WA election a cautionary tale of the cost of pinching pennies on polling day

Australia Broadcast Center

19 hours ago

Less than 0.04 per cent of the WA government's budget could have been the difference between the well-run elections voters expect, and the array of problems experienced in March.
That's the shocking conclusion of a wide-ranging inquiry called to try and understand what went so wrong at the state poll.
Some voters were left queuing for hours, or confused about how to cast their ballots, or in some cases completely unable to vote.
Former governor Malcolm McCusker concluded many issues could be traced back to a lack of staff.
On the surface, that was a result of Election Operations Director, Shani Wood, requesting 30 per cent fewer staff than had originally been forecast.
"It was the budget. It was always the budget. Everything was getting cut," she told the inquiry.
Everything was being cut because of a decision of the government's powerful Expenditure Review Committee (ERC), chaired by Treasurer Rita Saffioti, which signs off on government spending.
The WA Electoral Commission had gone to the ERC, warning if it did not get an extra $16 million there would be problems.
It got only $4 million.
The WAEC was told, however, that "if these increased costs simply can't be absorbed … then … come back to the ERC for supplementary funding after the election".
But that message did not seem to make it to Wood, who stuck to the budget she was given.
"The premier, the treasurer and those other senior ministers had considered their request and had refused to support them in the way that they had asked," Opposition Electoral Affairs spokesperson Shane Love said, suggesting the Commission may have been reluctant to ask again.
Those issues were exacerbated, McCusker found, by Wood not telling Commissioner Robert Kennedy about the shortfall.
"Had she told him that, the Commissioner deposed … that he probably would have gone back to Treasury 'to convince ERC to give us the money'," the report reads.
"In his evidence he said 'I distinctly recall saying to her (i.e. Shani Wood) cut numbers elsewhere. Don't cut into the polling staff.'"
In her evidence, Wood accepted she had never passed that information along to the commissioner.
"She believed that [three other staff], all with more election experience than her, accepted that the reduced numbers of [temporary election workers] would be sufficient for election day," the report found.
"Although she does not say that she told them how much of a reduction in numbers she was making."
The hole the commission was digging for itself was made even deeper by the original estimations for both staff and ballot paper allocations being based on 2021 data — an election held during COVID — which assumed half of all in-person votes would be cast early.
In November — four months before the election — a senior WAEC official questioned the accuracy of that number.
They said even if it was true, election day staff would likely still be overwhelmed and suggested adding more staff.
"For the sake of a vest and a badge it may alleviate risk around fatigue management, media scrutiny regarding queues and show [returning officers] we are listening to their concerns," they wrote.
In the end, only 31 per cent of in-person votes were cast early — meaning demand on election day was much higher than expected.
That appeared to be one of many disagreements between the commission's upper-most staff and those closer to the ground, which resulted in a "soured relationship".
"I think there was a couple of, shall we say, dominant personalities there … both of them felt that they were in the right and they should be running things," Commissioner Kennedy reflected.
That meant head office wasn't fully aware of issues experienced on the day, including ballot paper shortages.
And, unsurprisingly, staff shortages meant those working booths struggled to respond to that increased demand.
"[Presiding Officers] and experienced election staff had to respond to other front line issues, such as having to arrange for an ambulance if someone fainted in long queues," the report concluded.
That recruitment had been outsourced — apparently in a bid to save the WAEC's reputation after the previous election — was not to blame for every issue, but did add a complicating factor, the report concluded.
It noted staff were not vetted, and that a phone number given to polling place officials to replace staff who did not show up was the same one given to more than 7,000 staff across the sate and often rang out.
"If people don't turn up for the election, or the wrong people turn up, it is a fundamental impact on the … democratic architecture either of the state or federally," former Australian Electoral commissioner Tom Rogers told the inquiry.
"So you have to be responsible for your own workforce … and you need to minimise somebody else doing that for you, because they just don't have the same level of accountability and responsibility that we do."
Indeed, even Commissioner Kennedy — who gave the final sign off to outsource — agreed "in hindsight" it would have been better for the WAEC to recruit its own staff.
The government has pledged in-principle support to 23 of the report's 24 recommendations, including establishing an oversight committee and overhauling recruitment.
But the one marked as "noted" is potentially the most significant.
It's leaving it up to the WAEC and Treasury to work out a future funding model and report back.
Given the whole array of issues at the election almost all stem back to funding, the pressure to get that arrangement right is a big one.
And it's not just about dollars and cents.
Electoral Affairs Minister David Michael said he was "surprised that the funding message from Treasury did not filter through the organisation".
Understanding what role government, and the WAEC, played in that miscommunication will be key to avoiding a repeat of these issues.
Issues which seemingly could have been avoided for the low, low price of $12 million.