Liberal, Nationals leaders nutting out power share deal
The pair will hold their first formal talks on Thursday to set up a coalition agreement between the parties, which is renewed after every election.
Mr Littleproud is travelling to Ms Ley's home in Albury, in regional NSW, for the meeting.
The coalition agreement will help to determine how frontbench positions are carved up between the parties in the next parliament, as well as positions on policy.
Issues over where the coalition goes on its nuclear policy or its net-zero emissions targets by 2050 are also set to feature in discussions.
Nationals senator Bridget McKenzie has called for the junior coalition partner to have a bigger seat at the table.
"(The coalition) is a very successful partnership over a long period of time, but it shouldn't be taken for granted," she told Nine's Today program.
"The National Party, proportionately, did incredibly well. We haven't had this amount of political clout within the coalition since the '70s."
While the Nationals retained nearly all of its lower house seats at the election, it lost the NSW seat of Calare to Andrew Gee, a former National who defected from the party to serve as an independent.
The coalition have won 43 seats in the 150-seat House of Representatives, while the opposition has 26 seats in the Senate with counting still continuing.
Senator McKenzie said the Nationals needed to have a bigger say in the frontbench make up of the party.
"We want to see see a whole raft of not just number of portfolios, but the way the coalition operates, and indeed, the type of portfolios that we hold," she said.
Elsewhere, Liberal MP Andrew Hastie has expressed his desire to one day lead the party.
The West Australian was touted as a contender in the recent Liberal leadership contest, but did not put his hand up.
In a podcast interview, Mr Hastie said while family reasons prevented him from standing for leadership, he wanted to one day lead the party.
"I'd be foolish to say I don't have a desire to lead, I do have a desire to lead," he told the Labor-aligned Curtin's Cast.
"The timing was all out for personal reasons."
Just days into her role as opposition leader, Ms Ley said the coalition needed to listen to the message it received from voters at the ballot box.
"We must listen, change and develop a fresh approach," she wrote in an opinion piece.
"To all Australians, those who did vote for us and those who didn't, we will work day and night to earn your trust over the next three years.
"Now more than ever, the federal Liberal Party must respect modern Australia, reflect modern Australia and represent modern Australia."
After a bruising election defeat, Liberal leader Sussan Ley and Nationals leader David Littleproud will meet to chart a different course for a depleted coalition.
The pair will hold their first formal talks on Thursday to set up a coalition agreement between the parties, which is renewed after every election.
Mr Littleproud is travelling to Ms Ley's home in Albury, in regional NSW, for the meeting.
The coalition agreement will help to determine how frontbench positions are carved up between the parties in the next parliament, as well as positions on policy.
Issues over where the coalition goes on its nuclear policy or its net-zero emissions targets by 2050 are also set to feature in discussions.
Nationals senator Bridget McKenzie has called for the junior coalition partner to have a bigger seat at the table.
"(The coalition) is a very successful partnership over a long period of time, but it shouldn't be taken for granted," she told Nine's Today program.
"The National Party, proportionately, did incredibly well. We haven't had this amount of political clout within the coalition since the '70s."
While the Nationals retained nearly all of its lower house seats at the election, it lost the NSW seat of Calare to Andrew Gee, a former National who defected from the party to serve as an independent.
The coalition have won 43 seats in the 150-seat House of Representatives, while the opposition has 26 seats in the Senate with counting still continuing.
Senator McKenzie said the Nationals needed to have a bigger say in the frontbench make up of the party.
"We want to see see a whole raft of not just number of portfolios, but the way the coalition operates, and indeed, the type of portfolios that we hold," she said.
Elsewhere, Liberal MP Andrew Hastie has expressed his desire to one day lead the party.
The West Australian was touted as a contender in the recent Liberal leadership contest, but did not put his hand up.
In a podcast interview, Mr Hastie said while family reasons prevented him from standing for leadership, he wanted to one day lead the party.
"I'd be foolish to say I don't have a desire to lead, I do have a desire to lead," he told the Labor-aligned Curtin's Cast.
