This case study reviews an ongoing policy debate in Australia concerning the identification
requirements which should be imposed on persons seeking to register as voters for federal
elections.
Current requirements
Under the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 as it currently stands, a person who is qualified to
vote, and who has lived within an electoral division for one month, is entitled (and indeed
required) to claim 'enrolment' by completing and lodging an electoral enrolment form. The form
must be 'attested' by a witness who must be either an enrolled voter, or a person entitled to be
enrolled. The form, once completed, may be lodged in person, through the post or by facsimile.
The claimant is not required to provide any documentation in support of his or her claim.
Australia does not have a single civil register or national identity card or number scheme which
could be used for checking the validity of claims for enrolment.
Recent debates
In recent years, these arrangements have been criticised by a number of organisations and
individuals who have argued that they place too few obstacles in the paths of those who might
seek to create fraudulent entries on the rolls.
The issue was considered on a number of occasions by the Australian Federal Parliament's Joint
Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, which since 1984 has conducted an inquiry into the
organisation of each federal election.
In its May 1989 Report No. 3, on The 1987 Federal Election, the Committee observed that:
In relation to the quality of the rolls one submission alleged that large numbers of dummy
enrolments were made before the close of rolls, then, on polling day those perpetrating the
fraud legitimately appeared on the certified lists and were able to vote. The Committee
notes that while individual cases have been cited no evidence of an organised scheme was
presented to the Committee.
The Committee also noted that:
While allegations of electoral fraud are at times rife they are infrequently supported by
facts and in its Inquiry the Committee has been presented with allegations supported by
nothing more than anecdotal evidence.
The question of requiring prospective voters to provide documentary evidence of identity was also
addressed by the Committee, as follows.
The requirements that persons wishing to enrol and/or vote provide some documentary
evidence of their bona fides, such as driver's licence, Medicare card or passport, would be
relatively easy measures to implement but would present some difficulties for the AEC
[Australian Electoral Commission] in their administration. For example, people wishing to
enrol would have to do so in person. The Committee is of the view that the need to
provide documentary evidence would have a positive effect in minimising electoral fraud
but it would also be a major discouragement to many people participating in the electoral
process. At this time, it is likely such a requirement may generate sufficient voter irritation
to negate the good that might be achieved.
The Committee's public inquiry into the 1993 election attracted a significant number of
submissions from members of the public who expressed concern about the ease with which
enrolment could be effected. Many of those making submissions drew attention to the fact that a
legal requirement for signatories of bank accounts to be subject to documentary identification - a
measure designed to inhibit money laundering - had been imposed by the Financial Transaction
Reports Act 1988. It was suggested that the requirements of that Act could be an appropriate
model for a similar requirement in the electoral field.
The AEC, in response to this level of public interest, prepared a comprehensive submission to the
Committee on The Practical Implications of Various Measures relating to the Integrity of the
Electoral Process. The submission discussed a range of possible regimes for the identification of
voters, including the following.
- A scheme under which all enrolees would be required to appear in person before an
electoral officer in order to enrol, without exceptions.
- A scheme under which all first-time enrolees would be required to be interviewed.
- A scheme embodying a general requirement for personal interviews for all enrolees, but
with special provision for those who could not attend.
- A scheme embodying a general requirement for personal interviews for all first-time
enrolees, but with special provision for those who could not attend.
- A scheme requiring documentary evidence of identity to be provided in support of all
enrolment transactions, though not necessarily at a personal interview.
- A scheme requiring documentary evidence of identity to be provided in support of all first-
time enrolments, though not necessarily at a personal interview.
- A scheme under which the identities of enrolees would be verified by cross-referencing the
enrolment database with other high-integrity databases (driver's licences, Medicare records
etc.)
A point which the AEC emphasised in its submission, and which it explored in detail in relation to
each possible scheme which it had identified, was the fact that any measures which had the effect
of complicating the enrolment process in order to discourage fraudulent enrolment could also
have the side effect of discouraging legitimate enrolment. It summarised its views as follows.
While some of the measures discussed in this Submission might reduce to some extent
such potential as exists for electoral fraud, they would at the same time:
- place a significant burden of inconvenience on electors; and/or
- give rise to major administrative costs...
Some of the measures discussed in this Submission would also tend disproportionately to
affect underprivileged or marginal members of society. The burden of inconvenience on
voters could well serve to reduce the high level of voluntary compliance with compulsory
enrolment and voting which has largely been forthcoming in Australia. Both of these
factors would tend to diminish rather than enhance the legitimacy of Australian election
processes.
