Australian Electoral Commission

[20:48]

CHAIR: I welcome the Electoral Commissioner, Mr Tom Rogers, and officers from the Australian Electoral Commission. Mr Rogers, do you wish to make an opening statement?

Mr Rogers : I do not.

CHAIR: I'm cognisant that we're bringing you on 40 minutes before your originally scheduled time. We'll flag to you and the rest of the committee that we are certainly hoping to deal with the questions as quickly as possible this evening so we're not here quite until 11 o'clock at night. We'll reassess where we're at when we come to the tea-break in about half an hour as to whether or not we stick with that or just push on through, pending what our progress there is. I will give the call first to Senator Farrell.

Senator FARRELL: Thank you, Chair. Welcome, Mr Rogers. We're coming to the business end of the electoral cycle.

Mr Rogers : Indeed.

Senator FARRELL: Are you ready?

Mr Rogers : As I think you and I have discussed at this committee on a number of occasions, we're always ready to run an election—it just depends on how far away from the event. We do try and temper our readiness so that we're not burning through cash at an unnecessary rate, but we are very comfortable with our readiness status at the moment—for whenever it might be. I might also say, while I've got the floor, that of course I have no idea when the election is. Sometimes that's a misconception, a conspiracy theory online. We don't know. We find out at the same time as everybody else.

Senator FARRELL: We're not into conspiracy theories in the Labor Party; you can be reassured of that.

Senator Birmingham: You do have some.

Senator FARRELL: Name them.

Senator Birmingham: All political parties have some, Senator Farrell.

Senator AYRES: The ebb and flow means there's a lot of this and that—don't get me started.

Senator FARRELL: It's still possible that there could be an election this year. In fact, my own leader was speculating on 11 December as a potential date. How many polling places have been booked and how many more are you going to need?

Mr Rogers : I'm going to get Dr Gleeson to talk about the actual detail of that in a moment, but I might just start off by saying that, as you know, it's difficult for us to book polling places until the writ is issued because we are hostage to whatever is available at that point in time. What we do have is a series of tests and checks during the electoral cycle when we see what's available. We look at vast number of polling places to see whether they're suitable, whether they meet various requirements for disability access, size and scale. That's something we do pretty much all the time because, even during the electoral cycle, polling places that we've used for a considerable period of time will become unavailable. They're demolished or they're changed. So we keep an updated list of those polling places. I could check the number, but I think at the last election there were probably around 9,000 or so polling places, or close to that number. I might get Dr Gleeson to give you an accurate number.

Dr Gleeson : Thanks, Commissioner. Senator, the number of polling places at this stage for the next election is likely to be in the vicinity of 7,000, which is comparable to the last federal election. As the commissioner indicated, we are undertaking a planning and preparatory phase at the moment. We've inspected the vast majority of those polling places. We're required to inspect them for suitability in between electoral events. The majority of those have been done, wherever we could access them. There are a couple in each division that we still haven't been able to access, but that will be a priority before the election's announced. At this stage we're reasonably confident of our ability to secure those 7,000-odd polling places.

Senator FARRELL: In your planning stage, do you make any assumptions about potential dates? I'm not saying you pick the date, but do you make some assumptions about which dates might be more likely than others?

Mr Rogers : I might start off, and then perhaps Dr Gleeson can join in. Obviously we've got to be ready from the first time at which an election can be called. There's a broad swathe from August of this year through to May of next year, so we have to be ready to conduct the election by the time that occurs. What we don't do is make a detailed assessment about exactly what date, but we keep sniffing the wind so that we're aware of what's occurring and so that we can ramp up our preparations if needs be. But, as Dr Gleeson was saying, we started doing those polling place inspections right through the electoral cycle so that we could have moved had an election been called at that point. Dr Gleeson might like to add to that.

Dr Gleeson : Only to say that internally we have an election readiness framework that helps determine and balance the likelihood of an event happening at any particular time against the cost and risk of maintaining that readiness, Senator. So, yes, we do have a framework in place to support that planning.

Senator FARRELL: What date do you think is the last date that the election can be held?

Dr Gleeson : The second-last weekend in May, if we have the longest writ return option. The second-last weekend in May.

Senator FARRELL: So there is in fact a later date than that, is there?

Mr Rogers : I think 21 May is the date that we're saying is the last possible date.

Dr Gleeson : Yes.

Senator FARRELL: Just explain to me why you say that.

Mr Rogers : I might get the chief legal officer to come forward.

Mr Johnson : It's the timing for the writ having to be returned within that period of time after it's issued. So, we need the time then afterwards to process particularly the Senate elections and to have the declaration of those and the writ returned. That is the five or six weeks after the election, and the necessity for the writ to be returned before 30 June.

Mr Rogers : And Senator, you're aware of the implications of not returning particularly the Senate writ by 30 June—it has constitutional implications.

Senator FARRELL: Yes. So, for instance, if that wasn't returned by 30 June, all of those senators who would have been elected—

Mr Rogers : In a particular state where the writ isn't returned?

Senator FARRELL: in a particular state where the writ was not returned—would not occupy their positions until 1 July the following year. Is that correct?

Mr Rogers : That's my understanding—absent some sort of ruling from the High Court, I guess.

Mr Johnson : Yes, because that's in the Constitution, so there'd have to be some agreement otherwise.

CHAIR: When was the last time that happened?

Mr Johnson : I'm not aware of that happening.

Mr Rogers : I'm not aware.

CHAIR: Neither am I.

Mr Rogers : And may I say, obviously it's not in our interest for that to occur. That would be a fairly untidy event for the Electoral Commission, so we would be—

Senator FARRELL: Yes, it would be a KPI, wouldn't it—to try to get it back on time?

Senator Birmingham : There are a few people sitting around this table—this one included!—who would find that rather uncomfortable.

Senator FARRELL: Yes, that's why I pursued the question. How many staff have been booked to work on the campaign?

Dr Gleeson : We expect to engage approximately 100,000 temporary election staff for the next election.

Senator FARRELL: The person in charge of the booth—is that generally speaking a permanent employee?

Mr Rogers : No, just a temp.

Senator FARRELL: So, they're all—

Mr Rogers : Yes.

Senator FARRELL: Can you tell us what preparations you're making with the potential for a COVID election? We know that there have been lots of announcements, including in my own state, about opening up. But we've seen how this virus operates. Let's hope we don't, but if we do have to go back under COVID conditions, what planning have you done to deal with that?

Mr Rogers : I might start by falling back on something I said previously. We've done the planning for the election. We had to plan for a window between August this year and May of next year, and of course had it been in August—in August a lot of Australia was in lockdown. So, we have been looking at a situation where there are virtually no restrictions, through to a patchwork of restrictions, through to total COVID overlay. Regardless, we are planning to conduct a COVID-safe election. Internally, within the AEC, I have established a unit called the COVID Variants Response Unit, which is helping us look at how we might prepare for the event. Just out of interest, I've met Professor Kelly and Dr Murphy federally. We've also written to every state chief health officer, and the deputy commissioner and Dr Gleeson met with them at the AHPPC last week. We are just about to write to all the police commissioners in each of the states to talk about some of the issues that may occur outside of the polling places, such as queueing. Dr Gleeson mentioned 100,000 staff. Some of those staff will be devoted to ensuring that there are COVID-safe measures in polling places. So, we are taking very seriously—

Senator FARRELL: What's that going to involve?

Mr Rogers : Simple things, like we did with the two by-elections that occurred last year: sanitisation of the voting booths with spray and wipe, the implementation of other hygiene measures, whether we're using single use pencils or sanitising the pencils in the polling place—a range of measures to ensure that citizens are safe. We'll have some sort of queue measure externally to try to encourage people to stick to 1.5 metres. We'll have capacity measures inside the polling place to make sure that we are conducting that election in the safest possible way.

Senator FARRELL: Wouldn't you expect that all of those things will slow the process of voting down, though?