"The timing was all out for personal reasons."
Just days into her role as opposition leader, Ms Ley said the coalition needed to listen to the message it received from voters at the ballot box.
"We must listen, change and develop a fresh approach," she wrote in an opinion piece.
"To all Australians, those who did vote for us and those who didn't, we will work day and night to earn your trust over the next three years.
"Now more than ever, the federal Liberal Party must respect modern Australia, reflect modern Australia and represent modern Australia."
After a bruising election defeat, Liberal leader Sussan Ley and Nationals leader David Littleproud will meet to chart a different course for a depleted coalition.
The pair will hold their first formal talks on Thursday to set up a coalition agreement between the parties, which is renewed after every election.
Mr Littleproud is travelling to Ms Ley's home in Albury, in regional NSW, for the meeting.
The coalition agreement will help to determine how frontbench positions are carved up between the parties in the next parliament, as well as positions on policy.
Issues over where the coalition goes on its nuclear policy or its net-zero emissions targets by 2050 are also set to feature in discussions.
Nationals senator Bridget McKenzie has called for the junior coalition partner to have a bigger seat at the table.
"(The coalition) is a very successful partnership over a long period of time, but it shouldn't be taken for granted," she told Nine's Today program.
"The National Party, proportionately, did incredibly well. We haven't had this amount of political clout within the coalition since the '70s."
While the Nationals retained nearly all of its lower house seats at the election, it lost the NSW seat of Calare to Andrew Gee, a former National who defected from the party to serve as an independent.
The coalition have won 43 seats in the 150-seat House of Representatives, while the opposition has 26 seats in the Senate with counting still continuing.
Senator McKenzie said the Nationals needed to have a bigger say in the frontbench make up of the party.
"We want to see see a whole raft of not just number of portfolios, but the way the coalition operates, and indeed, the type of portfolios that we hold," she said.
Elsewhere, Liberal MP Andrew Hastie has expressed his desire to one day lead the party.
The West Australian was touted as a contender in the recent Liberal leadership contest, but did not put his hand up.
In a podcast interview, Mr Hastie said while family reasons prevented him from standing for leadership, he wanted to one day lead the party.
"I'd be foolish to say I don't have a desire to lead, I do have a desire to lead," he told the Labor-aligned Curtin's Cast.
"The timing was all out for personal reasons."
Just days into her role as opposition leader, Ms Ley said the coalition needed to listen to the message it received from voters at the ballot box.
"We must listen, change and develop a fresh approach," she wrote in an opinion piece.
"To all Australians, those who did vote for us and those who didn't, we will work day and night to earn your trust over the next three years.
"Now more than ever, the federal Liberal Party must respect modern Australia, reflect modern Australia and represent modern Australia."
After a bruising election defeat, Liberal leader Sussan Ley and Nationals leader David Littleproud will meet to chart a different course for a depleted coalition.
The pair will hold their first formal talks on Thursday to set up a coalition agreement between the parties, which is renewed after every election.
Mr Littleproud is travelling to Ms Ley's home in Albury, in regional NSW, for the meeting.
The coalition agreement will help to determine how frontbench positions are carved up between the parties in the next parliament, as well as positions on policy.
Issues over where the coalition goes on its nuclear policy or its net-zero emissions targets by 2050 are also set to feature in discussions.
Nationals senator Bridget McKenzie has called for the junior coalition partner to have a bigger seat at the table.
"(The coalition) is a very successful partnership over a long period of time, but it shouldn't be taken for granted," she told Nine's Today program.
"The National Party, proportionately, did incredibly well. We haven't had this amount of political clout within the coalition since the '70s."
While the Nationals retained nearly all of its lower house seats at the election, it lost the NSW seat of Calare to Andrew Gee, a former National who defected from the party to serve as an independent.
The coalition have won 43 seats in the 150-seat House of Representatives, while the opposition has 26 seats in the Senate with counting still continuing.
