We need an inquiry into lost votes

Talking Point| Mercury Newpaper |24 July , 2021  

Thousands were unable to cast a ballot. We need answers.  

THE May 1 elections saw thousands of Tasmanian voters disenfranchised. For perhaps the first time in our state, citizens were deprived of their right to vote, the most fundamental part of our democracy.

There were 3981 Windermere and Derwent voters who showed up, dutifully cast their vote in the Lower House election but couldn’t access their Legislative Council ballot paper. The Tasmanian Electoral Commission (TEC) accepts responsibility and has apologised for 575 of these, admitting administrative error where the ballot papers were available but not provided.

For the other 3406, the TEC says people turned up to the wrong polling places. The problem is, never before in any Tasmanian election has there been wrong polling places. This entirely new possibility was created by holding Lower and Upper House elections concurrently for the first time.

Here’s a typical example. A voter living near the border of Windermere went to vote at their nearest polling place, which happened to be outside the border of Windermere. They were ticked off the Lower House electoral roll and cast their Bass vote, but there was no Upper House roll or ballot papers for Windermere there

— the TEC only put those within the borders of Windermere. The TEC argues it didn’t have the resources or time to make every polling place “dual”, with both Lower and Upper House rolls and ballots.

So, whose fault was it? Although the government has tried to brush this off, what the TEC report makes clear is that blame for this deprivation of democratic rights sits squarely with government. The TEC was put in this position by the Premier forcing an unnecessary concurrent election at short notice. The TEC says it “created significant new challenges”, systems had to be “designed and rolled out in a very short period”, and it “fully acknowledges the additional complexity and possible confusion for Derwent and Windermere electors”.

The TEC has been forced to defend itself by effectively saying it did the best it could.

When it comes to the fundamentals of our democracy, doing the best we can is not good enough.

Neither is it good enough for the Premier to hide behind the TEC on this. The Premier and government must accept responsibility for the consequences of selfinterested insistence on concurrent elections. It is on the Premier to be answerable for the multitude of questions that remain.

What formal or informal advice did the TEC provide to the Premier in regards to the advisability of holding concurrent elections?

What resources were identified as required by the TEC, were requested from the government by the TEC, and were provided by the government for the administration? What other administrative risks were identified in relation to concurrent elections, and were they planned for and mitigated appropriately?

Although answers are hinted at in the report, the TEC is not in a position to answer these questions in an open and accountable way within its own processes.

The TEC internal review of voter disenfranchisement is an important step, but it isn’t a final step. Far from being an end to this matter, the TEC report provides a compelling argument for a joint parliamentary inquiry into the administration of the 2021 elections, which the Upper House has already voted to support. Such an inquiry would provide a transparent way for evidence such as this report to be examined and other expert advice, and it would allow citizens to put their experiences on the record. It is the most non-partisan option available to deliver recommendations to inform future elections. It is the only way to fully restore public confidence. While there is understandable speculation on the 1954 missing votes in Windermere and their potential to change the result, it is not the deciding factor in our assessment of the impact of holding concurrent elections.

Disenfranchisement is a failure of our democratic process regardless of the number of voters. One citizen deprived of their right to vote is too many.

Four thousand voters disenfranchised is certainly a shocking failure of our democratic process.

If the Premier has nothing to hide, he has nothing to fear from open parliamentary scrutiny — indeed, he should welcome it.

See Meg’s Motion calling for a parliamentary inquiry into the 2021 state and Legislative Council elections.