal vote
application details, both those that are submitted directly by the public to
the divisional office and those by political parties.
At the roundtable discussion the committee asked the Electoral
Commissioner to put on record that the Bill would not affect political party processes
in relation to PVAs:
CHAIR: Let us just get it from Mr Killesteyn, who is
the relevant officer. Might I say that it is relevant if he gives evidence on
oath before a committee as to what his interpretation is if he subsequently
does something different.
Mr Killesteyn: You can see from attachment 3 to our
submission, which details the postal vote application process that will be in
place for the next election and certainly was in place for the elections prior
to that, that there is no intention—
Mrs BRONWYN BISHOP: I do not want an intention. You
will not do it?
Mr GRIFFIN: No, there is no legal capacity, is there?
That is the point.
CHAIR: Is it your view that there is no legal capacity
at the moment?
Mr Killesteyn: That is my view, but nor is there an
intention. This is not an attempt to deal with this particular issue. This is
simply an attempt to clarify the existing legislation to reflect current
Mrs BRONWYN BISHOP: So there would be no attempt to
find anything under this current bill, and you would in no way attempt to
prevent political parties having the postal vote applications come back to them
and then go in to be processed by you.
Mr Killesteyn: There will be no attempt to do
The committee notes the AEC’s assurance that these changes will not impact
on political parties’ ability to: distribute postal vote applications with
accompanying campaign material, receive completed applications, and collect
elector data from applications. Changes to this practice would require explicit
Part XIV of the Electoral Act sets out certain requirements for those
seeking to nominate as a candidate for Senate and House of Representatives
Schedule 2 of the Bill proposes to make changes to increase the amount
of the nomination deposits required, the number of nominators needed by
prospective candidates who are not endorsed by a political party, and the
number of electors needed to support each unendorsed Senate candidate who
request to be part of a Senate group.
Proponents of these changes argue that they will assist with addressing
concerns about the growing size and complexity of ballot papers, by acting as a
disincentive to potential candidates without serious electoral prospects. The
Democratic Audit of Australia commented:
Some Senate ballot papers are now so large that they cannot
be laid flat in the polling booth and the necessary folding risks the casting
of an accidental informal vote.
The Electoral Act prescribes the layout for House of Representatives and
Senate ballot papers. As the number of candidates, in the Senate in particular,
have increased it has led to expanding ballot papers. In the 2010 federal
election, the NSW Senate ballot paper contained 84 candidates distributed
across 33 columns. It was 1020 millimetres wide, which is the widest ballot
paper that can be printed as a single sheet. This involved reducing the font
size on the ballot paper to 8.5 point.
Any increases in candidates and columns on future ballot papers would
see the AEC further reducing font sizes and hyphenating names, and voters
casting their vote over more than a metre of paper.
During its inquiry into the 2010 federal election, the committee also
noted concerns about the increasing number of House of Representatives
candidates, and the potential for large numbers of candidates to impact on
electors being able to cast a valid vote as they must keep track of and correctly
mark their preferences.
Under the current arrangements, a candidate for the Senate and House of
Representatives must pay the AEC a deposit sum of $1 000 and $500,
respectively. The nomination deposits are returned to the candidate or their
agent in certain circumstances, for example, if their nomination is rejected,
the candidate dies before polling day, or if they receive at least four per
cent of first preference votes.
In its report on the conduct of the 2010 federal election, the committee
considered the matter of nomination deposits. It noted that there have only
been moderate rises in nomination deposits since 1918. The last change was in
2006, raising the Senate and House of Representatives nominated from $700 and
During that inquiry, the committee considered whether nomination
deposits could be used to address concerns about the challenges associated with
increasing numbers of candidates and the resulting more complex ballot papers. The
committee concluded that nomination deposits ‘should be an amount that does not
unduly hamper participation, but acts as a deterrent to frivolous candidacies’.
The committee recommended increasing the nomination deposits to $2 000 for
the Senate and $1 000 for the House of Representatives. 
