Motions
Special Inquiry into the Planning and Delivery of the 2025 Western Australia state General Election
Motion
Hon Tjorn Sibma (10:03 am) without notice: I move:
That this house:
(a) acknowledges the findings and recommendations of the Special Inquiry into the Planning and Delivery of the 2025 Western Australia General Election, which was completed on 16 June 2025 and tabled on 12 August 2025;
(b) recognises that of the inquiry's 24 recommendations, the state government's response is to note one recommendation and support in principle 23 recommendations; and
(c) encourages the Parliament to take a serious and active interest in restoring public confidence in the Western Australian Electoral Commission and our democratic system.
I have decided to take a slightly different tack on non-government business Thursday. On occasion, this can be the forum for the channelling of the animal tribal spirits of our partisan divide, and that is an appropriate thing to do, but not always. Sometimes the construction of non-government business, or indeed any form of business that appears before the house, can be more art than science, and getting the balance of invective and criticism while leaving the door open for constructive resolution is sometimes not an easily achieved balance, but it is with that spirit that I bring this motion to the house. Indeed, this is not a motion that seeks to condemn anybody; it seeks to drive accountability and the consequences of accountability. It is delivered to the house for its contemplation to remind us again of the Parliament's collective responsibility for ensuring the institutional health of those pillars that uphold the Westminster parliamentary democratic tradition and the rest of the fruits of our society that we enjoy. We ignore them at our peril.
It is a matter of public record that His Honour Malcolm McCusker was appointed as a special inquirer to interrogate within some limited terms of reference the undertaking of the recent 2025 state election. For the interests of the house, I am going to draw from my own personal submission to that inquiry, because I think it is important to establish some of the context that lay behind that inquiry having to be called.
The introduction of fixed four-year electoral terms and consequently the setting of fixed dates for state elections from 2013 onwards means that, frankly, the Western Australian Electoral Commission's underperformance in the conduct of the recent election was utterly avoidable through diligent planning. In fact, I think that the comparatively superior performance of the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) in its management of the recent federal election provides a very sharp contrast between the operational readiness and capacity of those two organisations. The Australian Electoral Commission operated at greater speed, greater scale and in greater scope. It was more dynamic and it did not benefit from understanding when the election would be held. The WAEC had that advantage. The irony for me is that during the course of the federal election, the state representative—the head returning officer in Western Australia—for the Australian Electoral Commission was at pains to emphasise the organisational distinction between the AEC and the Western Australian Electoral Commission, I think to restore a measure of public confidence in the Australian Electoral Commission's capacity to undertake its electoral responsibilities and attending administration responsibly and professionally, the irony being that there is a shared workforce of temporary election workers that the AEC and the WAEC can and have drawn upon.
However, it is important not to make the Western Australian Electoral Commission and the commissioner the only scapegoat. My intention here is not to scapegoat anybody, but to identify where lines of responsibility and accountability were for the recent election. I think that has been somewhat obscured. It is covered in some passing detail in the special inquirer's report, but not probably as deeply as we would like. It goes without saying that despite the Western Australian Electoral Commission's venerated and necessary independence and autonomy, its operations and capacity to undertake its responsibilities are shaped by government policy and the government's appetite for resourcing it appropriately. It is clear to me, and it is clear in this report, that the Western Australian Electoral Commission has not been appropriately resourced to undertake its responsibilities. That is clear. It was clear before His Honour had this report tabled. It was clear during the midyear review when the Western Australian Electoral Commission received a supplementary $4 million to undertake the election process. I thought that was a very clear indication that the Western Australian Electoral Commission was obviously not properly funded at that point in the budget cycle last year and had gone to government seeking supplementary funding. I was concerned about that.
It is also important to appreciate the context in which the Western Australian Electoral Commission was working. In spite of the fact that there is a fixed four-year term, everybody saw it coming. It should have seen it coming. It was as much a respondent to changes in government policy as anyone else. I must say that previous Minister for Electoral Affairs Hon John Quigley was probably the most activist minister full stop, but was certainly the most activist Minister for Electoral Affairs this state has seen. On a large and small scale, Hon John Quigley rewrote the electoral laws of this state on four occasions over the course of four years. Some of the more significant amendments were through the Constitutional and Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Equality) Bill 2021 and the Electoral Amendment (Finance and Other Matters) Bill 2023, which dealt with, among a range of other issues, electoral financing and political donations. In fact, there was a clear indication last year that perhaps not all was well with the WAEC's operational readiness when the rollout of the much-vaunted online disclosure portal was delayed and cobbled together in fits and starts throughout the process. It eventuated in there being an unprecedented joint communiqué from the administrative heads or the responsible officers of the Western Australian Labor Party, the Western Australian Liberal Party, the Nationals WA and the Greens WA calling upon the Electoral Commissioner to meet with them, explain exactly what they were going to be obligated to undertake and seek to delay the implementation of this scheme. That was in the planning for a number of years. There were also obviously changes to the way that members of the Legislative Council would be elected. It is clear throughout the Honourable Malcolm McCusker's report that the consequential changes to the upper house ballot were not comprehended by the Western Australian Electoral Commission's temporary workforce.
What strikes me as odd about the tabling of the report, however, has been the government's response. I am attempting to provide somewhat of an alibi for the government in that none of these recommendations has been accepted wholeheartedly. One has been noted and the remainder have been supported in principle. I think that is potentially a defensible caveat in some respects but very alarming in others because it demonstrates a superficial commitment by the government to restoring the integrity of Western Australia's electoral system. Although his predecessor, John Quigley, was hyperactively activist, my good friend Hon David Michael, whose office is directly across the road from mine in Stirling, is perhaps demonstrating a glacial commitment to electoral reform. I know he is a deep and considered person and has the capacity to make some encouraging and well-considered reforms, but he has not yet demonstrated any genuine appetite to do so. I do not think the response to date has provided me, or should provide anybody else, with a degree of satisfaction or encouragement that that might continue.