Senator McKenzie said the Nationals needed to have a bigger say in the frontbench make up of the party.
"We want to see see a whole raft of not just number of portfolios, but the way the coalition operates, and indeed, the type of portfolios that we hold," she said.
Elsewhere, Liberal MP Andrew Hastie has expressed his desire to one day lead the party.
The West Australian was touted as a contender in the recent Liberal leadership contest, but did not put his hand up.
In a podcast interview, Mr Hastie said while family reasons prevented him from standing for leadership, he wanted to one day lead the party.
"I'd be foolish to say I don't have a desire to lead, I do have a desire to lead," he told the Labor-aligned Curtin's Cast.
"The timing was all out for personal reasons."
Just days into her role as opposition leader, Ms Ley said the coalition needed to listen to the message it received from voters at the ballot box.
"We must listen, change and develop a fresh approach," she wrote in an opinion piece.
"To all Australians, those who did vote for us and those who didn't, we will work day and night to earn your trust over the next three years.
"Now more than ever, the federal Liberal Party must respect modern Australia, reflect modern Australia and represent modern Australia."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Perth Now
an hour ago
- Perth Now
Tibetans raise rights abuses as PM meets Chinese leader
Tibet's president in exile has cautioned Australia about appeasing China for economic gain as he warns about Beijing's repression stretching into Australia. Penpa Tsering has urged Prime Minister Anthony Albanese to use his trip to China, which coincides with his own to Australia, to call out Chinese human rights abuses, including in Tibet. Mr Albanese met Chinese President Xi Jinping in Beijing on Tuesday, where he said he discussed several issues but did not refer to human rights in his opening remarks or the subsequent press conference with Australian media. Mr Tsering said it was important human rights issues were raised as more than just a box-checking exercise at the start of meetings, as the Chinese government would brush off timid remarks knowing there would be no follow-through. He said most Tibetans in Australia were former political prisoners and needed to self-censor criticisms of China if they wanted to get a visa to go back to the autonomous region to visit family. "I would like to believe that Australia is concerned about human rights situations, religious freedoms in every part of the world because that's a value that Australians cherish as a democratic, free country," he told AAP. Human Rights Watch's Australia director Daniela Gavshon said vague statements by the prime minister minimised the seriousness of China's abuses. Mr Albanese said Australia would "disagree where we must" when asked about China's human rights record in Shanghai. "By glossing over human rights as a difference of opinion, the Australian government risks undermining the very system that was established to protect and promote people's rights all over the world," she told AAP. As Mr Albanese promotes greater trade between Australia and China during his trip, Mr Tsering encouraged Canberra to reverse course and give China less business. This would deprive it of the economic benefits it then uses to prop up the very military build-up and human rights abuses Canberra then criticises, he said. "People look for material benefit more than moral values, unfortunately," the president in exile said. "As long as you have business, economic development, everybody feels comfortable and they don't talk about human rights - everything goes under the carpet, that's very sad." Mr Tsering is using his week-long tour in Australia to meet with the Tibetan community rather than political meetings, but will return for a second trip in February on a more diplomatic mission. China tightly controls Tibet and has been widely accused of severe human rights violations including torture, arbitrary detention and forced labour. Mr Tsering said Tibet was autonomous in name only as Beijing cracks down on freedoms and suppresses local culture. A major point of contention is religious freedoms, with China demanding the authority to determine the next Dalai Lama, Tibetan Buddhism's spiritual leader. The Dalai Lama has just turned 90 and followers believe His Holiness is reincarnated upon his death and China should have no say in the religious process.