Opposition members of the committee did not oppose the increase to nomination
deposits in the report.
The Special Minister of State indicated that the Bill seeks to implement
the committee’s recommendations 31 and 32 to increase the nomination deposits.
Nominators for unendorsed candidates
Candidates endorsed by political parties are only required to be
nominated by the registered officer of the political party.
To be registered as a political party, the party must have at least 500 members
or have at least one member in Commonwealth Parliament.
Incumbent Independents seeking to run again in the new election only require
the nomination of one elector.
A candidate who is not endorsed by a political party (an unendorsed
candidate) must be nominated by at least 50 electors.
Schedule 2 of the Bill proposes to amend subsection 166(1) to require a minimum
of 100 electors to nominate an unendorsed candidate.
Nominators for Senate groups
The Senate voting system provides voters with two options for casting a
vote: above the line (group ticket voting) and below the line (indicating all
preferences). If voting above the line, the elector must mark only one box of
their preferred political party or group. The political party or group lodges
up to three voting tickets with the AEC, which indicate the order in which
preferences will be allocated.
Electors who choose to vote below the line must indicate all their
preferences. In some cases, there may be a large number of candidates. If an
elector’s preferred candidate is not a part of a political party or Senate
group, then they will have to vote below the line if they which to give a first
or particular preference to that candidate.
The AEC tally room figures for the 2010 Senate federal election indicate
that a significant majority of electors cast their vote above the line,
particularly in states with a large number of Senate candidates. For example,
in NSW (84 candidates) and Victoria (60 candidates), 97.76 per cent and
97.01 per cent, respectively, voted above the line. Even in the ACT, with only
nine candidates, 75.93 per cent of electors voted above the line.
Given the high percentage of electors voting above the line in Senate
elections, it can be seen as desirable for candidates to have a group box. The
AEC noted that a ‘significant dimension of Senate candidature has been the
increase in the number of groups (endorsed and unendorsed) contesting Senate
elections, which has risen from a total of 82 groups in 1993 to 136 in 2010’.
In addition to political parties having group tickets, two or more
unendorsed Senate candidates may apply to have their names grouped and appear
above the line on the ballot paper. Currently at least 50 electors are needed
to nominate the group. Schedule 2 of the Bill
proposes changing this requirement to at least 100 electors for each candidate
in the group.
The AEC advised that these changes would not affect endorsed candidates.
Concerns about the size of ballot papers
In evidence to the committee, the AEC confirmed that the expansion and
complexity of ballot papers is a problem, stating that ‘we are reaching a point
where, if the candidates increase in New South Wales with the restrictions that
we have on the size of the ballot paper, the type size will become so small
that it will cause considerable difficulty’. The size of the ballot
papers also increases the complexity of the task of voting.
The Explanatory Memorandum stated:
The Bill does impose deposit and nominator thresholds that
must be met by candidates, but these are reasonable and are balanced against
the need to provide a ballot paper that is easy to use and readable.
The AEC noted that when introduced in 1905, the original nomination fee
of £25 was a ‘fairly significant amount of money’, which reflected that
nominating as a candidate represented a serious commitment.
Electoral Reform Australia supported increasing nomination deposits and felt
that the increases proposed in the Bill did not go far enough, and called for each
candidate to deposit $10 000, with no distinction made between the Senate
and House of Representatives. FamilyVoice also supported
the proposed increase, arguing that:
... the current amount of the deposit has proved ineffective
in dissuading candidates with little prospect of electoral support, especially
candidates for the Senate, from nominating.
Some submitters opposed increasing nomination deposits, suggesting that
it is ‘exorbitant and unjust’, and that the increase discriminates
against those with limited resources. The Australian Democrats
argued that the current arrangements ‘appear to be realistic and workable’, and
expressed concern about the impact that the increase would have on minor
parties. The cumulative deposit amount when nominating many candidates could be
Nominators for unendorsed candidates
The Democratic Audit of Australia supported the increase in nominators
required for unendorsed candidates and suggested an increase to 200 nominators
rather than to 100 as proposed in the Bill. The Democratic Audit of Australia
I think people who are going to run for parliament—whether it
is the Senate or the House of Representatives or state parliament or whatever—should
be able to show—and this is pretty commonplace around the world—that they have
a degree of nominated support.