Mr Rogers : We would hope that we're able to implement measures in a way that minimises the impact. I think you and I am may have had this discussion here before, but over a number of years now we've been running a project with Deakin University to assist us to understand the metrics in the polling places. I think it's how we managed to produce such good metrics with queuing last time, by implementing some of the measures that we worked on with Deakin. We're working with them again to help us mitigate what might be the impact on the polling place. But if we've got restrictions on the number of people in the polling place and any others measures, it will have an impact. The deputy commissioner, Dr Gleeson and I were online with the Canadian electoral commissioner talking about their last election, learning what they did. They've been through similar issues. They had quite significant queuing at various points. We're trying to learn from that and do other things.

Senator FARRELL: What did you learn from that?

Mr Rogers : They had queues. They've got a different system. They have very specific precinct voting. Not down to polling place, but I think you've got to vote at one desk within that polling place. They have far more staff and far more polling places than we do by a multiple. From memory they don't vote for an upper house. I think their upper house is largely appointed.

Senator Birmingham: Until about the age of 70, I think, like a judge. It has a certain appeal to it! You wouldn't have to do a Senate count, we wouldn't have to—

Senator FARRELL: Former Senator Ryan will have to learn something about this.

Mr Rogers : We also learned about their education campaign with the public, which was a critical part of what they did to convince the public that it would be safe to vote. Those are some of the lessons.

Senator FARRELL: They don't have a compulsory system, though?

Mr Rogers : No, they do not. I forget their turnout. I think it was in the 60 per cent range. The deputy commissioner might remember that.

Mr Pope : It was around the mid-60s. A slight reduction from the previous election, which was a couple of years ago but just before the pandemic.

Senator FARRELL: Why are you not in the room and coming in via—

Mr Rogers : The deputy commissioner is currently in Melbourne.

Mr Pope : I've endured 260-odd days of lockdown, unfortunately, Senator. I'm just about to come out of that.

Mr Rogers : We're looking forward to welcoming the deputy commissioner back.

Senator FARRELL: Good luck. Can you tell us about the vaccination status of your staff?

Mr Rogers : This is an interesting issue. There are two different things here. One is the vaccination status of my permanent staff. We're encouraging everyone to get vaccinated. I think there has been a fairly high take-up amongst the staff and certainly in the executive. Then there's the issue of the hundred thousand temporary workforce. We're working through that at the moment. I've also sought legal advice about our ability to mandate vaccination status as a condition of employment for the temporary staff. We've just received that legal advice. I haven't seen it yet. It just arrived last week. We're developing a policy position on that.

Senator FARRELL: Would you like to reveal it?

Mr Rogers : Not at estimates I wouldn't, because I haven't seen it yet and I haven't talked through it with my staff.

Senator FARRELL: Dr Gleeson seems to have seen it.

Mr Rogers : I'm sure Dr Gleeson has seen it but the commissioner hasn't yet. I'd like some time to digest that.

Senator FARRELL: Alright. You'll make a decision to either mandate it or not. When would you be likely to make that decision?

Mr Rogers : I think in the next couple of weeks, quite frankly. I'm conscious there are lots of different views on this specific issue. The one thing I want to do is create a safe place for citizens to vote. These are not permanent staff; they're temporary staff. I do note there are a number of examples of other industries that have made vaccination status a condition of employment. We're trying to weigh all of that up as we move forward. The other thing is that I've got to get 100,000 people for the election. That's a big ask in a four-week period.

Senator FARRELL: None of these people have been engaged yet, have they?

Mr Rogers : No.

Senator FARRELL: You've mentioned talking to all of the health authorities, both the Commonwealth and the state ones. Did you say you've actually spoken to the police or you're in the process of doing that?

Mr Rogers : I've written to the Commissioner of the AFP and I'm about to write to all the state police. Mr Pope has previously addressed—I can't remember the name of the committee, but I think it's the crowded places advisory—

Mr Pope : It's the deputy commissioners operations meeting with all the deputy commissioners from the states and territories around the country. We've spoken about responsibilities around public safety, crowded places, strategy, civility and those sorts of matters.

Senator FARRELL: Are you going to have to design what happens in the states in accordance with the directives of the state health authorities, or are you going to have a uniform process for conducting the ballot as you would ordinarily have?

Mr Rogers : What I'd love to do is to have one standard delivery model around Australia because it reduces the training bill extraordinarily and a whole range of other things. We're very sensitive to what's occurring locally. That's why we're liaising right now with health officers from around Australia, the Commonwealth health authorities and police commissioners. We're very sensitive that there may well be local regulations in place, and we'll look at that as we move forward.

Senator FARRELL: Do you have the power to override those state health and police authorities?

Mr Rogers : Currently I do not. I would say that this is probably an area of constitutional law that interplays between state and federal law. What I know is that I'm issued a writ by his Excellency the Governor-General that directs me to conduct a federal election under the auspices of the Electoral Act. That's going to be happening in this electoral cycle regardless of what's occurring in each of the states. Some way or how we'll find a way to deliver the election that's safe and in line with the federal Electoral Act.

Senator FARRELL: On that: there's an election due in March in South Australia. If the Prime Minister chose a date in March for the federal election, what are the consequences for the South Australian—

Mr Rogers : I don't know about the other states, but specifically in South Australia there is a provision in their legislation—I'll get it wrong, but effectively the state can slip its election by two weeks in response—

Mr Pope : Three weeks.

Mr Rogers : to the issue of a writ to conduct a federal election.

Senator FARRELL: They're required to do that?

Mr Rogers : I think they're able to do that. I'm not sure whether it has happened previously. My understanding of the convention is that they would do it. Mr Pope or Mr Johnson might have some additional—

Mr Pope : My understanding is that it's an option for them to consider. Up to three weeks is my understanding.

Mr Rogers : We've spoken to the South Australian electoral commissioner previously about this issue because we're aware of what electoral events are occurring around Australia. That is a specific piece of legislation in that state that I don't think exists in other states. I'm not sure.

Senator Birmingham: Senator Farrell, Mr Johnson may be able to add. My understanding is that obviously there is what triggers that provision in South Australian law, and that is dependent upon the timing of when a federal election is called, which I think, again, needs to be within three weeks, but I stand be corrected without looking it up. Then there is how much flexibility South Australia has to respond to that, which again might be in the three-week zone as has been indicated.

Mr Johnson : To add: section 394 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act provides that a state election or territory election can't be on the same day as a Commonwealth election. That's the trigger. If the Commonwealth election were held on the same date as a state election, the Governor-General would then notify whichever state and they'd go then to trigger provisions.

Senator Birmingham: There's that Commonwealth law at play. I think South Australia's law does mean that, for example, if we have called an election that ends up being the Saturday before or indeed a fortnight before the scheduled South Australian election, they do have a flexibility provision to be able to move it by a week or two, or maybe three.

Senator FARRELL : So the Commonwealth legislation prohibits you having the election on the same day?

Senator Birmingham: It prohibits them having the election on the same day.

Senator FARRELL: Yes, it prohibits them from having the election on the same day. And you say the South Australian legislation then gives them flexibility to move it up to three weeks in either direction?

Mr Pope : From my discussions with the election commissioner of South Australia, and I stand to be corrected, my understanding is they can only delay it by up to three weeks.

Mr Rogers : I think it's a matter for the governor, given it's a writ issue—there's writ law at play here as well. But we could find out a little bit about that for you, Senator.

Senator F ARRELL: I think it would be handy. It probably won't happen, but then again stranger things have happened. So we think that if that was the day chosen they could delay it by up to three weeks. I was under the impression that if it was the same month the Commonwealth legislation clicked in, but I've obviously got that wrong. You've got the act there in front of you?

Mr Johnson : Yes, 394 is just polling day. It says a state or territory election can't be on the same day as the Commonwealth.

