Who is the worst Australian Prime Minister of the 21st century?
How to stratify 25 years of constant disappointment, and irritation, and frustration?
How to reconcile the two seemingly contradictory facts that our country is better governed than most, and yet host to such mediocrities in positions of leadership?
Sorry, I'm straying into opinion territory there. It is your opinion that matters.
Our 25@25 series will finally put to bed the debates you've been having at the pub and around dinner tables for years – and some that are just too much fun not to include.
We have endured leaders with odd eyebrows, odd gaits, odd accents, odd personalities, and most importantly, odd policies.
Whatever your political slant, you will find there are multiple candidates for the unwanted crown. Four Liberal prime ministers, and three from Labor. All flawed in their own sometimes charming, sometimes maddening ways.
Thankfully, the taskmasters at news.com.au have asked me to lay out the most glaring weaknesses of these beglassed men (yes, Abbott and Turnbull did wear glasses at various times), plus Julia Gillard. An easier job, I think, than listing their strengths.
So, you may read the summaries below with the knowledge that your narrator is a cantankerous boor with a serial lack of respect for virtually all politicians. And then you may ignore every word he writes, and vote accordingly.
John Howard: 1996-2007
As someone who progressed through multiple years of high school-level cricket with the beamer as his accidental stock ball, I profess some respect for John Howard, and his unique interpretation of short-pitched bowling. No risk of a beamer there.
Is it good? No. Does it betray any latent talent? No. Will it provoke anger, rather than pity, from the umpire? Also no. This last part is its strongest feature.
Mr Howard is the longest-serving prime minister on this list, having won four elections, and it is fair to say he displayed the most political skill. There's a reason Mr Howard is still wheeled out for every election campaign, almost 20 years into retirement.
Two indisputable achievements: the introduction of the GST, and the gun buyback scheme, implemented in the wake of the Port Arthur Massacre. Both ideas faced immense opposition. And Mr Howard's determination to persist with them solidified his reputation as a politician of principle, rather than convenience.
There were also weaknesses. Mr Howard and his treasurer, Peter Costello, left Australia's federal government with a structural deficit from which it is still struggling to recover. His closeness with American President George W. Bush got Australia mired in Iraq. And the prime minister's staunch social conservatism sometimes left him out of step with the mainstream of Australian society.
For example, Mr Howard remained stubbornly resistant to the idea of apologising to the Stolen Generations – something his successor would do shortly after he left office, having lost his own seat.
Kevin Rudd: 2007-2010, 2013-a bit later in 2013
And here we have that successor.
Mr Rudd ran the triumphant Kevin07 election campaign, which convinced a critical mass of Australians, at least temporarily, that he was a fine and normal human being.
He then shepherded Australia through the Global Financial Crisis, and delivered a formal apology to the Stolen Generations in parliament.
His tenure ended aprubtly in 2010, for famously ill-defined reasons that hobbled his replacement, Julia Gillard, as she sought to assert her own authority over the office.
The heart of the matter was Mr Rudd's toxic relationship with many of his colleagues, who resented what they described as controlling, micromanaging behaviour.
After years spent surreptitiously, or often quite blatantly, undermining Ms Gillard, whose unpopularity spurred Labor's MPs to act, Mr Rudd returned to the prime ministership and presided over the government's defeat to Tony Abbott.
Mr Rudd is still around. He's currently serving as our ambassador to the United States, a job which requires him to navigate sensitive diplomacy with the Trump administration. It's all the more awkward because he was, previously, a quite fierce critic of President Trump.
Julia Gillard: 2010-2013
Ms Gillard was forever haunted by the manner in which she became prime minister, and her struggle to justify it to the public.
In the hours after she displaced Mr Rudd – or knifed him, if you prefer emotive language – Ms Gillard described the government as a 'good' one that had 'lost its way'. It never quite managed to find its way again.
There are, however, achievements to her name, such as the introduction of the National Disability Insurance Scheme.
Ultimately, a single sentence uttered before the 2010 election severed Ms Gillard's relationship with much of the public. Having promised explicitly that 'there will be no carbon tax under a government I lead', she then introduced one, having made a deal with the Greens to scrape into minority government.
The breach in trust fuelled then-opposition leader Tony Abbott, who proceeded to win power in 2013, after Ms Gillard had already been pushed aside by Mr Rudd.