Similarly, FamilyVoice agreed that an increase in the number of
nominators for unendorsed candidates is justified, stating:
The proposed changes would be useful in deterring candidates
for election who do not have any significant measure of support in the
community. If a candidate cannot find 100 electors to nominate him or her then
there is little prospect of the candidate being elected.
Other submitters opposed the doubling of the number of nominators
required for unendorsed candidates, arguing that the increase is excessive and
posed an unfair barrier to entry. Further, Electoral
Reform Australia stated that the increase ‘would not achieve a reduction in the
number of candidates standing for election’.
Nominators for grouping unendorsed Senate candidates
In the case of six unendorsed candidates seeking to form a Senate Group
the required nominators would be 600, which is more the 500 required for a
registered political party. Some submitters argued that it was disproportionate
to require a Senate Group to produce more supporters than a group of party
endorsed candidates. FamilyVoice proposed that the nominators required for a
Senate Group should be at least 500 electors.
While having a variety of candidates is a feature of Australia’s
democracy, having a large number of candidates leads to an expanded ballot
paper and increases the complexity of the voting task for electors. Setting
appropriate nomination requirements is one way to help ensure that prospective candidates
appreciate the seriousness of their participation in the electoral process, and
that they can demonstrate community support for their candidacies.
At the core of discussions on changes to nomination arrangements must be
the objective of striking the right balance between providing the opportunity
for Australians to take part in elections and having reasonable requirements to
reflect that political candidacy is a serious matter.
Increasing the nomination deposits from $1 000 to $2 000 for
Senate candidates, and from $500 to $1 000 for House of Representatives
candidates is reasonable and appropriate.
It is important that an unendorsed candidate be able to demonstrate
community support for their candidacy. Endorsed candidates are able to
establish this indirectly by the fact that they have been endorsed by a
political party that has met the registration requirement of having at least
500 members. The committee supports increasing the nominators required for new
unendorsed candidates from 50 to 100 electors. If these candidates wish to put
themselves forward as prospective representatives, then it is reasonable that
they should demonstrate some engagement with their electors and support for
The growing complexity of the Senate ballot paper in some states merits
looking at ways to help ensure it is as user friendly as possible for electors.
One important aspect of this is to keep above the line voting as a relatively
straight forward option. It is therefore appropriate that each member of a
Senate group be able to demonstrate community support for the grouping.
Changes to the ‘unsound mind’ exemption
The phrase ‘unsound mind’ was included in the Commonwealth Franchise
Act 1902 and has survived in the current Electoral Act.
Subsection 93(8) of the Electoral Act provides:
(8) A person who:
reason of being of unsound mind, is incapable of understanding the nature and
significance of enrolment and voting; or
been convicted of treason or treachery and has not been pardoned;
is not entitled to have his or
her name placed or retained on any Roll or to vote at any Senate election or
House of Representatives election.
The AEC may not object to a person’s enrolment on the grounds of
subsection 93(8)(a). It is usually someone
close to the individual who will raise an objection and seek to have that
person recognised under subsection 93(8)(a), and be ‘excused from the
obligation of compulsory enrolment and compulsory voting’.
A certificate from a medical practitioner is required before an elector can be
removed from the roll.
Sections 115-118 of the Electoral Act require that the following steps be
taken before a person can be removed from the electoral roll based on 98(3)(a):
n a written objection
must be lodged by an enrolled elector (often
a family member, friend or medical practitioner);
n the objection must be
accompanied by a medical certificate ‘stating that in the opinion of the
medical practitioner, the elector, because of unsoundness of mind, is incapable
of understanding the nature and significance of enrolment and voting’; and
n the DRO must give
notice of the objection to the person whose enrolment has been challenged, and
provide them with a chance to respond.