Senator FARRELL: Thank you for that helpful information. Commissioner, you will recall that we changed the Commonwealth legislation to limit pre-polls to—

Senator Birmingham: Senator Farrell, I'll send you off later to have a look at section 28 of the South Australian Constitution Act, which provides:

Before the issue of a writ or writs for a general election under this section, the Governor may, where… a general election of members of the Commonwealth House of Representatives is to be held in the same month as the election defer the day of the election…to a Saturday not more than 21 days after the day otherwise fixed—

Senator FARRELL: The same month?

Senator Birmingham: Yes. So essentially if we pick any Saturday within March next year they can defer their election by up to 21 days.

Senator FARRELL: Yes. And they're prohibited from having the election on the same day?

Senator Birmingham: They are prohibited from having it on the same day.

CHAIR: Senator Farrell, I'm just looking at the time and we are due to have taken a break here. I'm minded to do away with the break if it would aid in moving things along. I do know we have five minutes worth of questions from the coalition. Senator Roberts has flagged that he has about five minutes, but I also recognise he's not physically in the room with us at the moment, which makes it hard for him to ask his questions. So how long—

Senator FARRELL: I'll be a little bit longer. I would be happy if the officials got out a bit earlier so I'm happy to keep going for a bit.

CHAIR: I might give the call to the coalition to get those five minutes out of the way and then we'll come back to you. Senator Paterson, you said you had one question?

Senator PATERSON: Yes. It's just a follow-up question to the line of questioning from Senator Farrell about COVID preparedness and planning. I don't know if you've noticed, Mr Rogers, but the New South Wales electoral commissioner, as I understand it, has banned the handing out of how-to-vote cards at the local council elections coming up and also said that erecting posters on the booths and removing them has to be done before 7 am in the morning and after 7 pm at night—as a COVID safety measure apparently. The election is actually not until 4 December, by which point New South Wales will be almost entirely open. You will be able to go to nightclubs, schools, pubs and restaurants. But apparently a pretty important democratic act of handing out a how-to-vote card, to advocate for a preferred candidate, will be banned. You probably wouldn't want to comment on that. But I am wondering whether you are contemplating any other similar kinds of measures for the federal election, or, indeed, if you have the power to do so.

Mr Rogers : Just allow me to praise my colleague the New South Wales electoral commissioner who does a great job. We have a good relationship with all the state commissions and we normally don't opine on what they're doing. Let me give that as the basis. We have no plans to implement that at the next election. We don't have the power to do that, in any case. Anything that occurs six metres outside the polling place is outside the purview of the writ that we're issued. As we did at the by-elections, we would encourage all party workers to adhere to whatever COVID measures happen to be in place—social distancing, masking, being respectful. I would say our experience across the board is that party workers pretty much operate that way in any case, so we have no plans to do that.

Senator PATERSON: Thank you.

CHAIR: Senator O'Sullivan.

Senator O'SULLIVAN: I have a couple of quick questions. The parliament recently resolved to amend the Electoral Act to increase the membership requirement for the ongoing registration of non-parliamentary parties, from 500 members to 1,500 members. I understand that parties must comply with these new standards within three months. That would be 2 December 2021. What action has the AEC taken to inform parties of their obligations, and what will happen to parties that have not supplied a membership list by 2 December? Will the AEC commence deregistration proceedings against these parties, under section 137 of the Electorate Act? If so, what's the process for that?

Mr Rogers : When that legislation received royal assent—I can't remember the exact date, but I think it was in September last year.

Dr Gleeson : It was 2 September.

Mr Rogers : The following week—I think it was by the ninth—we wrote to all parties, parliamentary and non-parliamentary, explaining that process to them and telling them that the non-parliamentary parties had three months to prove their membership list. We wrote to them again, effectively with a 138 notice, telling them that they had a three-month period in which to demonstrate to us that they had 1,500 members. What will happen at the expiration of that three-month period, as you just pointed out, is one of three things, I suppose. The first possibility is that we hear nothing from those parties, in which case we will immediately issue them a 137 notice. That tells them that, unless they've demonstrated they've got the membership, we'll deregister them within one month. The second possibility is that they will have demonstrated to us that they do have that number of members, in which case they will be registered accordingly. I know that we've already received a few applications with the numbers. The third possibility is that parties will try and comply by giving us a list but we'll test it and it won't reach 1,500. Again, they'll be given a 137 notice, which gives them one month and then they're deregistered. Just to be clear on that: once they're deregistered, they still have things they can do. They can apply for a review by the Electoral Commission and, failing that, they can go to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. But they'll be doing that as a deregistered party. Once they're deregistered, they're deregistered. I'm happy to be corrected by the chief legal officer on that, but that's the process we put in place. I'm confident we have the capacity to do the membership testing. In fact, we're already doing the membership testing, and that process is running smoothly.

Senator O'SULLIVAN: Does the AEC intend to do an audit? When would you have that done by?

Mr Rogers : That's what we do as part of the application. I wouldn't use the word 'audit', but that's what we do as part of the application process. We do a membership test.

Senator O'SULLIVAN: Do you take a sample, do you?

Mr Rogers : We take a sample of the membership list, but we also do some tests first up. We make sure that the individuals that have been nominated are actually on the roll. We also make sure that those names have not been crossed over onto another membership list; it can't be just the duty name across a number of parties. So we check that's the case and then we contact a sample of the membership list and ask them, 'Are you a member of that party?' Effectively that's what we do. They either pass or they don't.

Senator O'SULLIVAN: Terrific. Thank you.

CHAIR: Senator Farrell.

Senator FARRELL: Getting back to where we left off, I was starting to ask about the pre-poll period being cut to 12 days, but I understand there are discussions going on about whether you need some extra powers in the event of an emergency situation. What do you think is an appropriate pre-poll time in an emergency situation?

Mr Rogers : That's a difficult one. The joint standing committee debated the issue of the three-week pre-poll period versus the two-week pre-poll period, and I know that people have very strong views about that. We're planning for a two-week pre-poll period. We're doing COVID planning around a two-week period. As I have said previously, to this committee and to the joint standing committee, the pattern of voting for pre-poll is interesting: the vast majority of pre-poll voting occurs in the last week, and in that week it's the last few days. I suspect that, at the next event, citizens won't remember that it was a three-week period previously; they'll just remember that they pre-poll voted and they'll turn up to pre-poll vote in the two-week period. There is a possible impact with queueing that we're aware of. It would be unfortunate if there was a huge impact, so we're trying to mitigate that. But we're preparing for that two-week period. If we look around Australia at the moment, restrictions appear to be lifting everywhere.

Senator FARRELL: There was an increase in postal and pre-poll voting in the Eden-Monaro and Groom by-elections. Assuming something along those lines is replicated at a general election, are you planning additional staff to count pre-poll and postal votes to ensure that we get a prompt decision on the night?

Mr Rogers : We'll be as prompt as we can possibly be. As you know, we have a mantra that we use: 'right, not rushed'. So we are very conscious of that. In fact, if I look at the stats I've got in front of me, in Eden-Monaro postal voting doubled from the last federal election, and in Groom postal votes increased by 57 per cent. So it wouldn't be unreasonable to expect a fairly large increase in postal voting for the next event, noting that there are criteria that people need to fulfil to postal vote.

Dr Gleeson, the deputy, and I met with the senior executive of Australia Post about three weeks ago, including the new CEO. We outlined the importance of postal voting and the importance of the schedule being met, particularly for delivery of postal votes, out and back. It's a critical issue at the election if there are so many postal votes. We're conscious of the need to have sufficient resources on hand. We are making some predictions, as part of our planning, about the increase in postal voting, and we are confident in our ability to do that.

Senator FARRELL: What did Australia Post say? Did they give you some comfort? Every day we're reading reports about how they're falling behind in terms of their parcel delivery.