Ms Gillard did contribute one of the most famous moments in recent Australian political history with her searing anti-misogyny speech on the floor of the House.
Tony Abbott: 2013-2015
Mr Abbott was, by all assessments, an extraordinarily effective opposition leader. His time as prime minister didn't go nearly as well.
The root of Mr Abbott's problems was his government's first budget in 2014, which sought to make sweeping cuts to public spending, including some that violated his election promises.
Among the pledges he did honour was the most famous one: to 'stop the boats', and thus stop the stream of people risking their lives on boats to seek asylum in Australia.
There was a particularly awkward moment, in 2015, when Mr Abbott decided to award Prince Philip a knighthood, having revived Australia's honours system. The move was widely seen as out of touch, and Mr Abbott himself later admitted it had been 'an injudicious appointment'.
Malcolm Turnbull: 2015-2018
Mr Turnbull almost quit politics after his catastrophically unsuccessful stint as opposition leader during the Rudd government. But he lingered for long enough to serve as a minister in the Abbott government, and then as prime minister, having brought Mr Abbott down.
The chief accusation against Mr Turnbull is that he was a do-nothing prime minister, forever too cautious to propose significant reforms, and too constrained by his party's right wing to implement his preferred agenda, particularly on the issue of climate change.
He would point to a policy like Snowy Hydro 2.0 as a counterweight to that argument.
Mr Turnbull ultimately left the job in particularly acrimonious circumstances after a week of high drama, which saw Peter Dutton challenge him for the leadership, only for Scott Morrison to skate through the middle and claim the prize.
Scott Morrison: 2018-2022
Mr Morrison was in charge during the most consequential crisis the world had faced since the GFC. He guided Australia through the Covid pandemic, working closely with the states.
Whether he struck the right balance, in that endeavour, is a matter of opinion.
Politically speaking, he secured the permanent adoration of Liberal supporters by winning an election against the odds in 2019.
But controversies eventually took their toll, particularly Mr Morrison's decision to fly to Hawaii with his family while Australia was fighting horrendous bushfires. His glib remark in one interview, saying 'I don't hold a hose, mate,' quickly became infamous.
Anthony Albanese: 2022-present
The one prime minister on this list whose political career has yet to reach a painful end. Emphasis, there, on the 'yet'.
The greatest failure, during Mr Albanese's first term, was his unsuccessful campaign to establish an Indigenous Voice to Parliament, which was rejected by the Australian people at a referendum.
Now he is dealing with global turmoil, with wars in Ukraine and Gaza supplemented by a recalcitrant second Trump administration, which is determined to impose sanctions of varying severity upon the rest of the world.
How will it end? Not well, if the rest of this list is any guide.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
ABC News
34 minutes ago
- ABC News
Tax reform talk heats up after Treasury FOI error, and that might just suit Jim Chalmers nicely
"Tax should be raised as part of broader tax reform." It's the kind of headline that typically has treasurers ducking and weaving. It certainly had the opposition salivating over an early opportunity to draw some political blood after its own crushing election defeat. "What Mr Albanese needs to explain to the Australian people is what those higher taxes are," Liberal Leader Sussan Ley opined. But, confronted with the accidental release of typically confidential parts of his department's Incoming Government Brief, the treasurer didn't flinch. "I'm pretty relaxed about it, to be honest," was Jim Chalmers' response. No denial, and not even really any concerted attempt to distance the government from what is as close to independent as Treasury advice ever gets (although the treasurer is decamping this week to the G20 meetings in South Africa). Chalmers instead chose to own the leaked advice on tax reform. "We have made it clear that we need to build on the progress we've made in repairing the budget so that we can make the budget even more sustainable," he told reporters. "So, the priorities which are being reported today are the sorts of things that I have mentioned before, including at the National Press Club." For those who missed it, having emerged from an election campaign where Labor played small target and saw its political rivals decimated across the country, the treasurer stood up in a room full of journalists saying he was "personally willing to grasp the nettle". "No sensible progress can be made on productivity, resilience or budget sustainability without proper consideration of more tax reform." The treasurer sounded like he could have been reading straight from his department's brief. A happy accident for Chalmers? With the rebadged Economic Reform Roundtable just a month away, confirmation that Treasury would like to see both the tax take rise and spending fall to finally fix a long-term structural hole in the budget adds further urgency to the task. Economist Nicki Hutley believes the treasurer will not only be relaxed, but even "happy" that the headings around tax reform got out into the public