The AEC provided the committee with statistics on the number of electors
removed from the electoral roll under subsection 93(8)(a) over the last four
financial years. Totals of electors removed are outlined in Table 2.1.
A significant spike in removals is evident in the 2010-2011 financial year
during which the 2010 federal election was held.
Table 2.1 Electors removed from the Commonwealth
electoral roll under s. 93(8)(a)
Submission 2.1, p. 5.
In recent years certain groups and individuals have criticised the use
of the phrase ‘unsound mind’. This issue was
considered in the Government’s Electoral Reform Green Paper: Strengthening
Australia’s Democracy. It was stated in the paper:
On its face, the exclusion from the franchise for persons of
‘unsound mind’ could be viewed as the removal of those persons’ right to vote.
Others might view this exclusion as a necessary way to protect the integrity of
the electoral system from the harm that may be caused by votes cast by persons
who are not able to understand the nature and significance of voting. In
practice, however, no test for ‘soundness of mind’ is conducted when a person
seeks to enrol or approaches a polling booth on election day. In practice the
provision is ‘used’ when a person raises a concern with the AEC about another
person, initiating a formal process which may result in the removal of the
second person from the electoral roll. These concerns are generally raised by
persons close to the elector in question, and motivated by what they see as the
best interests of the person concerned, for example protecting them from having
to respond to repeated penalty notices for failure to vote at successive
The Roach v Electoral Commissioner  HCA 43, which focused
on the restrictions on prisoners from casting a vote, also considered the issue
of disqualification from enrolment and voting on the basis of an ‘unsound
mind’. Chief Justice Gleeson stated:
The rationale for excluding persons of unsound mind is
obvious, although the application of the criterion of exclusion may be
imprecise, and could be contentious in some cases. The rationale is related to
the capacity to exercise choice.
Justices Gummow, Kirby and Crennan also commented on the appropriateness
of disqualification on the grounds of an elector being of ‘unsound mind’:
Paragraph (a) of s 93(8) of the Electoral Act disentitles
those who are incapable of understanding the nature and significance of
enrolment and voting because they are of unsound mind. That provision plainly
is valid. It limits the exercise of the franchise, but does so for an end apt
to protect the integrity of the electoral process. That end, plainly enough, is
consistent and compatible with the maintenance of the system of representative
Schedule 3 (items 3, 4, 10 and 11) propose changes to the ‘unsound mind’
provision, which will provide for:
n removal of the term,
‘unsound mind’; and
n a broader range of
appropriate qualified persons (including a medical practitioner, a
psychiatrist, a psychologist and a social worker) to provide a statement
(instead of a medical certificate) concerning an elector’s capacity to
understand the nature and significance of voting.
The AEC observed that in its dealings with disability groups, there has
been ‘very strong feeling about the use of the term’ within that community.
People with Disability Australia (PWD) agreed in general terms that the phrase
is problematic and supports its removal from the Electoral Act. It submitted:
In law, the term “unsound mind” is a label used to describe a
person who has been judged to lack the functional capacity to make rational
choices. In terms of the practical application of the legislation under review,
this label is usually applied to people with an intellectual and/or
psychosocial disability and/or a degenerative brain condition, and it is that
specific group of people that the legislation is intended to target.
While acknowledging that the proposed changes are intended to address
concerns in the community about the term ‘unsound mind’, PWD suggested that the
whole provision needed review. PWD did not support the
changes proposed in Schedule 3 of the Bill, and instead advocated repealing
paragraph (a) in its entirety, on the basis that:
... it permits a restriction to the right of people with
disability to political participation. This is direct discrimination and a
human rights violation (Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (DDA), Convention on
the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, International Covenant on Civil and
The PWD argued that even if the phrase ‘unsound mind’ was removed and
replaced with more neutral wording, as proposed, it would still indirectly
discriminate against people with intellectual and/or psychosocial disabilities,
and potentially older people.
