Beware of postal vote application forms sent by political parties and candidates
In the lead up to an election, you have probably received one or more official-looking letters from political candidates containing a postal vote application form. Besides the usual pre-election promises, these letters tell you that you can vote by post: all you need to do is to fill the form with your personal details and return it in the included reply-paid envelope.
Sounds easy and convenient, but don't rush yet! Have a closer look at the return envelope. Does it have the address of the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) or the Electoral Commission of your state or territory? Most likely, it doesn't. These envelopes are usually addressed to your MP, a political party candidate, or even some mysterious “Postal Vote Centre” or “Returning Officer” at PO Box XXX to avoid mentioning any names or parties and risking to raise the voter's suspicion. Unfortunately, this practice of political parties dispatching such letters and then receiving postal vote applications may be improper and detrimental, but unfortunately not illegal. The Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 permits political parties and candidates to distribute their own versions of postal vote application forms, which sadly creates an avenue for manipulating Australian elections. So, since the law provides no protection, to maintain fair elections and independent voting in a truly democratic country, Australian voters need to be aware of the implications of this practice and avoid it whenever possible.
In short:
- Never send your postal application form to anyone except the Electoral Commission.
- Every unsolicited form sent by political candidates “for your convenience” is your tax money spent by them to advertise themselves and to collect your personal data.
How to Vote Safely
It is safer to vote on the election day at your local polling place, or, if you are unable to get to the polling place on the day, use the early vote option that lets you vote in person at an early voting centre or electoral divisional office in the weeks before the election. This will ensure that your personal details are not passed through third parties and your voting rights are not abused. Check the AEC or your state/territory EC website for the voting options.
If you do need to vote by post, always send your postal vote application directly to the relevant Electoral Commission. For example, for postal voting in federal elections, by-elections and referendums the AEC address is:
Australian Electoral Commission
Reply Paid 9867
[Your capital city]
No stamp is required if posted within Australia.
For up-to-date address information, check the AEC contact page and postal voting FAQ. For state, territory and local government elections, check their sites: NSW, Vic, Qld, WA, SA, Tas, ACT, NT
In recent years, the electoral authorities began moving away from paper forms and push toward online enrolment via website forms and online uploads of scanned paper documents. In this case, the person usually has to give their email address and/or mobile phone number, thus creating a potential for becoming a victim of online, sms or phone call scam (a person who has never given their email or phone number to the electoral authorities would know that any contact claiming to be from EC is fraudulent). If you want to protect the privacy and security of your contact details, do a thorough search on the relevant electoral site for paper options, or call them and ask how to enrol, change your address, or apply for postal voting without filling any online forms and giving email or phone numbers. Offline options do exist, but they can be well hidden.
Danger to Democracy and Privacy
Mass mail-out of postal vote applications by political parties and candidates should be ignored and left without response. Sending your forms to any address that does not belong to the AEC or a state/territory EC may enable political self-interests to override democracy, and even lead to misuse of your personal data, because:
- It involves political parties in the voting process and blurs the distinction between the participants in an election and its administrators, who, by law, are supposed to be independent.
- It inflates the percentage of postal voters beyond necessary, and requires more resources and time to process the votes. People fill the postal vote application just because it is there, not because they really need it. The cost of processing a postal vote is 3–4 times higher than for an ordinary vote cast in person, which means an unnecessary loss of taxpayer money.
- It leads to a further spending of taxpayer funds: if the form-sending candidate is an MP, the taxpayers pay for the whole form-printing and mailing enterprise. This is called “electoral entitlements”, which are the funds allocated from the budget to political parties proportionally to the size of each party.
- It compromises the secrecy and integrity of the ballot, as the postal votes are cast in an uncontrolled environment.
- It jeopardises people's privacy and poses a threat to the safety of personal data. If an elector completes and posts an application distributed by a party, it would first go to the party mail centre where they can collect the person's details and use them later in any manner they like. Political parties exempted themselves from the Privacy Act, which means they can use your name, date of birth, phone number, email address, enrolled address, postal address, place of birth and any other data you filled in any way they wish. They are not obliged to keep it safe, or tell you what personal information they have filed on you, or let you access your file.
- It disadvantages smaller parties and independent candidates and further undermines democracy, because only the large parties have enough taxpayer funds, party resources, printing allowances and sophisticated elector databases to mass-mail postal vote applications to the enrolled voters.
- It increases the risk of corruption and fraud. When a completed postal vote application form is returned, the name of the person can be checked against the party's database (a violation of the secret ballot principle), and if their voting intentions or issues of interest has been previously identified (via door-knocking, telephone calls, “we value your opinion” survey letters, personal interaction, etc.), the party can decide on how promptly it will forward the form to the Electoral Commission, and thus manipulate the chances of the application's arrival to its destination in time. While the parties are obliged to forward your application to the EC, they can easily delay it if you have been identified as a non-supporter.
