The High Court challenge to 2006 Electoral Act amendments brought by activist lobby group GetUp! during the election campaign succeeded in adding thousands of otherwise ineligible voters to the electoral roll. Post-election commentary reports the increased informal vote. It highlights the contrast in the Australian electorate between those fighting to exercise their right to vote, and those fighting not to vote.
Here's another contradiction: some citizens cannot be placed on the roll at all. Excitement surrounding the election and the resultant hung parliament contrasts with the continuing disenfranchisement of a significant number of Australians with intellectual disabilities or mental illness.
According to section 93 of the Electoral Act, a person meeting age, citizenship and other requirements of enrolling to vote cannot enrol if they are ‘of unsound mind ... incapable of understanding the nature and significance of enrolment and voting'. Section 29 of the Disability Discrimination Act makes it unlawful to ‘exercise any power under a Commonwealth law to discriminate against another person on the grounds of...disability...', yet the Electoral Act remains unchanged. It remains to be seen what would happen if it were challenged.
The focus of many of the Australian Electoral Commission's initiatives are (like most disability initiatives) focused on physical disability. Although the AEC's latest disability action plan appears also to consider those with intellectual, psychiatric, sensory, neurological, and learning disabilities, legislation does not provide them all with a vote.
To be fair, the AEC is making strides by providing information and assistance to a number of diverse and possibly marginalised electors. An inquiry into electoral accessibility for people with disabilities by the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission a decade ago provided the impetus for a number of them.
Mobile polling teams bring portable booths to electors unable to visit a polling place, in some hospitals, nursing homes, prisons and remote areas. Some stationary polling places are selected based on accessibility, and publicised accordingly.
Early votes, available to all citizens, are useful if managing work commitments or travelling arrangements. But more importantly, early votes benefit potentially disenfranchised voters: those ill, infirm or approaching childbirth (or caring for someone who is); in hospital; in prison or detained; unable to attend for religious reasons; or regional electors more than 8 kilometres from a polling place.
The AEC respects community diversity by providing electoral information in 21 languages, and a telephone interpreter service. At polling booths, trained staff provide assistance to voters if the managing polling official deems a person unable to vote without help.
Voters can also nominate any person (excepting political candidates) for support. A friend, relative, or party worker can help complete, fold and deposit the ballot paper. If no-one is nominated, the official in charge will assist, with scrutineers able to be present while ballots are completed.
Strategies permit special category electors, including those going overseas, in prison, with no fixed address, or unable to sign their name, to enrol and apply to become a general postal voter.
Finally, recent changes enabled voters who are vision-impaired to cast a truly ‘secret ballot' by telephone for the first time - a milestone to be celebrated. Australia's Disability and Race Discrimination Commissioner, Graham Innes (pictured voting on 5 August), was one of them.
All these strategies promote inclusion in the Australian electorate. But electoral accessibility overlooks those with intellectual disabilities or mental illness. They remain disenfranchised.
No doubt the families and carers of people with such disability or illness consider their interests when casting their own ballot. They also frequently make decisions on behalf of their ill or disabled family member. Even so, every citizen affected by government policy should have a vote for the candidate or party who will represent their interests and provide the best policy outcomes. Similarly, it is reasonable that families choose the most appropriate political representative for that person.
Even someone vested with Power-of-Attorney cannot vote on an elector's behalf. Powers-of-Attorney are not mindlessly granted and entail significant expense, usually by the representative closest to the person. It is unlikely to be misused any more than other potential faultlines within the electoral system. Checks and balances are always necessary, as for example by requiring proof of identification from the carer at a polling place.
Disability issues are receiving more public attention. South Australia elected a ‘Dignity 4 Disability' representative, with disabilities, to its Legislative Council. The Rudd Labor government initiated a Productivity Commission inquiry into a long term disability care and support scheme. It received many submissions. Concerned citizens would welcome similar progress in electoral matters.
Moira Byrne Garton is a Ph.D. student in political science at the Australian National University, a policy analyst. She is strongly engaged with disability issues.