In the light of their demonstrated disadvantages, and in the absence of any evidence that
they are required, the AEC does not at this time support the introduction, for the purpose
of eliminating the potential for fraud, of any substantial changes to enrolment or voting
procedures.
The Committee's November 1994 Report on The 1993 Federal Election expressed sharp
differences of opinion, which reflected the Committee's party composition: members from the
ruling Australian Labor Party, and from a number of the smaller parties represented in the Senate,
were of the view that the Committee should not recommend that proof of identity be required for
enrolment purposes, while members of the Committee from the opposition Liberal and National
Parties, in a dissenting report, recommended that:
individuals claiming entitlement to enrolment should be required to provide the AEC with
proof of their identity together with evidence of their citizenship by production of either a
birth certificate, current passport or certificate of naturalisation.
At the March 1996 federal election, there was a change of government in Australia, and that was
reflected in the composition of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters. The issue of
identification of enrolees was again extensively raised in submissions to the Committee's inquiry
into the election, and again the AEC lodged a detailed submission with the Committee. (This
submission is available on the AEC's Web Page, at http://www.aec.gov.au/committee/lnet.pdf'.) The
Committee's June 1997 Report of the Inquiry Into All Aspects of the 1996 Federal Election and
Matters Related Thereto (available at http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/em/elec/elec.pdf) made a
number of recommendations for changes to the enrolment process, including the following:
that the AEC prepare a comprehensive implementation plan on the Committee's
proposed measures to improve the integrity of the enrolment and voting process, and
report back to the Committee by the end of 1997.
that as part of the implementation plan recommended above, the AEC nominate a
prescribed class of persons eligible to complete the witnessing portion of the enrolment
form if upgraded into a proof of identity declaration. The upgraded enrolment form
should specify that a witness must be on the Commonwealth electoral roll (rather than
merely eligible to be enrolled). Adequate provision should be made for identifiable groups
of people who will face unusual difficulties in finding a witness.
that the Electoral Act be amended to provide that an applicant for enrolment must produce
at least one original item of documentary proof of identity, where such information has not
been provided previously (that is, all enrolment transactions initially and new enrolments
thereafter). Acceptable documents might include photographic driver's licences, Birth
Certificates or extracts, Social Security papers (such as notice or advice of a pension) or
Veterans' Cards, Citizenship Certificates, passports, Medicare Cards, or a written
reference for a limited range of clients unable to produce the above documentation.
that in co-operation with relevant Commonwealth, State and Territory departments and
agencies, the AEC conduct a study identifying costs, benefits, methods of implementation,
and requirements for legislative amendment of the following options for the expanded
matching of enrolment data:
(a) manual provision of data in response to requests for information relating to
individual enrolments;
(b) bulk comparison of data held by the AEC and other departments and agencies;
(c) on-line connections between the AEC's Roll Management System (RMANS) and
the computer systems of other government departments and agencies, enabling
validation of data as an enrolment form is entered into the system; and
(d) such other options as may appear as a result of the study to appear viable.
The opposition members of the Committee dissented from each of these recommendations.
Legislative change
Subsequent to the Committee's report, the implementation study requested from the AEC was
produced, and legislation was prepared by the government to give effect to some of the
Committee's recommendations. The long-standing differences of opinion between the
government and the opposition were reflected in the parliamentary debate on the legislation, and it
was ultimately passed (in October 1999) with significant amendments made by the Senate, where
the government was in a minority.
The legislation provided among other things that in future, enrolment claims would have to be
witnessed by another elector 'in a class of electors prescribed by the regulations', and that 'the
identity of the person making the claim must be verified in the manner prescribed by the
regulations, unless the [Divisional Returning Officer] is satisfied that the person has previously
been an elector.' As at March 2000, these changes had not come into force, as the regulations in
question had not been made. Since regulations are subject to disallowance by the Senate, where
the government remains in a minority, the fate of the proposed changes to enrolment procedures is
uncertain.
Concluding comments
The debate in Australia regarding identification of voters is now quite polarised, along lines which
have been developing for some time. Those who favour more stringent registration requirements
point to the risk of fraudulent enrolment, while those who oppose them note the burden which
they may impose on certain voters, and their possible discriminatory effect. The debate also
reflects different notions of 'integrity': for some, fraudulent enrolment is the primary threat to the
integrity of the electoral process, while for others, the integrity of the process is equally if not
more threatened by the imposition of unduly rigid enrolment requirements.