A range of issues are canvassed in the report and they encompass, I think monumentally, the Western Australian Electoral Commission's decision to outsource the staffing of the election. This procurement model has demonstrated a severe vulnerability. It seems to have arisen through a lack of confidence internally within the Western Australian Electoral Commission that it could appoint and hire a surge workforce to deal with the election in a way that it was able to do competently up until about 2017 or 2021. It had a difference of opinion then about what procurement model it should go with—whether it was going to be a hybridised in-house plus an outsourced model or a fully outsourced model. I think the decision to fully outsource the hiring of temporary election workers has now proven to be the wrong decision.
With some consideration, however, I do sympathise, because we, as parliamentarians, have permitted the commoditisation of voting. We have extended, I think unreasonably, the pre-poll period. The problem that the Western Australian Electoral Commission was attempting to deal with was its inability, effectively, to manage workforce flows in the two weeks leading up to polling day. Managing multiple shifts at multiple polling booths on different days was beyond its human resources system's capacity to manage. I think that Parliament has a responsibility to look seriously at itself and think again about what would constitute a reasonable pre-poll period. The two weeks still in the height of summer is probably far too extensive, and, to some degree, this is the source of the mischief.
The inquirer in his report makes some strong observations about the deficiencies in the Western Australian Electoral Commission's resourcing for the election, and there is some disputation among WAEC officers and Treasury officials about when and how the Western Australian Electoral Commission sought supplementary funding. There does not appear to be sufficient documentation of the need and the request and what happened, but it is obvious that the Western Australian Electoral Commission did not have adequate resourcing to undertake the election, which it should have had—full stop. The deficiency is so severe that the recommendation in this report that the government has indicated it supports in principle is effectively a demand power—that the Western Australian Electoral Commission can get the resources it needs to undertake a professional and safe election. That is the case in the Victorian jurisdiction.
There are a number of topics that one can get to. There are lost ballots. There is a range of problems that we all understand and have had different individual experiences of as we have gone through this most recent process. I want to reflect on a particular matter that was focused on in this report and that has not been spoken about because of everything else. It stems from the hiring of a temporary election workforce to begin with. What was remarkable to me were indications that there were temporary election workers who did not comprehend the electoral process at all and did not understand the rudiments of elections. They could not distinguish between ballots and did not know that there were two chambers. But more concerning and alarming was the indication that there were people employed as part of the temporary election workforce who could not communicate effectively in English. That is a problem.
This prompted me to interrogate this matter, and I have done that over subsequent question times. I have sought to understand whether there was a cohort of the temporary election workforce who were non-citizens. We have laws, at both federal and state levels, that seek to quarantine the integrity of our electoral processes and our democratic structure from foreign interference. I do not wish to be alarmist here, but there is absolutely no requirement under the Western Australian act for an election worker to be on the electoral roll of this state. When I have asked for an indication of whether there are any foreign workers or non-citizen workers, the answer I have received is that part of the outsourcing agreement was that anybody with an appropriate work visa in Australia could have been employed as a temporary election worker.
That is deeply, deeply problematic. It is one thing to have backpackers picking fruit; it is another thing for them to be handling ballots. They should not be doing that. That is completely and utterly inappropriate. I am very unsatisfied at the fact that the Western Australian Electoral Commission does not seem to have any appetite to actually ask PersolKelly to reveal how many of these individuals were handling ballots in the Western Australian election. This is one of a range of problems, but it is a deeply, deeply problematic one. If anything, we need to make an amendment to our own Electoral Act—similar to that in, I think, New South Wales—to provide that if someone is handling a ballot and working at a polling location as a temporary election worker, they have to be on the electoral roll, full stop. There is absolutely no reason why we should not adopt that provision.
His Honour Malcolm McCusker's first recommendation was for the establishment of a joint standing committee on electoral matters. This is such an obvious point, but it is not a point that the government needs to agree to. This is something on which the Parliament can—and, frankly, should—muscle up. Part of this problem was the perversion of the last Parliament having been dominated by the government in both houses to such a degree that it avoided scrutiny. This Parliament failed, or was not permitted, to hold the Western Australian Electoral Commission accountable for its preparation for—and to inquire into whether, in both monetary and human terms, it was properly resourced to conduct—that election to begin with. We need to restore that. I would like to see a motion from either house over the course of the next few months to establish that committee. It is an obvious thing to begin to do.
President, I believe there might be some interest in this motion, so I will take the opportunity to conclude this brief address. I should also say that responsibility for the health of the system depends on us. This report is a call to arms.
Hon Matthew Swinbourn (Minister for the Environment) (10:24 am): Thank you, President. It would be remiss of me not to start my contribution by wishing you a happy birthday—so, happy birthday!
The President: Thank you, minister, for embarrassing the Chair!
Hon Matthew Swinbourn: I am just trying to curry favour!
The President: And you may identify yourself as the lead speaker, as well.
Hon Matthew Swinbourn: I am trying! I am the lead speaker on this motion but, as I say, it would be remiss of me not to recognise this auspicious day!
That aside, this motion is a serious motion, and I appreciate the spirit in which the member has brought it to the chamber. I hope the debate that follows is one that canvasses the strength of our democracy, the importance of the independence of our Electoral Commission, and what we can all do to ensure that future elections are as free, fair and as open as possible. I think that is really the key point on which I want to start with this particular motion—that we do have a proud history in Western Australia, and across Australia, of having very strong, independent electoral commissions that conduct our elections in a manner that allows us to have confidence in their outcome. The same cannot be said for all democracies around the world, and certainly not for countries that do not have democracy at all, but it has been a clear marker of our system here in Western Australia. Notwithstanding the fact that there were some significant issues with the last election, I think we can all still be confident that the outcome was a reflection of the will of the people, and the primary role of the commission is to deliver an outcome—in terms of the counting and conduct of an election—that reflects the will of the people.
I think we can still say that that has been achieved, but the government recognises that there were issues with the election and the election process, and we recognised that very early on. We appointed the Honourable Malcolm McCusker KC—a former Governor of Western Australia and a man of much eminence, held in high regard by many, many people in the Western Australian community—to conduct a special inquiry to look into some of these matters and to make recommendations to the government, the Western Australian community and this Parliament, on how we can proceed with future elections to ensure we have the confidence the community expects to have in the role of the commission and in the outcome of elections.