- Political parties may encourage people to cast postal votes because in close elections, especially in marginal seats, a few manipulated votes can make a huge difference. This solicitation to lodge postal votes has been a great success for the parties: in 2010 election only 49% of applications were sent directly to the AEC. The rest have passed through the hands of political parties, 98.7% of which came through the major parties.
- Often, the party postal vote application is the first information that an elector receives about the upcoming election. If there is no information about other voting options, some electors, especially novice, may regard voting by post as a normal way of voting. Others would use the form as a convenience rather than because they really can't come to a voting centre. And those genuinely unable to vote on the election day could be left unaware of the early voting facilities.
- While parties are entitled to receive copies of the electoral roll and to communicate with electors, the inclusion of postal vote applications with the party campaign materials makes it look like the party has a special role in the course of the election, which may confuse some people and influence their vote.
- Federal and State Electoral Commissions regularly receive complaints from the voters who were confused about the origins of the postal vote applications they received. Those who didn't see the trap, were angered when they realised that they had handed their personal information over to a political party.
- If after receiving your postal vote application the party has to forward the information to the EC, for the EC to process it and send you the ballot papers, then why not get rid of the middle man? The main parties have been resisting this change because it gives them a political advantage.
Postal voting is an important option for those who are genuinely unable to reach a polling booth, but it should be run by the independent Electoral Commission, not by political parties who seek and use every advantage they can.
You Can Make a Difference
When enough people become aware of the problem and its consequences, and stay vigilant, the spam-like unsolicited postal vote application political trickery will be thwarted. To make a difference:
- Use the postal vote option only if you really need it.
- Make sure you are sending you postal vote application and/or electoral enrolment form directly to the AEC or a state/territory EC.
- Warn others about this issue.
If nobody sends their filled forms to the parties, they will have to stop this practice of invasion of people's privacy, wasting taxpayer money, and undermining democracy under the guise of a “service to electors”.
Thank you for spelling this all out. Of course I was under no illusion that politicians would be doing anything that doesn't benefit them, but I couldn't understand for years, why mail the postal voting forms? I do now.
Anonymous, 16 July 2015
Not that politicians are particularly trusted, but this is a good awareness page on what is happening during election campaigns.
Samantha J., 3 March 2019
Good analysis. But it must be mentioned that the Electoral Commission is also a guilty party when it comes to infringing the privacy of Australia citizens. The AEC doesn't see it that way, but that doesn't make it Ok. Having everyone's details for making sure everyone votes is a good thing. It means Australian voting results are not determined by a vocal minority, like it happens in the US. But the citizens data AEC holds must be used for purpose of elections ONLY. It should not be given to everyone who wants it: researchers, credit reporting agencies, betting exchanges like Betfair, marketing companies like Acxiom, consumer data analysts like The Global Data, and gods know who else. Some of these are foreign companies, and some already had incidents of personal data theft. A simple search for 'Equifax hacking' will show the sort of company the AEC trust our data to. It is also unclear why AEC want to know everyone's email address, phone number and occupation. Neither or this data is required for voting. It can only be used for other purposes, to which, given a choice, the majority would have never consented. How ironically undemocratic for an institution that is meant to be guarding democracy! Putting a long list on AEC site of who they give our data to is not enough, because we cannot opt out of this data sharing, nor do we have a choice of not registering with AEC.
A. G., 25 September 2020
I've just moved to another state and got very puzzled in the process of updating my address in the electoral roll.
Why does electoral commission demand to know the voter's occupation in NSW, QLD, WA and NT, while in all other states and territories this info isn't required?
We all vote in the same way around Australia, yet half of Australian states and territories do not require any information about the voter's occupation. This means that this information is not necessary for the alleged purpose of conducting elections. Now, isn't it against Australian privacy laws to collect -let alone forcibly demand!- unnecessary information?
No to mention, one's occupation is totally irrelevant for voting. Every citizen over 18 has to vote. It doesn't matter where they work. But the occupation information can be used for discrimination and for pre-election political trickery, neither of which I wish to consent to.
And while we're at it, the AEC shouldn't be asking the voter's gender either. It's another piece of irrelevant information that can only be used for discrimination and pre-election targeting.
Anonymous, 27 September 2022
Good points! Isn't it contrary to Australian privacy law to demand the information that is not necessary for the stated purpose?
The electoral roll may also be one of the data sources that is combined into your personal file at the ABStasi. But it is only one of the sources.
Anonymous, 8 March 2023