Mr Rogers : There are two parts to the answer to that. Firstly, I would like to acknowledge the strength of the relationship we have with Australian Post and the very responsive manner in which they attended that meeting. I know that Dr Gleeson's team have spent an extended period of time talking at officer level to Australia Post staff, dealing with some of those issues. But, as we pointed out to the CEO, this is critical. There's no fudging in the timing. It's not like getting your scratch lotto ticket late from you aunty. It needs to be met, and we've heard the same stories. So we are continuing to liaise with Australia Post. Every election there are issues with postal votes, and not necessarily as a result of Australia Post. For example, with the overseas vote, we're hostage to whatever postal system works in overseas countries, and frequently those overseas votes don't make it back in time. But we are watching and monitoring. We also hope, for this election, to get a better data feed from Australia Post so we'll have better visibility in votes out and votes back. That should enable us to deal with that on a more responsive basis.

Senator FARRELL: What's your budget for this election?

Mr Rogers : The last election was nudging up towards $400 million, including party funding. For this event—

Dr Gleeson : We're estimating that, without public funding, the election will cost in the vicinity of $400 million, but the COVID overlay is still being calculated.

Senator FARRELL: So we don't have a figure just yet?

Mr Rogers : I've said previously at this committee that we think the COVID overlay could be as much as $60 million on top of the election, depending on what measures are put in place. I know that is a stonking lot of money. Interestingly, that's the same figure—

Senator FARRELL: Cheap for the democratic process.

Mr Rogers : If I look at our budget as a proportion of some of the other departments, I think it's good.

Senator FARRELL: Yes. That's a good way of looking at it.

Mr Rogers : Australian democracy: you can't put a price on it et cetera.

Senator FARRELL: You cannot put a price on it, no.

Mr Rogers : All of those things. But, interestingly, that figure of about $60 million for the COVID overlay is the same figure that the Canadian electoral commissioner gave, and there's no collusion with that about the costs for their event. We have to wait and see how that plays out over the next few months, but there'll be an overlay, and it will cost more than previously. I'll also point out, without going into the detailed stats, I think we've put another 500,000 people or so on the roll since the last election, so it's a more expensive election in any case. CPI goes up. The lease of premises becomes more expensive. There are a whole range of things, and I'm not saying that for the benefit of the minister sitting next to me. We're being very frugal, Minister, in how we approach that.

Senator Birmingham: Certainly, Commissioner, and indeed you can't put a cost on democracy, but you have to put a price on the operation of the elections. I'm advised that the 2019 election, if we exclude GST and public funding payments, was approximately $300 million. The current forecast is for around a $400 million cost for this election, but the COVID overlays are an uncertainty. The Department of Finance is working, as always, with the AEC to try to validate the cost projections, but they will obviously depend upon some of those final questions that Mr Rogers and his team will have to decide.

Mr Rogers : We do have a great relationship with the Department of Finance—just to put that on the record—and we are working very closely with them on that issue, on the funding envelope for that event.

Senator FARRELL: Yes. You're not given a budget by the government on the conduct of an election, are you?

Mr Rogers : There is a budget that we are allocated, and we then work with the Department of Finance around the issues associated with that budget. It's very hard to predict an election cost, an election cycle, before the election, because so many things change, but all governments have shown a high degree of flexibility in enabling us to have sufficient election funding to conduct the election. That's why we liaise so closely with the Department of Finance.

Senator Birmingham: In essence, Senator Farrell, we give everything a budget. Some agencies are more prone, with great justification, to then having estimates variations applied in terms of what that end budget actually needs to be.

Senator FARRELL: So it's elastic, is it? Is that a good description?

Mr Rogers : It's sufficient, I would say.

Senator FARRELL: Yes, sufficient.

Mr Rogers : Because I'm feeling brave in parts tonight, Senator, I might just push the boat out a little and let you know that best practice for electoral commissions globally is for them to have a demand power, rather than be allocated a budget by government, so that there's no doubt that the government isn't funding the election. They have to justify the expenditure after the event. In Australia, the Victorian Electoral Commission rejoices in that particular arrangement, as do our friends in Canada and, indeed, the Indian electoral commissioner. The Indian electoral commissioner also rejoices in the additional power of setting the date for the election, which we'd love to have as well.

Senator FARRELL: Wouldn't that be terrific! I'm changing the topic now. We've previously spoken here about the levels of multiple voting. Back in March you said that you were satisfied with the measures that the AEC currently has in place for detecting multiple voting, and you described the number of multiple votes cast as 'vanishingly small'. Is that still your view?

Mr Rogers : I'd never go back on the evidence that I gave to a committee, but the number of votes—I think we went through the numbers. I can't remember. I think we actually spoke about the numbers themselves; at the last event, I think the number of multiple marks was 2,102. I think we went through that at the last committee. Please forgive me if we didn't. I think we spoke about—

Senator FARRELL: What was that figure again? I missed it.

Mr Rogers : It was 2,102. I think we also spoke about the number of electors who voted a particular number of times. If I look here at the last event, the elector who voted the highest number of times—if I get this wrong I'll correct my evidence—was in New South Wales. One elector who appeared to have voted 11 times was the highest number. It was his own festival of democracy, if that's exactly what occurred.

Senator FARRELL: 'Early and often' was what they used to say in the New York boroughs.

Mr Rogers : I think we referred 24 voters—in the end, after we did our joint meeting with AFP—to the AFP for further action.

Senator FARRELL: So roughly 2,000—

Mr Rogers : One hundred—

Senator FARRELL: voted more than once, and there are 24 prosecutions.

Mr Rogers : They had multiple marks next to their names. There were 24 names referred to the AFP.

Senator FARRELL: And do you know how many of them ended up—

Mr Rogers : I wonder whether the Deputy Commissioner has—I'm not sure what occurred to those after we referred them.

Senator FARRELL: So a reference doesn't automatically result in a prosecution?

Mr Rogers : That's correct.

Mr Johnson : We can say that there's no further action from the AFP.

Senator FARRELL: In each of those 24?

Mr Johnson : Yes. In each of those cases.

Senator FARRELL: So there was no Australian voter who was prosecuted at the last election for voting more than once?

Mr Johnson : That's correct.

Senator FARRELL: None? Zero? Alright.

Senator Birmingham: Senator Farrell, obviously, that is not to say that there weren't Australian voters who did vote more than once. But in the end the AFP and others do also have a burden of proof if they are going to proceed with a prosecution.

Senator FARRELL: No. We do know the number. No. I understand. Let's—

Senator AYRES: I didn't hear the number. Sorry, what was the number again?

Mr Rogers : It was 2,102 multiple marks; 24 were referred to the AFP for further action.

Senator AYRES: So 2,000 multiple marks. How many people cast votes?

Mr Rogers : 15 or 16 million.

Senator AYRES: Around 15 million. So how many decimal points of a per cent is that?

Mr Rogers : I would have to use my calculator for that, but it is a small

Senator FARRELL: Very small. Infinitesimal.

Mr Rogers : It's three or four or five.

Senator FARRELL: Vanishingly small. Would that be a fair description? Let's talk about these 2,000. Commissioner, is it true that most of these 2,000 are over 80 years of age and have English as a second language? Is that the characteristic that essentially defines these 2,000 people?

Mr Rogers : Let me repeat evidence I have given here previously on that issue. Our research shows that the vast majority of people that multiple vote do it, firstly, because—I'm looking for a euphemism here—they're older Australians, and some of them can get confused with the voting process. Secondly, some may have English as a second language. This is not totally; these are sort of the majority. Thirdly, some of the individuals that we referred to the AFP have had mental health issues that have led to that outcome.

Senator FARRELL: Okay. It's true to say that there's no evidence of widespread fraud in electoral voting in the elections that you've conducted?

Mr Rogers : I'm very proud of the electoral system that we run. It's one of the world's great electoral systems. Let me put that on the record. At the same time, I'm aware that this issue of multiple voting and a whole range of other issues is viewed differently depending on where you sit within the electoral process. Our job is to administer the legislation as it sits. At the last election—or the election before; I don't quite remember—we put a joint submission in to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, with the AFP and I think the CDPP—no, it was just with the AFP—talking about the difficulty of securing any form of conviction ever with multiple voting, because of the evidentiary requirements which are almost impossible to meet. So I think we are lucky in Australia in that the evidence of multiple voting to date has been, as I said previously, vanishingly small compared to the size. At the same time, I'm also conscious that there are issues here which—from a perception issue—other people think is worth dealing with.