In its submission, PWD referred to the United Nations Thematic Study
on Participation in Political and Public Life by Persons with Disabilities,
which found that:
Article 29 of the CRPD [Convention of the Rights of Persons
with Disabilities] “does not foresee any reasonable restriction, nor does it
allow any exception for any group of persons with disabilities. Therefore, any
exclusion or restriction of the right to vote on the basis of a perceived or
actual psychosocial or intellectual disability would constitute “discrimination
on the basis of disability” within the meaning of Article 2 of the Convention
Australia has ratified the Convention of the Rights of Persons with
Disabilities. Article 29 seeks to ensure that people with a disability ‘enjoy
the right to vote, stand for election and hold office on an equal basis with
others’. The AEC noted that the
Human Rights Branch of the Attorney-General’s Department has raised the issue
of the inclusion of the term ‘unsound mind’ in subsection 93(8)(a) when
considering Australia’s compliance with the CRPD.
In relation to Australia’s other international commitments, the AEC
As far as the AEC is aware there has not been any complaint
or finding by the Australian Human Rights Commission or its predecessor that
section 93(8)(a) of the Electoral Act is in any way in breach of the
requirements of articles 25 and 2 of the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights. ... [or] of the requirements in the Declaration on the Rights
of Mentally Retarded Persons or the Declaration on the Rights of Disabled
If paragraph (a) from subsection 93(8) was removed, there would still
need to be some mechanism for dealing with someone who may be, in some way,
mentally incapable of casting a vote, whether it is a temporary or ongoing
issue for that individual.
PWD expressed a preference for utilising subsection 245(4)(d) to deal
with people who may not be in a position to cast a vote. It provides that a DRO
is not required to send or deliver a penalty notice if he or she is satisfied
that the elector ‘had a valid and sufficient reason for failing to vote’. The
... removing a person from the electoral roll is a
disproportionate response to concerns that a person with a disability, their
family or carer, may be inconvenienced by a failure to comply with compulsory
The Democratic Audit of Australia expressed concern that the removal of
the phrase ‘unsound mind’ could actually broaden the disqualification.
At the state level, the Victorian Electoral Matters Committee (EMC),
during its reviews of the 2006 and 2011 state elections, considered changing
the reference to ‘unsound mind’ in its electoral legislation. In both
reports, the EMC noted that the phrases caused distress to some electors, but decided
not to recommend changes to the terminology.
The EMC was guided by advice from the Victorian Chief Parliamentary
Counsel, which cautioned that changes to the term could have unintended
... while the term “unsound mind” may not reflect
contemporary views about disability, changing the term to “mental or cognitive
impairment” may result in Victorians being disenfranchised as a result of
another term replacing “unsound mind”.
Determinations by a ‘qualified person’
PWD also expressed concerned about the introduction of the category of
‘qualified person’, who would be responsible for making a judgement as to
whether a person is ‘incapable of understanding the nature and significance of
enrolment’. PWD questioned whether
there would be any standards in place to guide the relevant professionals when
making their determinations. PWD commented:
Universal suffrage is an integral part of democracy and the
power to remove the right of a person to participate in the political process
is a significant one. Would the “opinion of a qualified person” simply be a
conclusion they make based on their own degree of experience and professional
judgement? Alternatively, what mechanisms would exist to ensure that any assessment
tool was used consistently across jurisdictions and across the professions of
the “qualified persons”, especially as they represent different knowledge and
skill sets? Which body would provide guidelines and/or training to the
professions on how to use the assessment tool and monitor standards, compliance
and complaints or appeals? What would be the financial implications of running
this system? Would these costs be proportionate to the policy goal of
disenfranchising people deemed “incapable”, especially in light of the fact
that the policy goal in itself is discriminatory?
