
Inside the Bradfield recount: painstaking and polite, but sometimes heartbreaking
Given there were more than 6,500 informal votes in Bradfield (5.51% of those cast), the potential for decisions over validity to settle the outcome are obvious.
Each candidate has at least enough scrutineers to have one watching every person counting. The regular counting space is divided into a series of bays. Each bay is dealing with one polling place at a time.
The first part of the process is to conduct a fresh first-preference count. Ballot papers are already in bundles of 50, in first preference order.
Each counter takes one bundle at a time and removes the rubber band, then carefully checks each ballot to ensure it is formal and that the first preference is correct. It is then laid on a pile facing the scrutineers, who can observe it. This process happens more slowly and carefully than you would expect for an election night count.
Once each bundle is fully checked, the rubber band is put back on, and they keep going until all the votes for that candidate have been checked. Once this is done, the counter will take each bundle and hand-count to verify there are 50 in each bundle, and then the other counter sharing that table will swap bundles and do the same check.
During this process, scrutineers are free to challenge a ballot. If they do, the ballot is put in a box to be referred to the divisional returning officer (DRO) for review. While I am there this happens with a decent number of votes – a few dozen for a normal booth size – but not excessively.
Once the primary votes have all been checked, the informal pile is also checked. And then the box of challenged ballots is reviewed by the DRO.
After the DRO review, each booth will redo the distribution of preferences, step by step.
The DRO considers each ballot carefully and makes a ruling about the status of the ballot (who gets the first preference or whether it is informal), stamps the back and fills out a little form explaining their decision. At this point a scrutineer can refer a ballot to the Australian electoral officer (AEO) for a final decision.
The AEO is the senior Australian Election Commission staff member for the state and is effectively the final arbiter in the recount process.
The AEO carefully considers each ballot referred up for adjudication in line with the AEC's formality principles – including by deploying a magnifying glass.
Both the DRO and AEO are careful and cautious, but also very clear on their priorities. The formality principles require them to construe the ballot paper as a whole, and err in favour of the franchise. This means that sometimes when a number is not entirely clear, but context clues make it clear that, for example, it would make sense for a number to be a 4 rather than a 7, they may interpret it that way. Officials can be very strict, while also giving a ballot the best chance of being counted.
Occasionally scrutineers will politely make a case for a particular figure representing a particular number, but there are no arguments or shouting. You wouldn't know these people are in a fierce recount coming down to a handful of votes.
If more people could see how this works it would increase faith in the democratic process, but it is frustrating to see votes that clearly attempt to express a preference ending up informal.
In some cases it appears a voter made a mistake by losing count of where they were up to – a ballot might have unique numbers from one to five and seven, but two sixes instead of a six and an eight.
In plenty of cases, the culprit was bad handwriting. The AEC officials do their best to fairly determine the correct answer, but ultimately sometimes it's too hard. Voters, try your best to write the numbers clearly and distinctly!
But in a lot of cases where votes are made informal, it is perfectly clear who they preferred between Boele and Kapterian – the confusion was irrelevant to the ultimate outcome of the race.
There are various ways the rules could be changed to make it easier for some of these votes to count.
The most extreme would be to adopt optional preferential voting as used in New South Wales state elections, where voters are not required to number any more than one box. But under that system many fewer preferences would flow, and it opens the doors for parties to run 'Just Vote 1' campaigns to discourage opposing voters from using their ballots to their full value.
We could also adopt a system similar to that used in the Senate, where voters are asked to number at least six boxes above the line, but votes are counted even when they number fewer.
Short of those more significant changes, we could adopt more subtle 'savings provisions' that would keep the system as is but would give the AEC more flexibility to accept votes with minor errors. Votes with every box filled out but with a duplicate number could be counted until the vote-counters reach the duplicate number. Or we could require voters to number at least six boxes, but not every box. That would eliminate the problem where voters apply the Senate ballot instructions to the House, and as a result have their lower house vote treated as informal.
Some have also suggested electronic voting. There are concerns about losing the paper trail, and it would be an enormous effort to roll out the technology and deal with the expected technical problems, to thousands of polling booths. Some jurisdictions, such as New Zealand and the ACT, have used a hybrid model where big pre-poll booths use electronic voting but smaller booths still use pencils and paper. Others have suggested a compromise system whereby a voter fills their ballot out on a screen but the ballot is then printed out and submitted by hand.