West Australian
2 hours ago
- West Australian
Tibetans raise rights abuses as PM meets Chinese leader
Tibet's president in exile has cautioned Australia about appeasing China for economic gain as he warns about Beijing's repression stretching into Australia. Penpa Tsering has urged Prime Minister Anthony Albanese to use his trip to China, which coincides with his own to Australia, to call out Chinese human rights abuses, including in Tibet. Mr Albanese met Chinese President Xi Jinping in Beijing on Tuesday, where he said he discussed several issues but did not refer to human rights in his opening remarks or the subsequent press conference with Australian media. Mr Tsering said it was important human rights issues were raised as more than just a box-checking exercise at the start of meetings, as the Chinese government would brush off timid remarks knowing there would be no follow-through. He said most Tibetans in Australia were former political prisoners and needed to self-censor criticisms of China if they wanted to get a visa to go back to the autonomous region to visit family. "I would like to believe that Australia is concerned about human rights situations, religious freedoms in every part of the world because that's a value that Australians cherish as a democratic, free country," he told AAP. Human Rights Watch's Australia director Daniela Gavshon said vague statements by the prime minister minimised the seriousness of China's abuses. Mr Albanese said Australia would "disagree where we must" when asked about China's human rights record in Shanghai. "By glossing over human rights as a difference of opinion, the Australian government risks undermining the very system that was established to protect and promote people's rights all over the world," she told AAP. As Mr Albanese promotes greater trade between Australia and China during his trip, Mr Tsering encouraged Canberra to reverse course and give China less business. This would deprive it of the economic benefits it then uses to prop up the very military build-up and human rights abuses Canberra then criticises, he said. "People look for material benefit more than moral values, unfortunately," the president in exile said. "As long as you have business, economic development, everybody feels comfortable and they don't talk about human rights - everything goes under the carpet, that's very sad." Mr Tsering is using his week-long tour in Australia to meet with the Tibetan community rather than political meetings, but will return for a second trip in February on a more diplomatic mission. China tightly controls Tibet and has been widely accused of severe human rights violations including torture, arbitrary detention and forced labour. Mr Tsering said Tibet was autonomous in name only as Beijing cracks down on freedoms and suppresses local culture. A major point of contention is religious freedoms, with China demanding the authority to determine the next Dalai Lama, Tibetan Buddhism's spiritual leader. The Dalai Lama has just turned 90 and followers believe His Holiness is reincarnated upon his death and China should have no say in the religious process.
The Advertiser
2 hours ago
- The Advertiser
This systemic problem in our federal elections is not being adequately addressed, and it's growing
After every election, Parliament's powerful electoral matters committee reviews that election. This time, it must be a top priority to deal with the rising number of votes that are struck out as informal. People absolutely have the right to choose "none of the above" when they step into the polling booth, but there are just as many, if not more, who are attempting - and failing - to exercise their precious democratic right. We need to do far more to make sure the rules are simple, consistent and clear. That responsibility rests with everyone from schools, to the media, citizenship preparation courses, the political parties and the Australian Electoral Commission. Why is nobody upset that an extraordinary 18,274 voters had their ballots excluded from the May election count in just one electorate - the south-western Sydney seat of Werriwa? It was the highest number and greatest percentage of informal votes in any of the 150 electorates contested at the federal election. Yet there is no outrage that 17.26 per cent of the voters in a marginal seat were not heard. It was double the rate from the previous election and the number of ballot papers rejected was far greater than the eventual winning margin of 11,870 for Labor's Anne Stanley. In some individual polling places in Werriwa more than one-in-four votes were struck out. In Ashcroft it was 28 per cent. Werriwa was the worst, but it was by no means the exception. In a staggering 20 seats, the informal vote was larger than the winning margin. Nationwide, almost 920,000 votes were excluded from the count. In the nail-bitingly tight seat of Bradfield in Sydney's north, won by Nicolette Boele by 26 votes, there were 6656 informal votes. In the Victorian seat of Goldstein, where Liberal Tim Wilson wrestled the seat from teal independent Zoe Daniel, the informal vote