The Democratic Labor Party saw removing the reference to unsound mind as
a ‘timely change’, but cautioned in relation to the person making a
determination under subsection 93(8) that:
... the withdrawal of a citizen’s right to vote ought be a
last resort, with the greatest care taken in any assessment that results in the
loss of so basic a right.
Medical practitioners, psychiatrists and psychologists have
detailed means and instruments with which to measure disability. It would be a
tragedy if less rigorous means and instruments were invoked to deny someone the
vote on the basis of their physical appearance or interaction with their
The AEC observed that the list of qualified people:
... are selected based on the Freedom of Information Act but,
as I understand the genesis of that, it is about nominating a group of
individuals who have a particular relationship with the individual and can make
that sort of judgment.
The AEC conceded that the submitters and committee had raised valid
concerns about the proposed process for determining disqualification from
enrolment, and explained:
The reason we were looking at other health professionals was
that we did not want to put an impost on individuals or their families by
requiring them to go to a medical practitioner, particularly if they had
already a relationship with a psychologist, a psychiatrist or a social worker.
We are talking about cognitive capacity, not necessarily diagnosis. So we are
talking about something that can change over time ...
We recognise that a person’s cognitive capacity can change
over time and therefore we wanted a process that was going to be relatively
inexpensive, that was still going to have some security about it and in which
the opinion was still going to be given by either a health professional or a
paraprofessional who the person had a relationship with.
When considering the issue of who may raise an objection in relation to
the unsound mind provision, as part of the 1996 federal election review, the
committee concluded that:
The Committee believes that unsound mind objections are best
left to relatives and medical practitioners, and agrees with the AEC that the
previous committee's recommendations aside, the existing provisions should not
The committee is sensitive to the concerns of those in the community who
find the term ‘unsound mind’ outdated and offensive. In proposing the
amendments in Schedule 3—to remove the references to ‘unsound mind’ and make
provision for other professionals to be recognised as qualified people—the
Government is attempting to address these concerns and to provide a means by
which people who fall under the subsection 98(3)(a) disqualification can be
However, rather than achieving these goals, the proposed amendments, in
their current form, could serve to broaden the disqualification and potentially
disenfranchise some electors.
To support the changes proposed in Schedule 3 in relation to ‘unsound
mind’ and the list of qualified people, the committee would need to be
satisfied as to the extent of the problem necessitating change, and that the
approach was not likely to have unintended consequences that may be detrimental
to people with cognitive or mental health issues. Restraint should be exercised
before making changes to this provision that could serve to disenfranchise
Based on the evidence received, the committee is not satisfied that there
is any pressing need to remove or substitute the phrase ‘unsound mind’, or that
professions other than medical practitioners should be able to make
determinations about a person’s capacity to understand the nature and
significance of enrolment and voting.
People with Disability Australia called for the removal of paragraph (a)
of subsection 93(8) from the Electoral Act in its entirety, on the grounds that
it discriminates against people with disabilities. It is important for
Australia to ensure that it is meeting all its international obligations to
ensure that people with disabilities have the opportunity to participate fully
in political and civil life. The committee is not satisfied that subsection
93(8)(a) breaches any international obligations in relation to rights to
As outlined in Table 2.1, thousands of people are using the provision
each year. There are some individuals who are ‘incapable of understanding the
nature and significance of enrolment and voting’, whether it is due to temporary
or ongoing challenges. Given Australia’s system of compulsory enrolment and
voting, it is useful to have a mechanism to address this, to protect the
integrity of elections and assist those who might otherwise have to deal
repeatedly with the AEC as to why they are not complying with their enrolment
and voting obligations.
||The House of Representatives and the Senate pass the
Electoral and Referendum Amendment (Improving Electoral Procedure) Bill 2012,
after deleting the changes proposed in Schedule 3 in relation to the ‘unsound
mind’ provision and consequential amendments. The term ‘unsound mind’ and the
current requirement for a certificate from a medical practitioner should be
Daryl Melham MP
15 August 2012