The AEC plans to conduct a survey of informality after this election, so we know more about why exactly votes have been treated as informal. In the past, this has shown us only about half of informal votes appear to be deliberate.
We probably can't do much about those but it is heartbreaking to watch a ballot paper where the voter clearly made an effort to have their say end up on the informal pile.
Ben Raue attended the Bradfield recount after being appointed as a scrutineer but took no active part in the process. This is an edited and expanded version of an article that first appeared on his blog The Tally Room.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The Guardian
4 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Australian-Palestinian MP says his people are always made to be ‘strangers in their own homes'
The newly elected MP Basem Abdo has told parliament in his first speech the government should make a 'historic commitment' to international law, human rights and peace, saying Palestinians are always 'made to be strangers in their own homes'. Abdo, who is of Palestinian background, has spoken of his family's journey from Kuwait to Jordan during the first Gulf War before settling in Australia, telling parliament of the 'intergenerational dispossession' of Palestinians. Coming soon after the prime minister, Anthony Albanese, had told parliament of his distress at seeing images from Gaza, Abdo's speech did not explicitly mention Israel's military campaign in the occupied territory, but it carried unmistakeable references to the growing humanitarian crisis. 'International law matters. The international rules-based order matters,' Abdo said on Monday night. 'Human rights matter. The right to peace, justice and recognition matters. Deserving of an historic commitment.' Abdo was born in Kuwait, before his parents fled as refugees to Jordan. He was a staffer to the former Calwell MP Maria Vamvakinou, one of Labor's most outspoken voices on Palestine, before being preselected and ultimately prevailing in the most complex preference count the Australian Electoral Commission has ever conducted. Abdo told parliament of what he called the 'quiet chaos' as his parents escaped Kuwait. 'We were held up at the border because the number plates on the vehicles had to be changed. Through the night, we waited in the barren desert along the Jordanian border for the new plates to be sent from the capital,' he said. 'Because that's what war looks like too – not just tanks and fear, but paperwork, approvals, and delays. The administrative burdens and the never-ending weight of bureaucracy – even in war.' Speaking about taking refuge in Jordan, Abdo recounted taping up their apartment windows with gaffer tape. 'We walked with our parents down a path that belonged to a people always forced to leave for the next place,' he said. 'Our story of intergenerational dispossession – again, and always once more - never with any certainty that this would, finally, be the last time. No matter how much we contributed to the countries we lived in and where we almost always excelled. No matter how long our families had called a place home. We belonged to a people who were always the first to be made strangers in their own homes – simply because we were Palestinian.' Asked in question time about whether the government would recognise a Palestinian state, Albanese raised alarm again about the 'humanitarian catastrophe' in Gaza as civilians are killed and starve. He said recognition of statehood must be 'more than a gesture', repeating conditions about advancing a lasting peace with Israel, but said Australia was 'in discussions with other countries as well going forward'. Abdo's speech praised Calwell as 'one of the most diverse communities in the country – and one of the proudest', promising to 'stand in solidarity with those communities that often feel excluded from the Australian story'. 'Our multicultural Australia is a remarkable achievement – and it's our responsibility in this place to protect it so the promise of a fair go is real for all.' Abdo's speech went on to outline his commitment to local manufacturing and jobs, speaking of disruption and dispossession coming from political decisions like social neglect and economic exclusion. He spoke sadly about his parents struggling to find work in Australia, despite qualifications from overseas, and the collapse of manufacturing in his outer Melbourne electorate. 'Too often it is working people who feel the first shock, who shoulder the greatest burden, who get the least support to recover and rebuild,' he said.