was 18 times higher than the winning margin of 175 votes. Even in the ACT seat of Bean, where Labor's David Smith got a massive scare from independent candidate Jessie Price and prevailed by only 700 votes, more than three times as many votes, 2670, were ruled informal. And in the south-western Sydney seat of Fowler, which was hotly contested between Independent Dai Le and Labor's Tu Le, the informal vote rose by 3.4 per cent with 15,079 ballots struck out in a seat where the margin was 4974 votes. More people voted informally than for the Liberal candidate. In 11 seats, more than one-in-10 votes were ruled informal, and across the nation, it was 5.6 per cent of all votes cast, which is the highest since 2013. And that doesn't include the 1.7 million people who were enrolled and didn't turn up to vote on the day, early or at all. Based on past trends, and it will vary for every electorate, about 40 per cent of people choose "none of the above". About half of this cohort deliberately left their ballot paper blank. The other half marked the ballot paper in some way, such as writing slogans, adding candidate names such as Donald Duck or Donald Trump or drawing genitals. There's always someone who writes their own name on the ballot paper. But that leaves a large group who tried to vote properly yet are not being heard, and are still most likely unaware their vote is not being counted. The Electoral Commission instructs staff to assume the voter intended to cast a formal ballot, and it will allow votes where numbers are crossed out or over-written as long as the "intent" of the voter is clear. In the election, there were some suspiciously high informal voting rates in hospitals and aged care homes, while in one small northern NSW booth, electoral officials inexplicably gave people the wrong advice. These are exceptions that can be fixed, but there is a systemic problem that is not being adequately addressed. It is no accident that NSW has 19 of the top 20 electorates for informal votes in the House of Representatives. In a NSW state election, you can simply put the number 1 next to the candidate you want and not mark any other boxes. In a federal election, you must number every box without repeating or missing a number. Former Nationals leader Michael McCormack, who holds the seat of Riverina, which had 13,443 informal votes, says it is "madness" that federal, state and local government voting systems are different. And he is not the only one calling for a rethink. Regardless of whether we have a compulsory or optional system to number every box on the ballot paper, this is a situation that must no longer be tolerated. Many high-profile independent candidates also unwittingly contributed to the problem by handing out how-to-vote cards that had the number 1 next to their name and the other boxes left blank. Electorates with a high proportion of citizens born overseas have high levels of informal voting. The Electoral Commission knows this and says it "ran a significant communications campaign" translated into more than 30 languages and had information at every polling venue. The informal vote in most of these areas is rising, so it's not working. And too many votes are knocked out because voters simply make a mistake in sequentially numbering each box by either repeating a number or missing one. There's a whole other debate about people reaching the age of 18 who have poor literacy and numeracy that leaves them unable to complete a ballot paper. If this growing problem is not tackled, we're on a trajectory to have one million informal votes at the next election, with the majority of those cast by people who intended to have their voice heard. Surely, we can do better to make sure every vote counts. After every election, Parliament's powerful electoral matters committee reviews that election. This time, it must be a top priority to deal with the rising number of votes that are struck out as informal. People absolutely have the right to choose "none of the above" when they step into the polling booth, but there are just as many, if not more, who are attempting - and failing - to exercise their precious democratic right. We need to do far more to make sure the rules are simple, consistent and clear. That responsibility rests with everyone from schools, to the media, citizenship preparation courses, the political parties and the Australian Electoral Commission. Why is nobody upset that an extraordinary 18,274 voters had their ballots excluded from the May election count in just one electorate - the south-western Sydney seat of Werriwa? It was the highest number and greatest percentage of informal votes in any of the 150 electorates contested at the federal election. Yet there is no outrage that 17.26 per cent of the voters in a marginal seat were not heard. It was double the rate from the previous election and the number of ballot papers rejected was far greater than the eventual winning margin of 11,870 for Labor's Anne Stanley. In some individual polling places in Werriwa more than one-in-four votes were struck out. In Ashcroft it was 28 per cent. Werriwa