As the member quite rightly pointed out, 24 recommendations came out of that inquiry. The government's position was to note one and to give in-principle support to 23 others. I want to give some context as to why the government perhaps nuanced its position by giving in-principle support. It was because the recommendations are, almost overwhelmingly, directed at the Western Australian Electoral Commission, as opposed to the Western Australian government. These are matters that the Western Australian Electoral Commission needs to take up and address.
I also want to talk about the tension here between the elected executive government and the independent electoral commission. It is true that there was a Minister for Electoral Affairs in the last term of government, and I was that minister's parliamentary secretary. Throughout that term, we made policy decisions around the way our democracy works. We brought those policy decisions to this Parliament and they were given effect through different bills that were introduced. But there is a tension between the electoral commission and the elected executive, because the elected executive is a participant in the electoral system, and is therefore partisan when it comes to its own interest. The electoral commission, of course, necessarily holds itself apart from the elected executive government to ensure that there is no sense of there being any interference, perceived or otherwise, in its affairs.
With some other agencies or departments there is a much, much closer relationship between the elected executive and the public service. It is considerably different when it comes to the electoral commission, and quite rightly so, but if members in this chamber expect the elected government of the day to come down hard on the electoral commission, I think that is an unrealistic expectation of the government. It is something that should come from either the Parliament or the community in general. That is why the independent special inquiry was an appropriate mechanism to deal with the perceived and actual deficiencies in the election process. We have to keep some of these things at arm's length because a number of international democracy watchers look very closely at the degree to which an elected government interferes in the affairs of the independent Electoral Commission. As I said, we all have an interest in ensuring that that body conducts its work free from interference or influence. Having said that, the relationship between the government and the funding of the organisation is a necessary and unbreakable nexus because the government has to provide the funding, which comes out of the consolidated revenue fund. The Electoral Commission has been called to budget estimates next week to account for some of those matters, which is quite proper—to be accountable to the Parliament. Obviously, the government of the day has to allocate funds.
The recommendation that has been noted by the government relating to the funding of the Electoral Commission was not made because we do not recognise that some work needs to be done on that funding arrangement; it relates to the appropriate form in which it should be made. Mr McCusker has made a recommendation. The government would like to work with the Electoral Commission on an outcome relating to that funding arrangement.
I want to provide some context about the idea that the government was scrimping on funding the Electoral Commission because that was certainly not the case. Although the commission was provided with an allocation, Treasury advised:
… if these increased costs simply can't be absorbed within the approved $37.5 million funding envelope, [WAEC] can come back to ERC for supplementary funding after the election.
It was not the case that the Electoral Commission was given a bucket of money and told, "You can only spend what we've provided to you." The government said, "Here is an allocation for you to spend and if, by necessity, you have to go beyond that, come back to us to provide that additional funding." I understand that that is the mechanism that has occurred for the Electoral Commission forever and a day. Obviously, costs escalate and there are a number of factors relating to market costs for access to particular areas and those sorts of things that the commission cannot control.
I recall that the report stated that the commission made the effort to try to conduct the election with the funding it was provided and there were some communication issues within the commission itself about cutting the number of election workers on election day. That decision was made by the commission. I understand that it was recognised that there were some communication issues that the commissioner himself was not aware of—I do not want to phrase this wrongly—that those decisions had necessarily been made for the effort required on election day. That is a particular thing.
I would also like to let members know that there have been significant funding increases to the Electoral Commission over the last three elections. I am advised that the cost of the 2017 election was $18.5 million, the cost of the 2021 election was $26.3 million and the funding provided for the 2025 election was $44.7 million. We have seen the cost of elections almost double in this state over the last three elections. That money was provided by Treasury and the taxpayers. We have funded the Electoral Commission to carry out its activities. As I said, it works in an environment in which its costs have increased. Members should always keep this balance in mind. Everyone in this place has an interest to ensure that the commission remains able to do its job independently with the highest level of competence but there is this tension between the elected government of the day and the independent commission.
An inquiry was carried out earlier this year. There was consultation with the Greens, the Nationals WA and the Liberal Party about the terms of reference. If any of those parties had written those terms of reference themselves, they may have chosen a different form of words or included different elements to look at. I understood there was concurrence on what was finally put before the special inquirer. That inquirer has now undertaken the work that was required.
I will respond a little to the points raised by Hon Tjorn Sibma about the make-up of the cohort of temporary election workers. The honourable member took issue with the fact that temporary election workers who were not on the electoral roll were on the booths. There are requirements for people who participate in that process. We have to remember that the workforce on the day of the election amounts to several thousand people. There is not exactly a slack workforce out there or available workers, so the commission must draw from people who are available and willing to work, which includes workers who have a right to work in Australia but are not allowed to vote. It is a legitimate line of inquiry to ask whether we should limit those who work on booths to only those who are on the electoral roll. That may be a good outcome but we may also be making a rod for our own back because although we talked about the fact that there were fewer workers on the day because of an active decision that was made, if fewer workers are available because we exclude a pool of workers we have relied upon in the past, that may result in issues with the way our elections are run. It is not a simple or a perfect solution to simply say that only those on the electoral roll are able to work. From my personal experience of voting on the day, we are in no delusion that there were issues because we all participated in the election along with everybody else, either as a voter or by handing out how-to-vote cards or assisting our political parties and candidates, and we experienced those issues. It was a bit jarring that some workers did not have the understanding or the experience of working in polling booths on election day. One of the things that I used to reflect on before the last election was that this cohort of very community-minded people put their hands up to work on election day. It was almost like a civic duty because the reward is not that high; they actually do it to participate and be a part of democracy. By contracting workers, we lost that corporate knowledge. Some of the recommendations of the special inquiry about giving local returning officers more influence over how electoral booths are staffed are really strong because we can build up that local knowledge. I will relate my experience, which was that my son, voting for the first time in a state election, was asked to provide ID on the day of the election, which is not a requirement under our electoral laws. We were fortunate that the presiding officer at that booth was a local member of our community who knew my son, so he was able to participate in the election, notwithstanding the fact that he did not have a photo ID. There is great value in building long-term relationships with those experienced electoral workers and making sure we get them back again and we have the right arrangements in place.