Senator FARRELL: People might perceive that there's a problem. But, in practice, there isn't.

Mr Rogers : I'm being very careful with my words, but I'm—

Senator FARRELL: I don't want to put words in your mouth.

Mr Rogers : Thank you, Senator. This is a sensitive issue, but I'm proud of the process that we're running. There is no doubt, obviously, that there is multiple voting that occurs because we picked it up.

Senator FARRELL: You picked it up. Yes.

Senator Birmingham: The integrity of the Australian voting system is very, very strong and something that the AEC and the nation should be very proud of. That said, perceptions do matter in relation to confidence in systems. I think we see that ever more in terms of conspiracies and other theories that often run wild across different online domains nowadays. So it's important that we always address realities of integrity and perceptions of reality thoroughly.

Senator FARRELL: On that exact topic, I think you're introducing more and more electronic certified lists, against which voters' names are marked when they go to vote. Can you explain what the effect on multiple voting will be with these new electronic certified lists?

Mr Rogers : I may not have it exactly to hand. If I can find it, I will. At the last election almost a third of votes, I think, were issued through electronic certified lists. I think we deployed over 4,000 certified lists. It's a good technology. It was our initiative to introduce those to start with. At the 2013 election—I may have the figures wrong—I think we used about 400 of them or thereabouts at that event, and we've multiplied them over that period of time. One of the big things that we found that electronic certified lists do is actually improve queue timings quite radically. At the last election, citizen satisfaction with queue timings went from 78 per cent to something like 92 per cent, because it's a quicker way for us to do business. At the same time, it can assist in preventing multiple voting. To be very clear, no citizen is turned away if they turn up to a polling place and say that they haven't voted. But if we've got a flag on an electronic certified list that says that someone has voted, that individual is sent over to the table to do a declaration vote, so that we actually have a written vote in an envelope. Obviously, only one vote's included in the count, and we do the check after the event. I think back to the Griffith by-election, which was the first election where we used only electronic certified lists, and it had a big impact on the level of alleged multiple voting.

Senator FARRELL: Do you know what sort of impact? Was it zero—

Mr Rogers : There was still some, but it had a significant impact.

Senator FARRELL: As you're rolling this out more and more, I assume that eventually every list will be in this category. Is that right?

Mr Rogers : That is an interesting question, because there's a cost implication for that as well. Right now, we're working on a project to explore ways in which we can roll out electronic certified lists to as many polling places as we can, but the cost of rolling those lists out would be mammoth. I'm just being told that the project—I think we were allocated an amount of money to look at this and deliver an increase in the 2024-25 election. Of course, it would be fantastic if we could do electronic certified lists at every polling place everywhere, but I actually doubt that that's going to be the case. The fleet of equipment we'd need would be—

Dr Gleeson : Approximately 40,000 devices. The money that we've been allocated from the last MYEFO is $24.4 million over four years, and that should see us achieve 10,000 devices for the 2024-25 election. So there's a progressive scale-up occurring.

Mr Rogers : Whether we ever get to 40,000 devices—I'm not sure it actually represents value for money.

Senator Birmingham: The commission can speak most effectively to this, but there's an efficiency in operations in terms of the devices because, obviously, the strike-through is instant, rather than needing scanning or certification of a record. It's still not instantaneous, in that the way the devices are operated across the country means it's a nightly reconciliation.

Senator FARRELL: Can I summarise that whole picture? We have a vanishingly small number of multiple voters. That number is decreased every time we get one of these rolls up and running.

Mr Rogers : It's assisted by that function.

Senator FARRELL: It's assisted, so you would expect that number to go down as more and more people go on these rolls. In addition to that, the recent changes to the legislation, where you can put aside one of these voters that you've spotted, decrease that number even further. Is that fair?

Mr Rogers : I'm being very cautious here, but they are all measures that would tend towards that outcome.

Senator FARRELL: Yes, and all of those are likely to push down the number.

Mr Rogers : They will assist the process.

Senator FARRELL: They will assist the process, yes. So we don't need voter ID, do we?

Mr Rogers : Senator, I knew you were going to end up in that location. I'm sure the minister will want to talk about that, because it's a piece of government policy rather than something for the commission.

Senator AYRES: I bet he doesn't really. He really doesn't want to talk about it.

Mr Rogers : But on this issue I would point out that the commission really is aware of all sides of the argument. We don't want to be caught up in what's effectively a political discussion.

Senator FARRELL: No, and I'm not asking you to make a comment on it, because that would be inappropriate. But what I am seeking to do is—

Senator Birmingham: Your question is obviously directed to me then, Senator Farrell. You certainly sought a comment.

Senator FARRELL: Yes, I did. But what I'm trying to point out is that there are a whole lot of measures, the issue is vanishingly small to start with and there's a couple of measures in place as a result of recent legislation, which the opposition supported. That is likely to push those numbers down even further.

Senator Birmingham: Senator Farrell, as I said before, we have an electoral system of very high integrity. The nation should be proud of it and the Electoral Commission should be congratulated for it, and our electoral laws help to underpin that. But it's not something we can ever rest on our laurels in regard to. We need to be mindful of perceptions of where weaknesses exist as well. It's true that measures such as the electronic lists provide certain assistance, but, as the evidence equally demonstrated, they're not live and they are only at a relatively small proportion of checking points compared to the rest of the system. The government believes that there is merit in terms of providing that lift in confidence across the Australian community around the integrity of our electoral systems that voter ID measures would entail. That's something that the parliament will ultimately determine, and the Electoral Commission will, as they always do, dutifully implement the laws in place at the time of an election. In terms of the drafting of that legislation, if you want to go to any of those details, the department clearly handles that part of electoral policy because of the commission's independent role when it comes to the actual application of those laws.

Senator FARRELL: Voter ID would depress the number of people that could vote, wouldn't it, Commissioner?

Mr Rogers : I think an effective measure of any legislation in this regard would be that no voter is turned away. I know this operates differently in different jurisdictions. The Guardian article today about—

Senator FARRELL: Yes, I saw that one.

Mr Rogers : It might be proposed. I might go to the deputy commissioner here. If a voter did not have the relevant ID, the idea would be, even just in that article—I'm commenting on the article, not on the legislation—that there'd be other avenues for them to prove their identity and, at the end of that process, I would think they'd be offered a declaration vote so we could then match their identity against the electoral roll at a point in time. I don't know, Deputy Electoral Commissioner, whether you've got anything to add to that.

Mr Pope : That's correct. That's my understanding of what was trying to be conveyed in that article today, and I agree that we'd certainly want a voting system where no Australian was ever turned away and denied the opportunity to vote.

Senator Birmingham: Senator Farrell, the issues will be explored, but at present the legislation requires polling place officials to ask individuals for their full name, for their address and whether they've voted before in that election ID requirements can truncate some of that or ease that necessity, particularly with people who may live with disability, be of culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds, or otherwise have difficulty in communicating all of that information which is available on forms of identification.

Senator FARRELL: But we've got a good system. It works well. There's no widespread evidence of voter fraud. We're weeks out from an election and suddenly the government decides—

CHAIR: Weeks!

Senator FARRELL: Okay, it might be months.

Senator Birmingham: If we're only weeks out the legislation won't pass.

Senator FARRELL: We know we've got to have one by 21 May. You're down in the polls and suddenly we find voter ID legislation popping up.

Senator Birmingham: I think you'll see that there has been a pretty consistent view, particularly among coalition members from JSCEM, over many years in relation to analysis of some of these issues. Just because we have a good system doesn't mean we should rest on our laurels, and it certainly doesn't mean we shouldn't look to any opportunities to improve it and to improve confidence in it.

Senator AYRES: I've listened to the discussion about this. I have a couple of questions for you, Commissioner, and for you, Minister. I'd like to know, on notice, the calculation from the Electoral Commission of what proportion are multiple votes. With respect, I'd like that over the next couple of days because I don't think it's a difficult calculation. I know the on-notice requirements will require it to be with you for a couple of days, but it is many thousandths of a per cent and I'd like to see the exact calculation.