was the worst, but it was by no means the exception. In a staggering 20 seats, the informal vote was larger than the winning margin. Nationwide, almost 920,000 votes were excluded from the count. In the nail-bitingly tight seat of Bradfield in Sydney's north, won by Nicolette Boele by 26 votes, there were 6656 informal votes. In the Victorian seat of Goldstein, where Liberal Tim Wilson wrestled the seat from teal independent Zoe Daniel, the informal vote was 18 times higher than the winning margin of 175 votes. Even in the ACT seat of Bean, where Labor's David Smith got a massive scare from independent candidate Jessie Price and prevailed by only 700 votes, more than three times as many votes, 2670, were ruled informal. And in the south-western Sydney seat of Fowler, which was hotly contested between Independent Dai Le and Labor's Tu Le, the informal vote rose by 3.4 per cent with 15,079 ballots struck out in a seat where the margin was 4974 votes. More people voted informally than for the Liberal candidate. In 11 seats, more than one-in-10 votes were ruled informal, and across the nation, it was 5.6 per cent of all votes cast, which is the highest since 2013. And that doesn't include the 1.7 million people who were enrolled and didn't turn up to vote on the day, early or at all. Based on past trends, and it will vary for every electorate, about 40 per cent of people choose "none of the above". About half of this cohort deliberately left their ballot paper blank. The other half marked the ballot paper in some way, such as writing slogans, adding candidate names such as Donald Duck or Donald Trump or drawing genitals. There's always someone who writes their own name on the ballot paper. But that leaves a large group who tried to vote properly yet are not being heard, and are still most likely unaware their vote is not being counted. The Electoral Commission instructs staff to assume the voter intended to cast a formal ballot, and it will allow votes where numbers are crossed out or over-written as long as the "intent" of the voter is clear. In the election, there were some suspiciously high informal voting rates in hospitals and aged care homes, while in one small northern NSW booth, electoral officials inexplicably gave people the wrong advice. These are exceptions that can be fixed, but there is a systemic problem that is not being adequately addressed. It is no accident that NSW has 19 of the top 20 electorates for informal votes in the House of Representatives. In a NSW state election, you can simply put the number 1 next to the candidate you want and not mark any other boxes. In a federal election, you must number every box without repeating or missing a number. Former Nationals leader Michael McCormack, who holds the seat of Riverina, which had 13,443 informal votes, says it is "madness" that federal, state and local government voting systems are different. And he is not the only one calling for a rethink. Regardless of whether we have a compulsory or optional system to number every box on the ballot paper, this is a situation that must no longer be tolerated. Many high-profile independent candidates also unwittingly contributed to the problem by handing out how-to-vote cards that had the number 1 next to their name and the other boxes left blank. Electorates with a high proportion of citizens born overseas have high levels of informal voting. The Electoral Commission knows this and says it "ran a significant communications campaign" translated into more than 30 languages and had information at every polling venue. The informal vote in most of these areas is rising, so it's not working. And too many votes are knocked out because voters simply make a mistake in sequentially numbering each box by either repeating a number or missing one. There's a whole other debate about people reaching the age of 18 who have poor literacy and numeracy that leaves them unable to complete a ballot paper. If this growing problem is not tackled, we're on a trajectory to have one million informal votes at the next election, with the majority of those cast by people who intended to have their voice heard. Surely, we can do better to make sure every vote counts. After every election, Parliament's powerful electoral matters committee reviews that election. This time, it must be a top priority to deal with the rising number of votes that are struck out as informal. People absolutely have the right to choose "none of the above" when they step into the polling booth, but there are just as many, if not more, who are attempting - and failing - to exercise their precious democratic right. We need to do far more to make sure the rules are simple, consistent and clear. That responsibility rests with everyone from schools, to the media, citizenship preparation courses, the political parties and the Australian Electoral Commission. Why is nobody upset that an extraordinary 18,274 voters had their ballots excluded from the May election count in just one electorate - the south-western Sydney seat of Werriwa? It was the highest number and greatest percentage of informal votes in