The Guardian
32 minutes ago
- The Guardian
‘A huge human cost': Labor criticised over delays to aged care reforms as waitlist grows
Labor is facing a backlash over aged care services as a delay to landmark reforms prompts calls for urgent funding for 20,000 additional home packages and warnings that a two-speed system is locking out poorer elderly people. The Albanese government lost its first parliamentary vote of the new term on Monday afternoon, when the Senate voted to establish an inquiry into delays for home care packages, including unmet needs and the wellbeing of seniors waiting for assistance. Proposed by the ACT independent David Pocock, the vote was supported by the Greens and the Coalition, and comes after the aged care minister, Sam Rae, rejected calls to bring forward an additional 20,000 home care packages. Labor's reforms to the sector, originally slated to come into force from 1 July, have been pushed back to November, delaying the release of more than 80,000 home care packages. More than 87,000 elderly people are on the waitlist for care at home, with wait times up to 15 months. Labor has promised an end to lengthy delays by 2027, with maximum wait times of 90 days. Sign up: AU Breaking News email 'There is a huge human cost to delaying the release of more home care packages,' Pocock said. 'For some people that means being stuck in hospital longer because they can't get the support they need to return home safely. For others it means entering residential aged care earlier than they otherwise would have, others are struggling at home without the help they need.' The push follows warnings from the sector that Labor's changes risk squeezing out elderly people with limited financial means. Tracey Burton, chief executive of Uniting NSW and ACT, told Guardian Australia early this month equitable access for poorer Australians remains an unmet promise of changes passed by parliament last year. After a royal commission and a taskforce report to the federal government, Labor introduced new rules requiring wealthier people to pay more for their care and boosting access to support services for people who choose to stay in their own home. Residents who can afford to pay for their own care do so using a payment known as a refundable accommodation deposit (RAD). The average RAD is $470,000, with the lump sum refunded to family members when a resident dies. Elderly people whose care is paid for by the government rely on a supported accommodation supplement, worth $70 per day. The Greens aged care spokesperson, Penny Allman-Payne, is set to chair the Senate inquiry. She said the difference in value between RADs and supported placements, combined with a shortage of available residential beds and a rationing of home care packages, has led to fears of a two-tier system. 'You shouldn't have to be a millionaire just to guarantee care in your old age, but that's exactly what's at risk from Labor's new aged care system. 'Far from fixing the residential aged care system, Labor's changes coming this November mean wealthier homeowners may soon be worth twice as much in revenue to an aged care facility as an older person who lives week to week.' In a letter to crossbench MPs, Rae said the government acknowledged high demand for home care places, and said it was expected to continue up to November. But he rebuffed calls for bringing forward extra places. 'We also recognise that waiting to access a [home care package] has a real impact on older people and their families, as well as on the care providers. 'The Support at Home program is designed to bring down wait times for care and deliver more tailored support, giving older people the flexibility and choice to stay at home for longer.' Demand for aged care services is expected to surge, with the country on track for a doubling of people over 65 and a tripling of those aged over 85 within 40 years.


BBC News
an hour ago
- BBC News
UN chief urges Australia to aim higher as it debates climate goals
The UN's climate chief has urged Australia to take more ambitious climate action, as debate over the country's emissions reduction targets heats up in parliament."Bog standard is beneath you," Simon Stiell told the country, arguing "colossal" economic rewards could be reaped by aiming higher. Australia has pledged to reduce emissions by 43% by 2030, but remains one of the world's biggest polluters per capita and faces criticism for continuing to rely on fossil Stiell's comments came as a bill to overturn the nation's goal of net zero emissions by 2050 was moved by an opposition MP in parliament, and the Labor government considers a new reduction target for the next decade - 2035. Speaking at an event hosted by independent industry body the Smart Energy Council, Mr Stiell called the fresh 2035 target - due to be announced in September - a "defining moment" for these targets, also known as Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), is part of the country's obligation under the Paris Climate Agreement. The 2015 pledge saw world leaders agree to keep global temperatures from rising 1.5C above those of the late 19th Century."Go for what's smart by going big," Mr Stiell said, warning that a failure to do so risks eroding regional stability and living standards."Consider the alternative: missing the opportunity and letting the world overheat," he a few hours earlier, former Deputy Prime Minister Barnaby Joyce - who is known for his climate change skepticism - introduced legislation to wind back the country's current net zero goals, arguing that it would have "absolutely no effect on the climate whatsoever".Australia has in recent years grappled with successive natural disasters, and climate experts warn that the country - along with the rest of the globe - faces a future full of similar crises unless dramatic cuts to emissions are bill is all but doomed to fail, as the Labor government has a large majority in the House of Representatives and members of the National MP's own party disagree with it is likely to increase pressure on the coalition - made up of the Liberal and National parties - as they reassess their climate and energy policies following a bruising election defeat in change has been a huge theme of the past few elections in Minister Anthony Albanese came to power in 2022, promising to take greater action, but his Labor government has been criticised for its continued support of coal and gas country is currently seeking to co-host the UN's COP31 climate summit with the Pacific next year.