I think we all know, Minister, why this is being proposed. It's because the government wants to throw the racist, reactionary right a bone. That's what is really going on here. It's an utter disgrace. When, Commissioner, were you advised that the government was considering these laws?

Mr Rogers : I'd have to take that on notice. I'm not obscuring, but when any government is in power we're asked for advice—

Senator AYRES: Presumably, because it has been as constant as Senator Birmingham has said, this issue has been a battleground internally on the conservative side of politics. It has come through the JSCEM a number of times.

Senator Birmingham: It has come through JSCEM a number of times—

Senator AYRES: It's consistently a preoccupation of some far reaches on the conservative side of politics.

Senator Birmingham: In some of its previous analysis JSCEM noted the fact that voter turnout in the 2015 Queensland state election was higher with voter ID requirements in place than it was in the subsequent 2017 state election after they had been repealed.

Senator AYRES: The evidence in American elections is that voter turnout is suppressed by seven per cent in areas where voter ID happens. For African-American voters and Asian-American voters, that is where the impact is felt. It's not other American voters who don't turn out. It's a particular kind of voter whose votes are suppressed by this kind of process. Commissioner, I'd like to know, specifically in terms of this legislation, when were you advised by the government that that legislation was being proposed.

Mr Rogers : I'll provide that on notice. As I said to Senator Farrell before, we do not have a policy on this issue because it is such a political issue—

Senator AYRES: Yes, and I'm not asking you for a view.

Mr Rogers : with such a polarised view. I will point out, without either criticising or supporting the legislation, that this is a matter for parliament. We provide advice on a regular basis to governments of both flavours, when they're in power, about matters affecting our portfolio, as you'd expect. As to the exact date, I'd have to take that on notice.

Senator AYRES: Have you seen the bill?

Mr Rogers : I don't think I've personally seen the bill. We have seen a version of the bill.

Senator AYRES: The commission has been provided with whatever the version of the bill is, and I accept it might alter. Did you have the opportunity to make coordination comments on a cabinet submission in relation to this bill? I think Minister Birmingham inferred that was drafted somewhere else, not inside the Electoral Commission.

Mr Rogers : We don't draft legislation.

Senator Birmingham: The Department of Finance handles electoral policy, but obviously the input of the commission for practical purposes of administration and so on is valuable.

Mr Rogers : I know you know this, Senator Ayres, but it's important for the record, so I'll point out that any advice we provide on these issues is not about whether it's a good or a bad idea. Again, I'm not criticising the legislation or supporting it. It's a matter of, if that were to be implemented, this is what we would require, or this is how it would be done. It's along those lines; it's not about whether it should be done or should not be done. We do the same for all legislation for governments of both sides.

Senat or AYRES: I appreciate that. I understood that already, but I'm grateful for you making those comments. In terms of operationalising this kind of approach, has there been any assessment of whether voter ID laws will make voting a slower process?

Mr Rogers : Not yet, other than in the very general terms. I would hope that whatever pops out of the legislation that might be very different would mitigate the issue of queuing. I would hope for some additional resources that might pop out of that bill as well because we'll need to do some extra stuff.

Senator AYRES: So, if people turn up without their ID, they're sent home and come back again.

Mr Rogers : Again, I'm going on the Guardian article, not on the legislation. They would potentially be sent to a declaration vote. But whatever the legislation is, it would need to be resourced accordingly.

Senator AYRES: Some people will go home when they're asked to fill out a declaration vote, won't they?

Mr Rogers : I haven't seen the final version, so I'm very nervous about talking about it. But I would say that we'll implement that, as we always do, in a way that tries to minimise any impact.

Senator AYRES: It's going to be very hard for you to tell. I understand you'll try to predict what happens, but the proof will be in the pudding. You can either have Australians turning up and it's the same, or you can have Australians turning up and queuing around the block. You don't know, do you?

Mr Rogers : It's difficult for us to talk about that without even seeing the legislation. I'm not trying to be cute; I'm being deliberate.

Senator AYRES: I'll just echo Senator Farrell's comments. We have what's called the Australian ballot around the world. We have a system we should be very proud of. Why we would want to insert US segregationist Jim Crow legislation to corrupt the Australian ballot process, I have no idea. You have totally lost your way.

CHAIR: That's your opinion, Senator Ayres.

Senator Birmingham: Senator Ayres, voter ID requirements are used in France.

Senator AYRES: Totally lost your way.

Senator Birmingham: They're used in Germany and in Italy, so if you wish to seek to—

Senator AYRES: You're getting very good at justifying these kinds of things for this government.

Senator Birmingham: You might seek to besmirch the US, and indeed there are many strengths in our electoral system that stand head and shoulder above the way the US operates elements of its electoral system.

Senator AYRES: Absolutely, above all sorts of countries.

Senator Birmingham: As I said before, we have one of the best electoral systems in the world. But that doesn't mean that we cannot and should not pursue all opportunities to further enhance its integrity, further enhance public confidence in it. Public confidence can be eroded by both actual areas of risk in the electoral system and perceived areas of risk in the electoral system. This sort of measure would seek to address both an actual area of risk, not just in terms of multiple voting but also in terms of fraudulent voting of deceased people or otherwise—

Senator AYRES: You see a lot of conspiracy stuff on the internet, but you don't respond to it by sucking up to it, do you?

Senator Birmingham: That would be the type of perceived threat that we need to be vigilant to and mindful of.

Senator AYRES: We've been through the facts, haven't we? I understand in the recesses of the internet that some of your colleagues inhabit this sort of stuff is out there. But you don't respond to the nonsense; you respond to the facts. That's what governments should do.

Senator Birmingham: We should respond to both real and perceived threats where any of them pose the potential to undermine confidence in our systems.

Senator AYRES: I'm not sure what happened to empiricism and logical positivism on your side of politics.

CHAIR: Senator Ayres.

Senator AYRES: I'm done, thank you, Chair.

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, you have the call.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you all for being here. I want to put on the record that, in my experience when people make accusations of racism and use other labels and conspiracy theories, it usually means there's no argument that they can mount. My understanding of what Mr Hehir from the Australian National Audit Office said yesterday is that the way to improve electoral integrity is through parliament, so I am pleased to hear that again tonight. From a media report tonight I understand that the government has introduced an electoral integrity bill—and I think that's the correct name—so I'll reserve my questions, Chair, until the next estimates, should they still be relevant.

CHAIR: You don't have any further—

Senator ROBERTS: I told you I was going to be quick.

CHAIR: That wasn't even really a question, Senator Roberts, but you did stick to your promise that you were going to be quick, and I appreciate that. Senator Smith, you have the call.

Senator FARRELL: From the great state of South Australia.

Senator MARIELLE SMITH: Yes, indeed. Firstly, I have a couple of questions around electronic certified lists, which Senator Farrell was asking about before. Commissioner, can you confirm what improvements in polling place technology will be in place for the next federal election?

Mr Rogers : I'll ask Dr Gleeson to answer that question.

Dr Gleeson : For this federal election we will deploy over 5,000 electronic certified lists. That is an increase on the 2019 election. We will have some enhanced functionality as part of the certified lists. That has been driven by internal improvements. As I mentioned, we'll further enhance the solution as part of the MYEFO funding for the 2024-25 event and increase the deployment to 10,000 devices.

Senator MARIELLE SMITH: Can I just confirm that you said there is a budget in MYEFO of $24.4 million for that?

Dr Gleeson : That's correct. There is $24.4 million allocated over four years.

Senator MARIELLE SMITH: When would you expect the full rollout to be complete? I note the commissioner said that it's obviously a very expensive and very extensive rollout, but do you have a timeframe in mind of which election that would be done by?

Dr Gleeson : Can I just clarify the question? Is the question about if we were to deploy electronic certified lists to all issuing points?

