Today the Australian Electoral Commission will front the first public hearing on the 2022 federal election. It will entertain the thoughts (and prayers) of some 212 submissions made to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters.
According to the committee’s terms of reference, it is after comments and concerns on minimising campaign money and maxing out voter engagement, particularly of First Nations peoples. It also wants to know if there’s an appetite for truth-telling in political advertising and whether Australia should consolidate all voter data on to a single electoral roll (easy use, easy access, easy hack).
Crikey took a look at some of the more creative contributions.
There was a healthy serve of shameless self-promotion, including links to personal blogs and websites and more than a few anecdotal (and alleged) horror tales from the ballot box. One claimed that campaign volunteers “told me that I didn’t love my child” because they believed “I wasn’t voting for their candidate”. The proposed solution? “Stricter and larger non-advertising perimeters around booths.”
Also in the paper pile were calls to replace the “dishonest AEC document” with a homemade version of “honest and voter-friendly model ballot papers”, an essay on the “slippery slope” of early voting that concluded (a little contradictorily) with a disclaimer that “I personally like the flexibility of voting early”. Others were adamant the AEC “must be beyond reproach and not laughed at”. Riddle me that.
There were plenty who felt (fairly) they’d been “assaulted” by the deep pockets of wealthy individuals and groups. But amid calls for greater transparency and a cap on spending, one submission expressed a desire to limit the dollars on decoration: “No more than two corflutes per pary [sic] and no bunting.”
Suggestions aside, the most useful contributions were irrefutably those that endorsed “reform”. End of submission.
One simply replied inline, corporate email style — the annotated terms of reference gave feedback including “very good idea”, “not a bad idea”, and “agree”.
Another copied and pasted the terms of reference and then added a single line: “For the above items that require more thought such as b), c) and e) I apologise that I do not have any detailed guidelines but trust the committee can develop these.”
Whoever said faith in institutions was down?