Notwithstanding that there were issues, I suspect that everybody working at the election booths were doing their jobs as earnestly as they could and perhaps the issues they faced were not so much personal ones for them but more about the fact that they were not necessarily fully capable of delivering while on the job, but they were earnestly trying to get there.
One of the other recommendations relates to civics education. It is no surprise that we are all of the view that we need stronger civics education in our society and in our community. We need people to better understand the institutions that we are part of. As Legislative Council members, I am sure we have all had the experience of people confusing us for local councillors because they do not know what the Legislative Council is. It is a constant battle to get people engaged and interested in politics. It is not a problem unique to Western Australia or Australia; it is a problem with all democracies. Perhaps our compulsory voting system disguises to some degree the level of deficiency in civics education more broadly, but it is something we must work on. In the short time I have left in which to speak, I will give a shout-out to the education team in the WA Parliament for the excellent work it does with school groups. We have all experienced it. The education officers are fantastic. We see them explaining to schoolchildren the importance of this institution. It is a lifelong memory for all the schoolchildren who visit. We have a team of very hardworking people in the Western Australian Parliament who are delivering some of that civics education.
The government welcomes the member's motion in the spirit that it is given, and I hope the rest of the debate reflects that as well.
Hon Dr Brian Walker (10:39 am): Before I start, I commend my friend Hon Matthew Swinbourn for his comments firstly about the education department, and also his commitment to democracy—something that we all here are very appreciative of.
I also really recommend that people have a close read of this report by the Honourable Malcolm McCusker. One thing he says in this report is that we should not be apportioning blame. Of course, we will, but we are not going to apportion blame, because it is actually a systemic issue that has arisen, and I think that the fact we are taking note of this and taking action is admirable. One thing that has bothered me tremendously over the last years has been the extent to which democratic principles can be suborned—how they can be brought into disrepute in a certain country that has presumed to be a bastion of democracy and has proved to be anything but. Of course, the way of attacking that is to attack fundamental democratic rights and the freedom of election to then ensure that those who should be elected are, in fact, not. I can safely say that this is not the case in our great nation.
However, I will point out that during the current election that has just passed us by, the advice of some of the workers was, at times, erroneous. I recall that I, my wife and son were advised wrongly about how to vote. If that advice had been passed around several hundred booths, then possibly we are seeing a reduction in votes for certain members of our society. I do not think that we would find that to be a major change in the make-up of our chamber here, but I point out that were this not to be addressed, we would have problems in the future in reassuring members of our community that our democratic elections are, indeed, free and fair.
The motion before us invites for three simple things to be committed to. One is to acknowledge the special inquiry, and we have done that. The second is to recognise the government's response, and I thank the minister for his response to that. The third is to encourage a serious parliamentary effort to restore public confidence. I think we would all agree with that in every part.
When I looked at the report, I saw a question about resourcing, which I think is the fundamental underlying problem. The Western Australian Electoral Commission estimated that 10,165 temporary workers would be needed; in fact, only 5,276 ultimately staffed polling places. That is a gap. That requires us to have a closer look. As pointed out, we should not have any real input into the WAEC, because we must be very careful not to muddy the waters between an independent management of the electoral process and those with a vested interest—I am talking about us, of course—in the process being carried out.
There are areas in which things could have been better, like the lack of live monitoring of queues, and the stock issues, such as running out of ballot papers, and the head office being largely unaware of the conditions and therefore unable to direct the voters. But what struck me most from this report was: Why did it fail? I could not say that the election failed, but why did it not match the high standards that we expect? The first mention was made of money. I was very much reassured to hear that with regard to the moneys required for outsourcing, it was not actually a final, "This is what you're going to have and nothing more", but more, "Let us know what's going on." Then I discovered from the report that actually what really failed was a communication within the body. It was suggested that two members were having difficulty with each other, were not communicating with each other and were not passing information up the chain, and therefore the director, of course, was completely unaware of these issues. One could say this is actually the major problem. I think all of us who have worked within government organisations would be well aware of the kind of internecine warfare that can occur between parties that have, again, vested interests, and that appears to have been the case here. I would extend this to all government bodies: we must learn to be more aware of the communication and lack of communication within our organisations.
We now come to the question of what solutions can be recommended, because this is really where we want to be. We have a problem, we have seen it, it now needs to be addressed and we should address it. The first issue here is oversight by Parliament. There are a number of areas in which we need to have better oversight. I can give the personal example of our management of the health services. Apparently, the major monitoring body does not get any oversight whatsoever by any state or Federal Parliament. This is another example. We ought to be establishing a joint standing committee on electoral matters. That would be a very sensible decision, and I think it would not require much in the way of activity. We would put a motion forward as a parliamentary body and establish a joint standing committee. There would have to be a very good reason not to do this. I think this must be a primary motion, and I would encourage the government to give strong consideration to moving this itself.
The second issue, of course, is the legislated demand powers mentioned by my honourable colleagues—the right to requisition funds, although I note that the funds that had been available were not requested due to the aforesaid issues with communication. I am very hopeful that this will be a single, one-off problem, and not one that carries on into the future.
In the report, five particular recommendations were made. I will not address them. People can read the report for themselves. What also struck me is that the inquiry carefully debunked the outsourcing scandal. This has to be said. It was not an outsourcing scandal at all; it was a matter of communication. We can deal with this and we should in the future.