domain. "It helps to promote the conversation ahead of what is a very important round table," she told me. "And the more those issues, particularly challenging ones like tax reform, are aired prior to the round table, the better it is." So, what did we learn about Treasury's views on tax reform? Probably not a huge amount that we couldn't guess. It thinks we need to raise more revenue and spend less. It also thinks those tax increases shouldn't come from workers or businesses, which are already carrying too much of the burden. Although, on the latter point, it seems the nation's biggest company disagrees, breaking ranks with virtually every business lobby group. "We do not believe that lowering the company tax rate should be a priority, provided there is no change to Australia's imputation credit regime," the Commonwealth Bank noted in an official corporate submission to the government's Productivity Commission. "While we, and no doubt other large companies, would welcome a lower company tax rate, we believe there are other priorities which should lead the productivity reform agenda." Regardless of whether income and corporate taxes go down or stay the same, that really leaves those sitting on wealth as the prime targets for more taxation — whether that's through their superannuation, trusts, housing or consumption. The two big hints in the leaked headings are "building on your reforms to superannuation tax" and "reforming the indirect tax system to support budget repair and the fiscal sustainability of Commonwealth and state governments". CBA backs 'superannuation cap' As much as those who hold large superannuation balances, and those who profit from managing them, decry the frequently changing rules around the sector, while it remains an attractive tax shelter for the very wealthy super will continue to be an obvious target for reform. As my colleague Ian Verrender eloquently pointed out, the Albanese government's current proposal to up the tax paid on income from balances above $3 million goes only a little way towards evening the ledger with the wage slaves who still work for a living. In another statement sure to ruffle feathers across the top end of town, CBA put forward a far more radical proposal in its Productivity Commission submission. "Uncapped superannuation concessions appear to be unsustainable," the Commonwealth Bank noted. "We would support a superannuation cap, set at a level that encourages aspiration, and set well above the level where there is dependence on the state for support in retirement." So forget taxing earnings on super balances above $3 million at a mere 30 per cent. What CBA is proposing is that you simply won't be allowed to hold a huge amount inside super, and presumably, earnings on any wealth you hold above that super cap will be taxed at your marginal tax rate. The level of assets at which the part pension cuts out for a single non-home owner is currently $962,500, so let's say the super cap was set at $2 million, more than double that. Such a change might see a person with $4 million in super savings, currently complaining about paying perhaps $15,000 a year extra in tax under Labor's existing proposal, paying an extra $26,000 with part of their earnings likely subject to the top marginal tax rate of 45 per cent. As with all these things, there's no complete absence of self-interest here. The big four banks have all reduced their exposure to superannuation and wealth management after a series of scandals, although CBA does still own a sizeable chunk of Colonial First State. And the tax-advantaged super system is siphoning money away from the place most retirees in my grandparents' generation stuck their savings — the bank, where interest earnings are taxed like income from wages. Capping super balances may shift some of the savings from the wealthy back into the banking system, expanding the pool of cheaper deposit funding for the banks. Nonetheless, it is surprising to see Australia's biggest bank voluntarily weigh into the tax debate. "The Henry Review remains the most comprehensive assessment and blueprint for tax reform in Australia," CBA observed. "It is a sensible starting point from which to launch a national conversation." A starting point we've now been stuck at for more than 15 years. Will Chalmers dare look at the GST or land taxes? Treasury's call for "reforming the indirect tax system" is one area where there's a bit more ambiguity as to exactly what it might be recommending. An obvious, although controversial, target would be raising the rate of the GST or broadening the base of goods and services the tax applies to. While excluded from Ken Henry's otherwise comprehensive tax review due to instructions from then-treasurer (and Chalmers' former boss) Wayne Swan, most economists have long argued that the exclusions from the GST negotiated by John Howard to get it past the Australian Democrats in the Senate should generally be ditched. That would, they argue, not only raise more revenue but reduce the economic distortions caused by the tax and also make compliance much easier for businesses. Pradeep Philip from Deloitte Access Economics says the extra revenue could, as was promised when the GST was first introduced, also be used to eliminate a range of other inefficient state taxes. "We know that while the GST is a highly regressive tax, it is also an incredibly efficient tax," he told The Business. "What's