2016-02-12
Senator RICE: I want to talk about the issue of people being removed from the electoral roll because they are of unsound mind.
Mr Rogers: I will call Mr Gateley, who is my roll expert and is very well versed in this particular area.
Senator RICE: You might need to put this on notice, but can you tell us how many people have been removed from electoral rolls for reasons of unsound mind since the federal election in 2013?
Mr Gately: We provided advice following the last estimates. There was a question on notice in relation to the number of people who had been removed in the previous four years. If you would like me to go through the four years, if that is helpful, I can do that.
Senator RICE: Yes. I have not got much time, actually, so let's—
Mr Gately: It typically varies between 6,000 and about 16,000, depending on the time during the electoral cycle. To give you an example, for year-to-date in 2015-16 to the end of January, it is just under 2,700 people.
Senator RICE: Okay. Is there any disaggregated data for those removed from the roll for reasons of unsound mind—age, location, gender et cetera?
Mr Gately: I have disaggregated data here down to the state level. I do not have that split at the moment. It is certainly feasible to do.
Senator RICE: Could you take that on notice or table that data?
Mr Gately: Certainly.
Senator RICE: Can the commission define exactly what is meant by 'being of unsound mind'? For what medical reasons were those of unsound mind removed from the rolls?
Mr Gately: The element of the act talks about an elector being unable to understand the significance of enrolling and voting by reason of being of unsound mind. In practice we require a medical certificate from a medical practitioner to make that assertion and support that action. AEC staff do not interpret the concept of unsound mind from an elector perspective.
Senator RICE: So there is no data as to what that means? I understand the form; I have the form in front of me. It basically requires the signature of a medical practitioner—tick the box.
Mr Rogers: Normally—and Mr Gately might correct me—this might occur through an application from a family member who will contact the AEC about a relative. But for us to take action that would mean that that assertion would need to be accompanied by a medical certificate signed by a practitioner. I think once we get that certificate that is as far as the AEC would go.
Senator RICE: So there is no data? I have the certificate here. It is just a declaration from the practitioner to say that the person is of unsound mind.
Mr Rogers: I would doubt it sincerely, but I will check that.
Mr Pirani: Senator, if it might also assist, in the joint standing committee report dated August 2012 entitled Advisory report on the Electoral and Referendum (Improving Electoral Administration) Bill 2012, at paragraphs 2.63 and onwards there is a lengthy discussion about 'unsound mind'. The proposal at that time was to remove it from the act, and the joint standing committee recommended against removing it.
Senator RICE: I am interested in pursuing that conversation.
Mr Rogers: I think we said last time we were here that we have had a lot of feedback from some community groups we work with that they find the term 'unsound mind' to be highly offensive. I know the joint standing committee has looked at that previously, and there were reasons that I cannot quite remember for why that was not picked up as a JSCEM recommendation. But they do find that term to be highly offensive.
Senator RICE: So the AEC's position at that stage was to remove it.
Mr Rogers: We simply reflected the views of the community groups that we work with, rather than advocating for a particular position.
Senator RICE: In particular, what is the reasoning behind the onus of proof process that operates at the moment? People who are claimed to be of unsound mind then have to disprove the accusation rather than it being put to them—
Mr Rogers: It is purely the way the legislation is written. Mr Pirani: It is also a matter of evidence. For an unsound mind application to be dealt with by the AEC we have a medical certificate in front of us. It then becomes an issue of evidence. We have a medical certificate that has been provided to us by a medical practitioner saying: 'This person is of unsound mind. They do not understand the concept of enrolment and voting.' The issue then becomes one of how we address that as a matter of evidence. We then go back and communicate with the elector, and they will then respond with evidence to the contrary. So it is not strictly a reverse onus of proof; it is just the evidential process as to how this arises. If we do not have a medical certificate then we do not get to square one.
Senator RICE: No, but you do not have any justification to find that medical certificate, which is a pretty basic thing. Is there currently a process for those who do not have a medical condition or disability to prove that they are of sound mind?
Mr Pirani: Sorry?
Mr Rogers: So you are saying that someone has been declared of unsound mind and they should prove that they are of sound mind?
Mr Pirani: No.
Senator RICE: I will just finish off because I know we are short of time. Is there any outreach currently done by the AEC to assist those with mental health challenges or intellectual disability to enrol and vote?
Mr Rogers: In the broad, yes. We work with a disability advisory group which has a broad range of community and interest group representation. We meet at least once a year, from memory—I am looking at Mr Carpay. We listen to their concerns and, where we can, we adapt our policies and procedures, including the production of clear English guides and a range of other issues. So, yes, we do. Do we do enough? I would always love to do more.
Senator RICE: Finally, is there any data on the number of people who have intellectual disabilities or mental health problems who are estimated to have never enrolled in the first place?
Mr Rogers: There will not be that data. I can guarantee that.
Senator RICE: Thank you.