any of the 150 electorates contested at the federal election. Yet there is no outrage that 17.26 per cent of the voters in a marginal seat were not heard. It was double the rate from the previous election and the number of ballot papers rejected was far greater than the eventual winning margin of 11,870 for Labor's Anne Stanley. In some individual polling places in Werriwa more than one-in-four votes were struck out. In Ashcroft it was 28 per cent. Werriwa was the worst, but it was by no means the exception. In a staggering 20 seats, the informal vote was larger than the winning margin. Nationwide, almost 920,000 votes were excluded from the count. In the nail-bitingly tight seat of Bradfield in Sydney's north, won by Nicolette Boele by 26 votes, there were 6656 informal votes. In the Victorian seat of Goldstein, where Liberal Tim Wilson wrestled the seat from teal independent Zoe Daniel, the informal vote was 18 times higher than the winning margin of 175 votes. Even in the ACT seat of Bean, where Labor's David Smith got a massive scare from independent candidate Jessie Price and prevailed by only 700 votes, more than three times as many votes, 2670, were ruled informal. And in the south-western Sydney seat of Fowler, which was hotly contested between Independent Dai Le and Labor's Tu Le, the informal vote rose by 3.4 per cent with 15,079 ballots struck out in a seat where the margin was 4974 votes. More people voted informally than for the Liberal candidate. In 11 seats, more than one-in-10 votes were ruled informal, and across the nation, it was 5.6 per cent of all votes cast, which is the highest since 2013. And that doesn't include the 1.7 million people who were enrolled and didn't turn up to vote on the day, early or at all. Based on past trends, and it will vary for every electorate, about 40 per cent of people choose "none of the above". About half of this cohort deliberately left their ballot paper blank. The other half marked the ballot paper in some way, such as writing slogans, adding candidate names such as Donald Duck or Donald Trump or drawing genitals. There's always someone who writes their own name on the ballot paper. But that leaves a large group who tried to vote properly yet are not being heard, and are still most likely unaware their vote is not being counted. The Electoral Commission instructs staff to assume the voter intended to cast a formal ballot, and it will allow votes where numbers are crossed out or over-written as long as the "intent" of the voter is clear. In the election, there were some suspiciously high informal voting rates in hospitals and aged care homes, while in one small northern NSW booth, electoral officials inexplicably gave people the wrong advice. These are exceptions that can be fixed, but there is a systemic problem that is not being adequately addressed. It is no accident that NSW has 19 of the top 20 electorates for informal votes in the House of Representatives. In a NSW state election, you can simply put the number 1 next to the candidate you want and not mark any other boxes. In a federal election, you must number every box without repeating or missing a number. Former Nationals leader Michael McCormack, who holds the seat of Riverina, which had 13,443 informal votes, says it is "madness" that federal, state and local government voting systems are different. And he is not the only one calling for a rethink. Regardless of whether we have a compulsory or optional system to number every box on the ballot paper, this is a situation that must no longer be tolerated. Many high-profile independent candidates also unwittingly contributed to the problem by handing out how-to-vote cards that had the number 1 next to their name and the other boxes left blank. Electorates with a high proportion of citizens born overseas have high levels of informal voting. The Electoral Commission knows this and says it "ran a significant communications campaign" translated into more than 30 languages and had information at every polling venue. The informal vote in most of these areas is rising, so it's not working. And too many votes are knocked out because voters simply make a mistake in sequentially numbering each box by either repeating a number or missing one. There's a whole other debate about people reaching the age of 18 who have poor literacy and numeracy that leaves them unable to complete a ballot paper. If this growing problem is not tackled, we're on a trajectory to have one million informal votes at the next election, with the majority of those cast by people who intended to have their voice heard. Surely, we can do better to make sure every vote counts. After every election, Parliament's powerful electoral matters committee reviews that election. This time, it must be a top priority to deal with the rising number of votes that are struck out as informal. People absolutely have the right to choose "none of the above" when they step into the polling booth, but there are just as many, if not more, who are attempting - and failing - to exercise their precious democratic right. We need to do far more to make