really important in this tax reform debate is to not have piecemeal tax changes, but to have true reform. "And if reforming the GST could see us get rid of inefficient taxes, particularly at the state and territory level, then that could be a really good boost for the Australian economy." The other area few are mentioning is land tax. It's the economists' holy grail, one of the few things that almost all economists, from the most progressive to conservative and in-between, can agree on as a good idea. Land can't be moved or hidden and, thanks to land title registries, we know exactly who owns it. It's easy to confiscate and sell if the tax isn't paid. And taxing it doesn't reduce the supply of it — if anything, it pushes people to sell land they aren't using efficiently. But, despite the economic consensus, the general feeling is that Australians won't stomach a land tax, even though we already effectively pay one via council rates and even if it was set at a level to simply replace the revenue collected by economically destructive stamp duties on real estate transactions. In his Press Club speech, Jim Chalmers said, "this is about testing the country's reform appetite". A proposal to tax all land, including the family home, would certainly reveal just how hungry Australians are for serious productivity-enhancing economic reform. Read the headings of Treasury's policy advice on tax and productivity in full
SBS Australia
2 hours ago
- SBS Australia
'Back on track': China hails Anthony Albanese's 'personal efforts' to restore ties
Relations between China and Australia reached a "low point" but are back on track under Anthony Albanese's leadership, Chinese premier Li Qiang says. On Tuesday, the prime minister wrapped up a day of high-level talks in Beijing when he met with Li at the Great Hall of the People. China's premier congratulated Albanese on his re-election and for his "personal efforts" to stabilise the China-Australia relationship, which soured under the former Liberal government during the COVID-19 pandemic. "China-Australia relations have moved beyond a low point and returned to the right track of stability and development," Li said. Since the pair last met in October last year, "a lot has happened in the world", Li said, and there was growing instability and uncertainty in the global economy. "The development of all countries is faced with new challenges. Given such circumstances, China and Australia as important trade partners, should strengthen dialogue and co-operation," he said. Albanese said he looked forward to the two nations exploring new opportunities in trade, climate change, tourism and culture. "We'll also have an opportunity to have a frank and open dialogue that enables us to navigate issues that need to be discussed," he said. The live firing exercise in international waters near Australia in February forced commercial flights overhead to divert. Speaking after Tuesday's meeting, Albanese said he had secured a commitment for China to better inform Australia on military drills in the region. The prime minister noted the drills being in international waters did not contravene international law, "but that we were concerned about the notice and the way that it happened, including the live fire exercises". Australia's position on there being no unilateral change to the status quo over Taiwan was also conveyed to the president, he said. "We want peace and security in the region, that is in the interests of both Australia and China," Albanese replied when asked whether he had raised China's unprecedented military build-up. Australian and China would be able to have "a frank and open dialogue", Anthony Albanese said. Source: AAP Xi didn't raise reports that the United States had asked Australia to commit to teaming up during a potential conflict with China over Taiwan, nor Labor's commitment to terminate a Chinese company's lease of the Port of Darwin , Albanese added. Yang was given a suspended death sentence in China on secretive national security charges that Australia rejects. "I raised the case, you wouldn't expect there to be an immediate outcome and that is not the way things work," Albanese told reporters. In a pointed prod at US isolationism under Donald Trump, Xi said countries should work together to "support multilateralism and free trade, defend the UN-centred international system and the international order". The Chinese readout noted the prime minister "reaffirmed Australia's commitment to the one-China policy and its opposition to 'Taiwan independence'". The bilateral meetings with Xi, Li and Communist Party Chairman Zhao Leji — the three highest-ranking members of China's ruling committee — mark the centrepiece of Albanese's six-day tour of the Middle Kingdom. In his meeting with Zhao, the chairman noted Albanese's visit so soon after his re-election showed the importance of the Sino-Australian relationship. Earlier on Tuesday, Chinese security officials tried to stop Australian journalists, who were travelling with the prime minister's delegation, from leaving a tourist attraction in Beijing after filming in the area. The group of reporters had permission to film at the location, but were stopped by security officials and were told to hand over footage before police arrived. The journalists were able to leave the site with the footage, despite being followed by security.
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.