I refer to the parliamentary action steps. The first step—I think we can do this on both sides of the house today—is to signal unity by supporting the motion in full. I would be hard-pressed to find anyone not supporting this motion. It is a very sensible motion indeed. Secondly, we need to legislate and bring forward a bill for that joint standing committee for electoral matters—I heartily recommend that this be done—and for the demand power in the Electoral Act with the consequential standards on staffing, paper buffers and queue-time thresholds. I will add something I did not note yesterday when I was preparing my speech: the need to ensure that those who take part at the booths do actually have citizenship and are registered to vote on the electoral register. I think, as my honourable colleague Hon Tjorn Sibma said, to give power to foreign bodies is a very dubious matter. We ought to be more careful about this. We ought to be asking for direct implementation of the real-time operation centre and for the WAEC to be cognisant of the areas in which it has fallen short, and to ensure, within its independent organisation, that matters have been addressed.
I flag a question that it is probably worth asking Treasury during the estimates hearings next week: When did Treasury first learn that election day staffing would be 30% below WAEC's internal recommendations, and why was it not informed contemporaneously? I think those are important questions.
In closing, I want to reinforce my fervent belief that all in this chamber—in fact, all in this house—are of the opinion that our democracy is so important that we must not let anything come between free and fair elections, and that we stand for the independent body that will govern these with much more than an arm's length remove from the politicians with vested interests. I think we have a demand in our society that our residents—our voters—have a sense of trust in this Parliament as an institution, the individual members who are part of this body, all the wonderful staff who are supporting us, and, indeed, the Electoral Commission that manages the free and fair elections. I think we can all agree on these very important principles, and I am delighted to see that this appears to be a resonant feeling within this chamber.
Hon Anthony Spagnolo (10:48 am): It is my great pleasure to stand up and provide a contribution to this debate. Yes—the master and the young Padawan, I think I heard said across the chamber!
I thank the minister for his contribution, and I will start where he finished, which was his comments on civics education. I will start on a positive and say that the opposition supports his comments and the recommendation made in that regard. I think of the lack of voter knowledge about elections in a positive way. Obviously, we want voters to be as informed as possible, but I suppose it is a great luxury of Australians that a great many of us can not be informed, and yet the country still seems to run pretty well. That is really a reflection of our success. We are a peaceful place in which governments change hands in a reasonably sensible way. That is not the case in many places in the world. The fact that many of our fellow citizens can be far less informed than all of us is, in a way, reflective of that success.
The other reason that civics is important is we live in a globalised era. All of us have phones. We are all connected to the internet, which is a global, influenced resource. It is well documented by security agencies and other bodies that Australia, amongst other democracies, is the target of foreign interference. One of the protections against that is a good civics education, so I endorse those comments.
Of course, I want to make some criticisms of the government in these remarks because we have some concerns about the 2025 state election processes. I note the minister's comments about a miscommunication between sections of the government, the Treasury and the Western Australian Electoral Commission, for example. I want to quote what Minister David Michael said when speaking to the press, which is:
I was surprised the funding message from Treasury did not filter through the organisation …
It is somewhat convenient for a minister to say that it is not their fault because miscommunication was the problem, and that may or may not be the case. The report backed up the minister's comment as well, but the question I have is whether we really think it is acceptable for a minister to be surprised. One would think that a minister who is doing their job would know about staffing levels at the election. As Hon Dr Brian Walker pointed out, they were significantly below what was estimated as being needed. According to the report, the number of workers at the election, based on the funding provided, was dramatically lower at 7,113 than the forecast number of workers needed, which was 10,165. That is a significant drop between the forecast number needed and the actual number. To have a minister surprised by that should be concerning to all of us. That is the first point I want to critique.
The other thing I want to say is that the opposition approaches this debate with some level of caution and this reflects some of the comments the minister made. We are very proud of Western Australia's democracy. When governments make mistakes around these things, there are obviously opportunities to score political points, so to speak. As the lead opposition party in this Parliament, we understand that defending and promoting the integrity and fairness of our elections is our responsibility as well. I think one of the great things about being an Australian—to reflect on my opening comments—is that, by and large, Australians and those who participate in our political processes see our elections as fair. That cannot be necessarily said for other jurisdictions. An obvious example, unfortunately, would be our ally, the United States, where it is common for major participants in elections to question the integrity of outcomes. That is not the kind of road we want to go down here as the opposition. That is a road on which no-one wins. However, when there are things to legitimately scrutinise, we want to do that. The question that I think should continue to be interrogated is: If the Western Australian Electoral Commission requested $16 million in additional funding to secure appropriate staffing levels for the election, why was only $4 million provided? As the minister said, that $4 million was provided with a caveat that it could ask for more if it was needed, but that was where everything broke down. We have a minister who is apparently surprised and obviously did not ask the question and keep track of it. One would think that the minister, knowing the request was for $16 million but only $4 million was given, would continue to ask the question and keep track of that circumstance and not wait to be told or be fed the information.
Hon Matthew Swinbourn: Member, the current minister wasn't the minister at the time of the election.
Hon Anthony Spagnolo: I take that interjection—fair enough.
Irrespective of who the minister was at the time—the previous minister or the current one—the point is the same. One would think that the previous minister would have asked that question. There are many things that come across a minister's desk—it is a diverse job—but one of the things that should not be caught up in the mess of priorities and things that come across a minister's desk is whether elections are staffed properly. One would think that was such a basic thing that any minister, or any government worth its salt, would keep track of it. I note that the government has been very willing to incur costs when it comes to the electoral process. We had a whole reform of the upper house go through, which was not cheap; that cost money. I do not think the minister was underfunding that process, so it is really disappointing to see that this particular part of the process, the staffing allocation, was dropped.
One thing I will mention in the brief time I have left, which builds on comments that Hon Tjorn Sibma made as well, is the number of staff and the quality of the staff. What became clear to me—some of this is anecdotal, I will admit—is that there are long-term Electoral Commission staffers who were not re-employed this time around because the process changed. What that meant—again, it is anecdotal, but I think this probably holds true—is that a lot of corporate knowledge did not exist. We had a far less experienced and competent group of workers working on the election. It is not just the number of workers; it is their experience level as well.