sure the rules are simple, consistent and clear. That responsibility rests with everyone from schools, to the media, citizenship preparation courses, the political parties and the Australian Electoral Commission. Why is nobody upset that an extraordinary 18,274 voters had their ballots excluded from the May election count in just one electorate - the south-western Sydney seat of Werriwa? It was the highest number and greatest percentage of informal votes in any of the 150 electorates contested at the federal election. Yet there is no outrage that 17.26 per cent of the voters in a marginal seat were not heard. It was double the rate from the previous election and the number of ballot papers rejected was far greater than the eventual winning margin of 11,870 for Labor's Anne Stanley. In some individual polling places in Werriwa more than one-in-four votes were struck out. In Ashcroft it was 28 per cent. Werriwa was the worst, but it was by no means the exception. In a staggering 20 seats, the informal vote was larger than the winning margin. Nationwide, almost 920,000 votes were excluded from the count. In the nail-bitingly tight seat of Bradfield in Sydney's north, won by Nicolette Boele by 26 votes, there were 6656 informal votes. In the Victorian seat of Goldstein, where Liberal Tim Wilson wrestled the seat from teal independent Zoe Daniel, the informal vote was 18 times higher than the winning margin of 175 votes. Even in the ACT seat of Bean, where Labor's David Smith got a massive scare from independent candidate Jessie Price and prevailed by only 700 votes, more than three times as many votes, 2670, were ruled informal. And in the south-western Sydney seat of Fowler, which was hotly contested between Independent Dai Le and Labor's Tu Le, the informal vote rose by 3.4 per cent with 15,079 ballots struck out in a seat where the margin was 4974 votes. More people voted informally than for the Liberal candidate. In 11 seats, more than one-in-10 votes were ruled informal, and across the nation, it was 5.6 per cent of all votes cast, which is the highest since 2013. And that doesn't include the 1.7 million people who were enrolled and didn't turn up to vote on the day, early or at all. Based on past trends, and it will vary for every electorate, about 40 per cent of people choose "none of the above". About half of this cohort deliberately left their ballot paper blank. The other half marked the ballot paper in some way, such as writing slogans, adding candidate names such as Donald Duck or Donald Trump or drawing genitals. There's always someone who writes their own name on the ballot paper. But that leaves a large group who tried to vote properly yet are not being heard, and are still most likely unaware their vote is not being counted. The Electoral Commission instructs staff to assume the voter intended to cast a formal ballot, and it will allow votes where numbers are crossed out or over-written as long as the "intent" of the voter is clear. In the election, there were some suspiciously high informal voting rates in hospitals and aged care homes, while in one small northern NSW booth, electoral officials inexplicably gave people the wrong advice. These are exceptions that can be fixed, but there is a systemic problem that is not being adequately addressed. It is no accident that NSW has 19 of the top 20 electorates for informal votes in the House of Representatives. In a NSW state election, you can simply put the number 1 next to the candidate you want and not mark any other boxes. In a federal election, you must number every box without repeating or missing a number. Former Nationals leader Michael McCormack, who holds the seat of Riverina, which had 13,443 informal votes, says it is "madness" that federal, state and local government voting systems are different. And he is not the only one calling for a rethink. Regardless of whether we have a compulsory or optional system to number every box on the ballot paper, this is a situation that must no longer be tolerated. Many high-profile independent candidates also unwittingly contributed to the problem by handing out how-to-vote cards that had the number 1 next to their name and the other boxes left blank. Electorates with a high proportion of citizens born overseas have high levels of informal voting. The Electoral Commission knows this and says it "ran a significant communications campaign" translated into more than 30 languages and had information at every polling venue. The informal vote in most of these areas is rising, so it's not working. And too many votes are knocked out because voters simply make a mistake in sequentially numbering each box by either repeating a number or missing one. There's a whole other debate about people reaching the age of 18 who have poor literacy and numeracy that leaves them unable to complete a ballot paper. If this growing problem is not tackled, we're on a trajectory to have one million informal votes at the next election, with the majority of those cast by people who intended to have their voice heard. Surely, we can do better to make sure every vote counts.