Senator MARIELLE SMITH: Yes.

Dr Gleeson : As the commissioner indicated, that is contingent on investigations into the feasibility of a full rollout. There are a range of factors that weigh into that consideration, including the logistics, the technology and a number of other elements. That is part of the MYEFO funding and the $24.4 million to better understand our ability to scale up beyond the 10,000 devices.

Senator Birmingham: Just to add to Dr Gleeson's acknowledgement there of the logistics, the processes and so forth, I'll also say 'and the costs'. We have many very small polling places across a country like Australia. So, whilst at present the lists are being made available and prioritised to larger distribution points which can give the commission greatest utilisation of them and, hopefully, the greatest efficiency from the utilisation of them, in relation to extending that to all distribution points there would be a diminishing return in terms of the cost per unit going into smaller and smaller distribution points. That's not to say that we may not eventually get there, but all of this evidence will help to inform that decision and the question as to whether it is going to provide a profound enough change to warrant that investment.

Senator MARIELLE SMITH: So part of that $24.4 million figure goes to providing the 10,000 lists and part of it goes into the feasibility work. Are there any other factors that make up that cost? Are there any further breakdowns you can give me?

Dr Gleeson : The MYEFO measure also includes funding to develop a digital officer in charge of return, and a secure communication tool to connect officers in charge in a polling place back to AEC headquarters essentially.

Senator MARIELLE SMITH: Can you give me the breakdown?

Dr Gleeson : Of the dollar figure attached to that? I'd have to take that on notice.

Senator MARIELLE SMITH: Okay, so give us the breakdown of those three elements within that measure. What process does the AEC undertake to check that this technology or to—I'll rephrase that. How does the AEC measure the efficacy of these measures when they're rolled out?

Mr Rogers : Can I just confirm, are you talking about the efficacy of the electronic certified lists as we roll them out. Is that what you—

Senator MARIELLE SMITH: Yes.

Mr Rogers : We do a range of analysis on a range of different metrics, and we did that when we first introduced ECLs in any case, including a very large-scale project to assess time in queue and a range of other things. Dr Gleeson might have some other information about that.

Dr Gleeson : Senator, I hope this answers your question. Over several events, as the commissioner has said, we're able to collect data on the efficacy of electronic certified lists and the benefits in their use. In addition to the discussion on name mark off and multiple voting that has already been discussed, it enables us to more efficiently and accurately search for electors, it allows for printing ballot papers on demand—

Mr Rogers : Not Senate.

Dr Gleeson : That's right, just House of Reps ballot papers. We don't have a printer that big. It provides real-time data, where a connection is available, and it removes the need to scan paper certified lists. I just want to clarify—were you also interested in the security elements? I'm sorry, but I had a little trouble hearing.

Senator MARIELLE SMITH: Yes, I'm interested in how you measure the efficacy of the certified lists and also the other technology improvements you were talking about that will be in place before the next election. How are you measuring yourself when it comes to these measures?

Dr Gleeson : In terms of the implementation for the next election, we'll have internal lessons management processes. As the commissioner mentioned, we also utilise Deakin University, who assist us in measuring some of the metrics in our polling places. We compare metrics in polling places using ECLs against those that use paper certified lists.

Senator MARIELLE SMITH: Thank you. They are all my questions on that item, but I have some further questions on combatting disinformation. Commissioner, are they best directed back to you?

Mr Rogers : I am sorry, Senator, but I'm finding it a little hard to hear and I missed the topic area.

Senator MARIELLE SMITH: Is that the case for everyone in the room? Is there an audio issue?

CHAIR: It's just a little skippy, Senator Smith, so maybe just repeat the question.

Senator MARIELLE SMITH: No problem. My questions go to what the AEC is doing to combat disinformation, and what mechanisms the AEC has in place to deal with disinformation in the election campaign. I'm sure I'm not the only senator who has had issues raised with them around the prolific spread of disinformation. We're particularly seeing it from Clive Palmer and from Craig Kelly on vaccines, and I think we anticipate that will ramp up as we head towards the election. This is a big concern for me, and for many others in our democracy. Is AEC still using the Stop and Consider campaign? Is that still one of your primary measures?

Mr Rogers : It's such an important issue you've raised. I'm happy to talk a little bit about that, and then I might get the deputy commissioner to pop in as well. Forgive me, but I will say at the outset that I won't talk about any specific member or candidate; I'll talk about the issue more broadly.

Senator MARIELLE SMITH: Of course, that's most appropriate. I was just giving context to my question.

Mr Rogers : We are obviously concerned about misinformation and disinformation. We spent a lot of time before the last election ensuring that we had strategies in place to deal with that, and we're looking at some of those measures at the moment. First of all, we'll be rerunning our Stop and Consider campaign. We think that was very successful, but we're going to go further with the Stop and Consider campaign at the next event. I don't have the exact statistics, Senator, but I can find them. I think we had something like about 65 million individual views of the page, 100,000 click-throughs onto the webpage and many thousands of downloads of the material. It got widespread media coverage. We analysed it after the event. It had high levels of community recognition. I would point out that it's 'stop and consider' the source. We're not talking about the content of the messaging. That's a separate issue. It's about where the messaging comes from.

At the same time, the last election was the first election we met with the vast majority of the social media companies. The deputy commissioner, along with the foreign interference coordinator from the Department of Home Affairs and someone from the department of communications, visited the social media companies and spoke to them. At this event, we're doing the same thing. I think two weeks ago we met with the Australian executives of Facebook. We are I think going to have a bilateral protocol in place with them. We have been working on behalf of all the electoral commissions in Australia and New Zealand to put a protocol in place with all social media companies in Australia, through their industry body called DIGI, and that will clearly set out the expectations from the commissions to social media organisations.

At the same time, we are taking a far more assertive stance on our own social media pages, particularly when it comes to misinformation and disinformation about the electoral process—not about the message of political ads. Then, of course, we have the Electoral Integrity Assurance Taskforce, which was set up in the 2019 election and is a very active part of what we're doing. The deputy commissioner is the co-chair of the board of that. Deputy Commissioner, do you want to add your one cent's worth into the misinformation-disinformation sphere?

Mr Pope : I think you provided a very thorough response there, Commissioner. I would just add that, with the Electoral Integrity Assurance Taskforce, we'll be leveraging off the capability of those agencies that are members of that task force to monitor the environment and, where appropriate, provide resources and assistance in trying to manage any disinformation that does impact on the integrity or the process of the election.

Mr Rogers : What we don't want to see is some of the stuff we saw coming out of the US about the electoral process itself. We view misinformation and disinformation about that very strongly, and we're taking a very assertive stance on that. Even now on social media we're batting back some of the misinformation that's already being put out about the election and about the AEC.

Senator MARIELLE SMITH: Thank you. That was helpful and comprehensive and did go to some of my questions. Could I just confirm: the Stop and Consider campaign is targeted at disinformation through online platforms only. Is that correct?

Mr Rogers : From what I think I heard there, Senator, the Stop and Consider campaign is about information more broadly, but it's particularly targeted at thinking about the source of information online and where it came from. Also, for the record, we shamelessly copied the original version of that campaign from the Swedes, who were world leaders in that regard. Our campaign and the Swedish campaign have now effectively been replicated in a large number of other countries, including Canada and the UK—all with their own flavour. That's why we ended up with Stop and Consider. The one they ran in Sweden apparently sounds great in Swedish, but it's something like, 'If it makes you angry, it's probably false.' They ran that. We market tested it over here. It didn't test with an Australian audience. Stop and Consider tested well.

Senator MARIELLE SMITH: Interesting. How much have you budgeted for the Stop and Consider campaign for this upcoming election?

Mr Rogers : Let's take that on notice—

Mr Pope : Sorry, I was just going to say that last time Stop and Consider was solely an online campaign. This time it's part of our broader election advertising campaign. So I'm not sure we'll be able to specifically answer that question because it's now ingrained and an integral component of our broader electoral advertising campaign.

