Two federal politicians from across the political divide say high levels of informal votes in electorates with a large number of migrant voters could have swayed the outcome of this year's federal election.
Victorian Labor MP Peter Khalil told SBS the tight result meant even a few hundred votes could have made all the difference.
"There's probably a case to suggest it could have changed the election outcome - if you assume that a majority might have voted Labor," Mr Khalil said.
"It was very close, as we know we lost by a seat, but it could go the other way as well. You just don't know maybe some of these people were going to vote for the coalition."
"They have a right to vote and they shouldn't be disenfranchised simply because they speak a different language or their mother tongue is not English."
Assistant Multicultural Affairs Minister Zed Seselja agreed better information about how to cast a valid vote may have lead to a different result.
"It's certainly possible in very tight elections," he said.
"We know with a seat up in Queensland, we saw a 37 vote difference between the Labor party and the Liberal party. So elections are very close in some circumstances and that's why I would say to everyone: you have a personal responsibility to vote if you are enrolled and also to try to educate yourself as much as possible.
"The government will do all it can to help those who find it difficult, to make sure that everyone who wants to vote does vote."
English proficiency is still one of the main drivers behind accidental informal votes, which are not included in the overall count.
Mr Khalil is calling for education programs about voting procedures to be rolled out well ahead of polling day, particularly for voters from different cultural backgrounds.
"There's probably a real need for education processes to occur a lot earlier in the cycle so that people can really understand how the actual voting system works and what they should be doing," he said.
"They have a right to vote and they shouldn't be disenfranchised simply because they speak a different language or their mother tongue is not English."
His seat of Wills in Melbourne's inner north had a 6.75 per cent rate of informal votes for the house of representatives ballot this year.
"That's a real disenfranchisement of almost 7,000 voters," he said.
"Obviously language and the barrier of language is an issue. There are also multicultural communities that are ageing, so I think that is a factor as the cohort gets older there are more difficulties around voting.
"And also probably the number of candidates that were on the ticket for the house of representatives. Particularly in my seat of Wills, there were 10 candidates. Even I got confused."
Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) spokesman, Phil Diak, said the number of candidates on the ballot paper can be a factor in the high incidence of informal votes.
"There's some correlation that if you've got a high number of candidates on the ballot paper then there's more chance of mistakes being made," he told SBS.
He said high rates of informal votes are most obvious in parts of Sydney's west and south-west, but the reasons behind the statistics are varied.
"In my seat of Wills, there were 10 candidates. Even I got confused."
"Some of them can correlate to language, newer language groups and unfamiliarity with the system. Other differences can be the difference between voting systems for state elections and (the) federal election," he said.
"There are some states where the system is the same, for example, the lower house in Victoria and the house of representatives federally are the same, whereas in NSW there are differences."
The highest rates of informal votes for the house of representatives vote at this year's federal election were in the electorates of Lindsay (11.77 per cent), Blaxland (11.55 per cent), Watson (10.65 per cent), Fowler (10.41 per cent), McMahon (9.89 per cent), Parramatta (9.26 per cent), Murray (8.84 per cent), Werriwa (8.76 per cent), Longman (8.53 per cent) and Barton (8.35 per cent).
The national rate of informal votes for the house of representatives ballot was 3.94 per cent, which was slightly lower than the previous federal campaign in 2013.
The national informality rate in 2013 was 5.91 per cent, the highest on record since 1984 (6.34 per cent).
Once again, the main electorates affected were in NSW.
The AEC's research paper following the 2013 election showed similar electorates in the top 10 seats for informal votes. They included Watson (13.95 per cent), Fowler (13.93 per cent), Blaxland (13.67 per cent), Chifley (13.36 per cent), Werriwa (12.87 per cent), Barton (12.04 per cent), McMahon (11.35 per cent), Parramatta (10.5 per cent), Greenway (9.98 per cent) and Banks (9.95 per cent).
The AEC is working on a similar research paper on informal votes for the 2016 election, which is due out next year.
The AEC runs a lengthy advertising campaign in the lead up to each federal election to help educate Australian voters about how to fill out their ballot papers correctly. It offers translated material in 28 different languages and a call centre where voters can speak to an AEC official through a translator.
"The business of how to vote doesn't stay top of mind over a three-year cycle... So a lot of the population need a reminder, but more so if you are new to the voting system (or) might have had a different system overseas," Mr Diak said.
Assistant Multicultural Affairs Minister, Zed Seselja, said more needs to be done.
"Obviously the government through the AEC tries to reach out as much as possible to make sure there aren't any unreasonable barriers to people from a non English speaking background from voting," he said.
"I think the translation services are very important but it's also important that we continue to talk to community leaders in various ethnic groups."
Mr Khalil said it's up to the parliament to ensure the democratic system works for all Australians.
"Regardless of who they're voting for, the point is we want to make sure that people have their vote counted," he said.
The number of informal votes on the senate ballot paper in this year's election campaign did not spike dramatically despite major changes to senate voting procedures as legislated by the Turnbull government in March.
Mr Diak says there were certain provisions to make sure ballot papers could still be counted despite minor mistakes.
"The parliament when they passed that legislation at the beginning of March this year also retained an ability to save a vote where someone had only marked one box above the line and not made other mistakes, or had marked consecutively less boxes than the six minimum. Those provisions did save votes," he said.
The AEC said if voters make a mistake they can always try again.
"If you do make a mistake, you can ask for another ballot paper and provide the ballot paper that you've made a mistake on back to a polling official to be destroyed," Mr Diak said.
Share