I witnessed this difference firsthand pretty starkly when I was scrutineering the state seat of Kalamunda post the election. It went through a few recounts, as many members will know. We had a Sunday group scrutinising votes. I would say they were extremely competent. I almost got a little bit lazy as a scrutineer because they made almost no mistakes. Then we had a Monday group—I will not reflect on why the Monday group was potentially less competent than the Sunday group, who I presume were out there doing other things on Monday. The Monday group that I was scrutineering made outrageous mistakes. I am really grateful that the senior people in the room from the commission had excellent processes to check votes and catch those mistakes. It is clear to me that not all electoral volunteers are equal. Some are very experienced and competent, and we want the experienced, competent ones to continue to do their job.
The other thing I will say in closing—I have only a brief amount of time left—is that the lack of staff and ballot papers needs to be taken very seriously. I will return to the seat of Kalamunda to comment. I can recall on the day being quite alarmed when hearing that certain booths in that seat had run out of ballot papers. People who had come to vote, including people voting for my party, the Liberal Party, and our candidate in that seat, ended up not voting. They went home and did not cast a ballot because they did not want to wait in the queue. I do not want to make a silly point here, but if that trend was taken to the extreme, there could be an argument made that it could change the result in a tight seat. That seat, of course, was determined by 82 votes. If there was a circumstance in which typically strong Liberal-voting booths had a shortage of ballots, but others—strong Labor-voting booths, for example—did not have a shortage of ballots, it could skew an outcome in a way that would be very detrimental to the integrity of and trust in our system. I just wanted to make that point. I think the result in Kalamunda was fantastic, but we want to make sure that these things have integrity. Thank you.
Hon Rob Horstman (10:58 am): We are all here, I would believe, because we believe democracy is a pillar of our society and something worth protecting. We have heard explanations around some of the concerns about this election. However, we can all say that the election was an administrative disaster, if nothing else. While speaking on another recent administrative government disaster—the Firearms Portal—Hon Nick Goiran spoke about it possibly being a shambles. Whether it was a shambles or disaster, from an administrative perspective, this election was underfunded and did underdeliver. This mismanagement, as Hon Anthony Spagnolo said, led to people not being able to vote on election day. In regional WA, this was exacerbated due to the large distances that were covered and the limited people resource.
There has been a lot of commentary around the numbers that were asked for and given. I thank Hon Matthew Swinbourn for clearing up some of that to a certain degree. However, with only $37.5 million received initially, which is far shorter than the $49.5 million that was sought, consequently, staffing and polling places were somewhat under-resourced, we would say. There were 5,276 temporary election workers, or TEWs, as the acronym goes, instead of 7,900. That is only 67% of the staff required and only 75% of the required funding that was provided at the initial stages. Although I would have been very happy with those numbers in either university or school, to be honest—I do not think I ever got 75%—that is nowhere near a pass mark for ensuring that the democratic right of every Western Australian to vote was protected by having enough electoral staff working on the day.
Regional polling sites, as members would expect, were disproportionately impacted by the shortage of staff resources due to the long distances that needed to be covered. There were not enough Western Australian Electoral Commission staff bases. I was intimately involved with Carnarvon. I had quite a lot to do with the campaign in that part of the world. Up until the Friday night, they thought they would have two election booths on the following day. The staffing issues meant that it went back and forth. It was only because of the local knowledge of some people working on the booths that enabled the two booths to open. That was being discussed right up until Friday evening, so there was a lot of uncertainty about that.
A complaint that was received by Shane Love MLA in the other house—I believe it is annexure E in the report—basically said that some temporary election workers needed to travel 300 kilometres to do their training and were not fully remunerated for that. Even after that, they felt they were underprepared for what they needed to do on the day. There is no doubt that the lack of staff and, to a certain degree, lack of training, led to the long wait times, frustrations and concerns on the day. I think that has been quite fairly acknowledged by all honourable members who have spoken today.
Denmark, where Hon Jess Beckerling is from, and also my colleague in the other place and good friend Bevan Eatts, the member for Warren–Blackwood, where he has his office, had one of the longest wait times of one and a half hours. Page 91 of the report has a very instructive table with some of the other wait times. Hon Tjorn Sibma might be interested to know that Carine Senior High School had a wait time of one hour at the polling booths. I am sure he is well aware of that.
There were concerns about a shortage of ballot papers, and members have covered the concerns about the live monitoring systems. There were 870 ballot paper transfers made on the day—870. From personal experience and having witnessed the distances between some of the polling booths in regional WA, I know that it is a lot easier to get something between Kalamunda and Lesmurdie than it is between Exmouth and Onslow, which might have been the case. Some election staff were resourceful, though. One voter in Geraldton reported that a temporary election worker created a handwritten ballot paper. In that case, the worker left off the now member for Geraldton, my colleague and good friend Kirrilee Warr, who was not on that ballot paper. As it turned out, the swing against Labor in Geraldton was so significant that that would not have mattered on the day. However, that DIY ballot paper certainly brought forward a systemic concern about the lack of ballot papers and severe dearth in the level of training of some of the temporary election workers. I am in no way apportioning blame on any of the temporary election workers. Much the same as the people who were dealing with concerns and complaints about the firearms portal, it is not their fault. They are doing their best in a system that is not as fit for purpose as it could be.
Communication has been covered a lot here. There was a lot of miscommunication. I note with interest the quote that Hon Anthony Spagnolo referred to concerning the surprise of Hon David Michael about the issue of communication not being put forward. I think that is something that we can definitely look to work on.
In the new seat of Mid West, people who used the Find Your Polling Place website would have been directed to Carnarvon, which is 670 kilometres away, as the only early voting centre in that electorate. In actual fact, Geraldton, a mere 200 kilometres away, although not in the electorate, would have been a more appropriate place for them to vote. I think this pushes the need to update that technology to enable people to find out where the early voting centres are. When the electoral boundaries change, particularly in regional areas, it can be incredibly problematic for people who have to travel a big distance on the day and may have to base their whole day around going to vote.