Mr Rogers : We can tell you that last time the overall budget for that was I think relatively low. It was a late addition. I don't know whether Mr Pope remembers the amount for the last event—

Mr Pope : No, I can't.

Mr Rogers : but it was less than $3 million, or it might have even been less than that. But, as Mr Pope said, we are making it a very integral part of what we're doing because, as you've said, Senator, the threat is evolving and we need to evolve with the threat.

Senator MARIELLE SMITH: I appreciate that if it's part of a broader campaign you might not necessarily be able to say roughly how much it's going to cost based on what you did last time, but you must have projections in place. If you anticipated that it was going to be part of a broader advertising spend, you would have run some figures on that. I'm not expecting you to have it here, but is it something you can take on notice?

Mr Rogers : We can provide you with some figures about our broader advertising spend and some other information that might be useful in that regard.

Senator MARIELLE SMITH: Yes. Obviously my questions are going to misinformation, so I'm especially interested in how much you expect that this broader Stop and Consider campaign will cost. If you can take that away and see what you can come back to me with, I would appreciate it. In terms of last time, I know you thought the program was quite successful; you mentioned that. But were there any specific indicators that you used to measure the success of the program? Were there any particular KPIs that you would be working towards in advance? How did you evaluate it.

Mr Rogers : It's a good question, Senator. There are two parts to that. Firstly, there was an event in Canberra coordinated by the Countering Foreign Interference Coordinator from Home Affairs, which 16 nations attended, showcasing what they were doing in the broad area of cybersecurity. That was before the 2019 election. We attended that. That's where we learned about what the Swedes were doing. That was a late addition to our arsenal of things we were doing to deal with misinformation or disinformation. We've already had a very strong online presence in any case, and that's a key part of what we're doing. Stop and Consider was I think one of the last things we did during that electoral cycle. But we also did other things at that point in time.

We then did an assessment of Stop and Consider. If I'm wrong here I'll be corrected, but I think we assessed that by using an external company after the event, to assess the impact of that advertising campaign and to measure things like community recognition as well. That's sort of where we were heading, to get community recognition of the event. It would be impossible for us, as the Electoral Commission, to have a metric to say, 'Reduce disinformation in Australia'. That's not going to happen. But if we can make citizens alert, during the election campaign, as to where information comes from, we think we'll have been successful. The work we're doing with the task force, the work we're doing with the social media organisations right now, as well as Stop and Consider, is all designed to help us deal with the issue of misinformation or disinformation.

I'm conscious, though, that there's a line where candidates and parties are sending political messages. There's this sort of dividing line there where we get to the issue of truth in advertising. I know that at least one private member's bill has been introduced about that issue. But we currently don't have the power to look at truth in advertising. In fact, if we were to start talking about individual campaign messages, that would be a chilling effect—for the Electoral Commission to be involved in telling candidates what they can and can't say. That's an important distinction. So, we're trying to raise awareness of misinformation and disinformation. The task force is a key part of that, and we'll continue to engage in this area.

Senator MARIELLE SMITH: I appreciate that it might be hard to measure the success of that program in a quantitative sense, but you could use qualitative measures—

Mr Rogers : And we did do that, with the analysis of the program that we did after the event.

Senator MARIELLE SMITH: What did you do? Was it focus-group type of research? What did it look like?

Mr Rogers : If we could take that on notice, I could explain exactly what we did and the methodology we used. That might be helpful.

Senator MARIELLE SMITH: That would be very helpful. Thank you. You referenced the Electoral Integrity Assurance Taskforce, and I think that came up in a previous Senate inquiry on foreign interference. I think at that inquiry, Commissioner, you said that more information from that task force would be released, including its terms of reference. Is that available now?

Mr Rogers : No. The terms of reference are not available. We've examined that. The terms of reference for the task force are protected and can't be released. There are a whole range of obvious reasons for that. Particularly given the area that we are trying to protect, we don't want to release all that information.

Senator MARIELLE SMITH: What information has been released?

Mr Rogers : We've had private briefings with the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, where we've talked about it to the extent that we can, and also with the Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, and a range of other times when we've discussed that. I know this has also been the subject of discussion not only at this committee but at other Senate estimates committees for agencies that are component parts of the task force. So, a fair bit has been discussed with it. We've been fairly open about the fact that there is a task force, the members of the task force and the fact that it is designed to produce advice for the benefit of the electoral commissioner at election time.

Maybe while I've got the floor open because it's an important thing, I will point out two things. Firstly, their membership of the task force doesn't abrogate their statutory responsibilities for doing whatever they do as an agency. Secondly, it's been deliberately designed so that there's an air gap between the work of the task force and the commission, particularly the commissioner. What we don't want is government or intelligence agencies to be involved in directing what occurs at an election. They produce advice for the commissioner and we determine what to do with the advice.

Senator MARIELLE SMITH: We've got Stop and Consider and we've got the Electoral Integrity Assurance Taskforce. Are there any other members you are using to combat disinformation that we haven't gone to yet this evening?

Mr Rogers : For the first time, for this election we have produced a thing that we are calling our reputation management strategy. If I can opine on that. Without picking a particular country, if you look at recent electoral events overseas, in some of those events the electoral system works as it's supposed to or as it's designed. But a lot of the failure has been a collapse in the reputation of the electoral system through misinformation and disinformation put online by a whole range of players in that process. Our reputation management strategy is designed to help us deal with that. Part of that is by us providing more and more information publicly and by being more and more active online to deal with information as it pops up to try and be as accessible as possible to citizens.

Before the election, we will be doing more information publicly, including by me, to talk to people about their election so Australians have a much better understanding of their electoral system and process. I might point out though that it's not just the commission's responsibility to protect Australia's electoral system; it's everyone's responsibility—candidates, parties and everybody else. Our strategy is designed for us to alert people to some of those issues. We'll be talking about it more and more as we get closer to an election date.

Senator MARIELLE SMITH: How do you deal with parties and candidates who are spreading disinformation as individuals, as opposed to the broader concept of tackling disinformation within our democracy?

Mr Rogers : If that disinformation or misinformation is about the electoral process in particular—how to vote, when to vote, a whole range of other things—we approach the individuals concerned and ask them to cease doing that. We are also very active online in correcting information. Let's pick a hypothetical where it becomes more difficult—Senator, it's late at night and I can't think as nimbly as perhaps as earlier this evening. If you were talking about something that the other party had said or a policy of the other, that is not something for us to become involved with. That would fall into the area of truth in advertising. Elections are a contest of ideas and there are always perceptions of truth at each election.

Senator MARIELLE SMITH: If a party or candidate has been found to be spreading misinformation or disinformation about the electoral process, you ask them to stop. If they don't stop and don't desist, what is the next thing that happens at that point?

Mr Rogers : The vast majority of individuals fall over themselves to comply with the Electoral Act and requests from the commission. The vast majority of issues with candidates involve a lack of understanding of the process. So when we reach out, normally people comply with what we are asking them to do. Occasionally there are issues that we deal with. Occasionally there are conspiracy theories online. Let me mention one of them without going into the details of who or where. At each election it pops up. Someone will say something like: 'The AEC erases votes. Don't use pencils, use pens because the AEC are behind the scenes erasing votes.' When that pops up, we deal with it. We issue counter-messages. We publicise what we are doing. We try to be as transparent as possible. That's just an example. That's been at every election, by the way. I think, at the last election there was even a hashtag trending for a while saying, 'Use pens' or something. When that happens, we try to deal with it in the best way possible. I'm also conscious people are able to believe a whole range of things without bureaucrats telling them not to believe stuff. We try and deal with that in a sensitive way, nonetheless when that information pops up, we try and be assertive.

Senator MARIELLE SMITH: Thank you. I appreciate your answers.

CHAIR: None-one else has questions, so thank you to the AEC for coming along this evening and responding to our questions. Thank you, Minister, for attending today and all the officers who have given evidence to the committee. Thank you to Hansard, Broadcasting and the secretariat for your assistance.

Committee adjourned at 22:20