Earlier in my contribution I mentioned the town of Denmark briefly. When it comes to Denmark the country, members might be interested to know that Denmark, Switzerland, the Netherlands, Belgium, Portugal, Hungary, Austria and the Czech Republic would all fit into the Mid West electorate from a land mass perspective, yet there was only one early voting centre for the whole of the electorate. That sounds like somewhat of a Contiki tour when we think of all the places that could fit in there. I understand that there is possibly a belief among some members on the other side that living in regional WA means people have to put up with certain hardships and inconveniences. I think that is sometimes the case, but this is not one of those. It did not need to occur.
I could say other things, but I am conscious that other people want to speak. I would like to close on that. This election was underfunded and underdelivered. As we have discussed, I feel that we all, and the government in particular, to a certain degree, need to rebuild the trust of WA voters to ensure that such a communicative disaster does not occur again.
Hon Tim Clifford (11:06 am): I rise as the spokesperson for democracy for the Greens. I would like to share the sentiment of members and I welcome the discussion today. This report on the planning and delivery of the 2025 Western Australian state election pretty much lays bare a lot of the practical issues that we faced on the day, as well as shines a light on the internal administrative issues that a lot of the Western Australian Electoral Commission workers, temporary or otherwise, had to face throughout the whole process.
We are very lucky to live in this state and that the WAEC is independent of government. We are very lucky more broadly across the country to have the Australian Electoral Commission. Since I have engaged in politics, a lot of friends have asked me about our democracy. I emphasise to them all the time that unlike in the United States in which parties form government in certain states and also administer the elections, we have independent bodies, which we are very grateful to have here—not to mention the flawed and broken electoral college system of the United States, which confuses a lot of people.
I mention the United States because it goes to the issue of confidence that we have in Australia that a lot of people go through every time an election comes around. That is also coming off the back of the COVID pandemic when vaccinations and all sorts of different narratives came out of a pretty irresponsible executive in the United States that was promoting a lot of conspiracy theories about not only health issues, but also democratic institutions such as going to vote. When we look at the numbers in Western Australia, we see that they range anywhere from above 87% to over 90% at any given election. People turn out to vote. They actually care about it. It is a civic duty. People rock up and love to go to the stalls on the day and have a discussion. They also like that they can turn up and not feel threatened and can have a conversation with other people without feeling as though they cannot share their views, although a lot of people like to keep them close to their chest.
I found that this election period was very distressing for a lot of volunteers that I spoke to across the political divide because of the resourcing and the lack of consistency of information, especially at pre-polling, about how many volunteers they could have, where they could stand and where the line was that people could not step over. They were really basic things.
I had a phone call from a volunteer at the Guildford Road pre-poll voting centre and they said, "This is horrible; there's no shelter or shade, we've got dozens of volunteers across different parties, there's no restriction of how many volunteers we can have and we don't even really know where the line is." I drove out there to have a look and it was horrific. I was told there were a number of near misses with people trying to park their cars, and there was no signage. There was no clear direction around where people could set up or whether volunteers could leave their materials for the night. It was the polar opposite in other electorates. I went out to Cottesloe, for example, and there were a lot of trees around the place. People enjoyed the day and there was shade. You would think there were two different elections going on at the same time because of the way that the rules were put on people and the way they were receiving information. I mention that because when someone turns up to a pre-poll or a polling booth on the day and sees the chaos, if they already have any doubts about the election process, their doubts would be reinforced thinking: "We've lost control of our democracy." This was not necessarily inside the polling booth on the day, but certainly outside it.
I emailed the returning officer for the Guildford Road pre-poll. I drove out there in the afternoon and she had not seen the email because she was run off her feet. She alluded to resourcing issues saying, "I'm really busy. I haven't been able to see it." One of the determinations was that they limit the volunteers to just two people, but it was not a consistent message across polling booths. It was really difficult to organise and have coverage. There were a lot of assumptions about the number of people who would go through and at what time period. Other countries in the world do not allow a polling booth to have volunteers on the day; they just bring the ballot paper and that is it. They do not have to be there. I can tell members that a lot of volunteers would really love that system! Across 59-plus districts, it was very confusing.
There is a broader concern about outsourcing and we have spoken about it. The Greens have always been concerned about the rate of outsourcing at both federal and state levels across public institutions. The pointy edge of a democracy, the Western Australian Electoral Commission, should be protected. If it is going to outsource or look at tenders, it cannot be to the lowest bidder; it has to be to the best, most quality tender that can back up what they are saying. That was mentioned throughout the report. I acknowledge the government taking on the recommendations of the report that it will work better and bring forward some recommended changes. I was surprised at how basic some of the recommendations were. Even the fact that pre-polls or polling booths needed laptops and printers. I just assumed that was happening. I was pretty shocked. It is a bit of a horror story to read. It is something that we need to be aware of, along with the lack of direction. I guess the concerns about resourcing were one thing internally. It did not allow a lot of direction to go out and so in many instances parties did not know what was going on.
A lot of other things need to be considered outside this to reinforce confidence in democracy, including truth in advertising laws. A lot of misinformation is not only on physical placards, but also online. It is not hard for someone to make up a fake post and say, "Polling booths are closed for the day; don't show up." Imagine in a marginal electorate such as Albany a sponsored post goes out for the day that says, "Don't show up." A member alluded to the seat of Kalamunda. If someone put that post out and 200 people did not show up, that would decide an election.
A lot of things need to be looked at around the internal nature of this report and resourcing. I have raised concerns around recommendation 2 concerning WAEC's access to draw down on funding when it needs it. Hon Tjorn Sibma alluded to Victoria having a drawdown capacity. That is a given and it should be separate from government.
It is really important that we monitor going forward what is going on in the relationship and how, as the report said, government will work with Treasury and cabinet, but we need to be acutely aware and not just assume that because a certain number of people turned up, issues that arose were the same issues that will arise at the next election. The nature of technology and the way people interact these days is changing so rapidly that the government needs to be ahead of what is going on. It needs to ensure that the Western Australian Electoral Commission has, firstly, independence, and, secondly, the funding at its disposal so that it can deal with these issues ahead of the day. It was quite distressing to read in the report that it was over 2,000 workers down and only 31% turned up on pre-poll, so we knew it was going to be a bigger day than usual. To be down 2,500 workers is just atrocious, not to mention the issue with ballot papers. I thank the member for bringing this matter to the house and look forward to working on it in the future.
Hon Rod Caddies (11:16 am): I will make a brief contribution to this motion in some of the time left. I will try to rush through it a bit to allow Hon Maryka Groenewald to speak. Obviously, One Nation is very interested in protecting our democracy, so we are in favour of this motion. First, I want to speak about the Western Australian Electoral Commission's (WAEC's) frontline staff and the great work they do. Having worked in a government department, I know that a vast majority of the rank-and-file staff usually want to do a good job to the best of their ability. I also know that it is very hard for them to do so due to a lack of resources, funding and executive level management support. I found that WAEC staff deal with party matters very patiently, reasonably and professionally. Above all, they have been genuinely helpful with all the things we needed leading up to the election and afterwards.
The 2025 election was very significant as it was the first under the new electoral laws that were rammed through by the Labor Party in the last Parliament. I recall the WAEC raised concerns in 2024 about the lack of resources to be able to manage the new system that the Labor government implemented. I quote from an article that I was reading earlier, "What we know about WA's problem-plagued state election, and what's to come"; it states:
Few noticed Electoral Commissioner Kennedy cautioning there were "additional cost pressures and service improvements that … remain unfunded".
But, he said: "If we can confirm our funding … I expect that we will be able to meet our goal and our promise of a better electoral experience in 2025."
…
Six months before the state election, which went so wrong it triggered a special inquiry to find answers, the man in charge gave a warning.
"Electoral bodies find they only attract attention when things go wrong," Robert Kennedy told a parliamentary committee.
"As long as everything is sailing along fine, no one is particularly interested in any issues you might be identifying."
Just as he had predicted, no one paid much attention at the time.
…
But, he said: "If we can confirm our funding … I expect that we will be able to meet our goal and our promise of a better electoral experience in 2025."
Who knows? There could have been pressure from Treasury to make things happen with the funds that were allocated. If that could not happen, their jobs might be in danger. It is not likely that type of communication would be in a briefing note.
Labor made huge changes to the electoral system, including abolishing the regions, new requirements for party registration and huge amounts of additional reporting and rules to be followed. Let us remember that the motivation for changing the electoral laws was to create barriers to who could run for Parliament. Of course, the Labor Party would prefer a China-style one-party state, which it got a taste of over the past four years.
Several members interjected.
Hon Rod Caddies: It is like the last four years. It is how it seems to have operated for the last four years.
Hon Matthew Swinbourn: Really? You're here because we changed the system.
Hon Rod Caddies: One of the electoral laws was that voters needed to place a "1" on the Legislative Council ballot, but were still able to preference people. Personally, I observed some Western Australian Electoral Commission staff and almost all Labor volunteers telling voters they should write "1", which some voters understood to mean that they could not preference anyone. I am sure this was designed by the Labor Party. It does not like the preference system. In its perfect world, other parties would not exist. I remember how outraged Hon Mark McGowan was when Wilson Tucker got elected through deals done with Glenn Druery, the so-called preference whisperer. The funny thing is, I was informed during the campaign that Labor was doing preference deals with Glenn Druery.
Hon Matthew Swinbourn: Who told you that?
Hon Rod Caddies: Glenn Druery did.
Hon Matthew Swinbourn: Glenn Druery told you?
Hon Rod Caddies: Yes, he told me—actually, on a couple of occasions, directly. I might even have the recording, actually.
Hon Matthew Swinbourn: You should provide it.
Several members interjected.
The Deputy President: Order, members! Order!
Hon Rod Caddies: He left messages on my message bank, so I do have some of them. I agree that the preference deals that were being done by Mr Druery were a stain on our democracy, much like he was, but I am glad to see that Mr Druery is now no longer in a position in our democratic system whereby he has any further influence.
Hon Matthew Swinbourn: How many deals did One Nation do with him over the years?
Hon Rod Caddies: I did not do any deals—none. That is why I did not get elected. If you have a look at all of his interviews on the news, he said he would make sure that we do not get elected. Indeed, when I told him in 2021 that I was not interested in paying for his service, which was undemocratic and would help people into Parliament who should not be there, he told me I would never get elected in my life and that he would make sure of it, but here I am. Greetings to Glenn Druery, wherever he is now.
But back to the motion. Some changes in the laws were reasonable, but what was not reasonable were the resources allocated to educating the electorate about them and to implementing the changes. I know that the Labor Party planned to throw the WAEC under the bus, but we see right through that. The fact is that the WAEC expressed concerns about resourcing for the 2025 WA election. It reminds me of the fact that all our public services are suffering from the same thing—under-resourcing by Labor. Labor has dropped the ball on health, education, police and housing. It should not be surprising that the WA Electoral Commission was also neglected. To me, it is clear that the issues in the 2025 election were directly related to decisions made by the Labor Party. I am not sure whether it was due to negligent incompetence or a cynical attempt to subvert our democracy and entrench its power, but it is one of those two options. Maybe it was just a matter of the confused and confusing previous Minister for Electoral Affairs forgetting to do something about it, or maybe Hon John Quigley asked for more funding from the Treasurer, but she might have told him to go away, as she needed more money for Metronet blowouts.
In summary, blind Freddy can see that WA Labor is at fault for the failures of the 2025 state election, just like it is 100% at fault for the catastrophic failures in health, education, policing and housing. I want to finish by thanking the WAEC for doing the best it could and for trying to raise the alarm well before the election. I want it to know that One Nation sees that it is very unfair for Labor to try to blame everything on the WAEC, while trying to get out of taking any responsibility.
Hon Tjorn Sibma (11:24 am) in reply: I thank members for their contributions to the motion I brought before the house. I have enjoyed reflecting on everyone's individual perspectives on this matter. I think that if there is a point of unity, it would be for us to move together to establish, with our counterparts in the other house, a joint standing committee on electoral affairs, as a matter of priority.
Motion lapsed, pursuant to standing orders.
