Latest news with #AustralianElectoralCommission
The Advertiser
6 days ago
- Politics
- The Advertiser
I have marital advice for our anti-Semitism envoy
Turns out that the federal government's anti-Semitism envoy Jillian Segal and I have a lot in common. We are both oldish. We are both Jewish. And we are both so very married. I reckon Segal must have been married to John Roth for close to 40 years. Same! Same! My spouse and I got married in 1983. Now I'd like to think I know my spouse better than I know the back of my hand (and he is far more interesting than my wrinkled, be-veined specimen). Shocking news this week that not all couples married for decades have a clue about their partners. The Australian Electoral Commission donation records show that Henroth Investments gave $50,000 to Advance Australia in 2023-24. Segal's husband, John Roth, is a director of Henroth. And Segal claims she didn't know about the donation. I asked one of my kids about this. She said: Maybe rich people don't know where $50k goes. Maybe. But I think I'd know if my husband was supporting a divisive disgusting political organisation and if he was, I'd then file for divorce. Even if she didn't know before the weekend, she knows now. For those who don't know, Advance Australia campaigns against immigration (Mr Roth, pretty sure you are from a family of migrants), it campaigns against Welcome to Country. It was part of the ugly campaign against the Voice to Parliament. Which is weird. Is it just opposed to an Indigenous Voice to Parliament? Or all voices to parliament? And if so, why is it not campaigning against special envoys on anti-Semitism and Islamophobia? Let me be straight with you. These special envoys are just voices to parliament with direct access to government. They act as advocates and advisors for their specific cause. I would dearly love to wipe out both anti-Semitism and Islamophobia and am thrilled that the government decided these two forms of bigotry and hatred needed to be addressed in this particular way. So let's also address one elephant in the room. While Israel continues to commit mass murder in Gaza, anti-Semitism will continue to rise. There's a link between military operations (also known as war) conducted against Palestinians by Israel and the resultant rise in anti-Semitic behaviours. Three studies all found a clear correlation - including one paper by Deakin University academic Matteo Vergani and others that examined 673 incidents between October 2013 and September 2017, well before this current razing of Gaza. The other elephant? Why not a special envoy to address the hatred of Aboriginal people in this country? Yes, Australians voted against the Voice to Parliament. Why did this government give Australians the chance to be racist bigots, the chance to play to their lowest natures? Anthony Albanese could have had an entire phalanx of Indigenous envoys to write reports and make recommendations on how to fix the problem, so devastatingly expressed in the coroner's report into the death of Kumanjayi Walker. Racism coming out of our bleeding ears. So, if 50 grand is unimportant, how about the sentiment of the man who gives this money to a bunch of racists? Can't you tell the measure of a man by the company his money keeps? Or is it only racism against Jews which concerns you? Because if so, you are part of a much bigger problem. Which brings me to your report. One of the key recommendations in your report is that all levels of government should adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance's (IHRA) working definition of anti-Semitism. As Josh Bornstein writes: "In part, this definition states that it is anti-Semitic to target the state of Israel and/or claim the existence of a state of Israel is a racist endeavour." I'm a Jew. I want to be able to criticise Israel freely. I especially want to do that now as Benjamin Netanyahu bombs Gaza relentlessly, continues its mass slaughter of starving civilians. The IHRA definition also says it is anti-Semitic to draw comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis. I'm assuming that means you can't mention the G-word. But in an extraordinary essay, leading genocide scholar Omer Bartov writes: "Discrediting genocide scholars who call out Israel's genocide in Gaza as anti-Semitic threatens to erode the foundation of genocide studies: the ongoing need to define, prevent, punish and reconstruct the history of genocide. Suggesting that this endeavour is motivated instead by malign interests and sentiments - that it is driven by the very hatred and prejudice that was at the root of the Holocaust - is not only morally scandalous, it provides an opening for a politics of denialism and impunity as well." Australia could adopt the Jerusalem definition, one which doesn't spend two-thirds of its focus on Israel. Dear Jillian, in your wafty deer-in-headlights performance, utterly lacking in facts, on the ABC's 7.30, you thought it was OK to suggest that you would monitor the outputs of the ABC and SBS. I mean, Lawyers for Israel already did that. It campaigned hard against Antoinette Lattouf's brief appearance on ABC Sydney. It led to Lattouf losing her gig. It led to the ABC losing $2 million in fighting a futile court case. And I'll tell you what else it led to. It led, in my view, to people using the phrase "Jewish lobby", one of the most ill-conceived and racist phrases ever. I would not for one minute complain about social media posts sharing Human Rights Watch information. And there are many Jews here and elsewhere who rightly criticise the use by Israel of starvation as a weapon of war. The prospect of you trying to censor what the ABC broadcasts is so horrific. We don't need more censors in this country. We don't need lobby groups like Lawyers for Israel trying to silence those with valid opinions LIA doesn't like. Or you don't like. Which brings me to the federal government. How is it even possible that it did not do a check on those adjacent to Segal? My mind is boggled by this. And how did it think it was appropriate to nominate a person to this role who so clearly supports Israel's current behaviour? Jews experience anti-Semitism every single day in this country and that's what needs to be urgently addressed. If you conflate anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism you make it worse for all of us, you make anti-Semitism far more likely. Turns out that the federal government's anti-Semitism envoy Jillian Segal and I have a lot in common. We are both oldish. We are both Jewish. And we are both so very married. I reckon Segal must have been married to John Roth for close to 40 years. Same! Same! My spouse and I got married in 1983. Now I'd like to think I know my spouse better than I know the back of my hand (and he is far more interesting than my wrinkled, be-veined specimen). Shocking news this week that not all couples married for decades have a clue about their partners. The Australian Electoral Commission donation records show that Henroth Investments gave $50,000 to Advance Australia in 2023-24. Segal's husband, John Roth, is a director of Henroth. And Segal claims she didn't know about the donation. I asked one of my kids about this. She said: Maybe rich people don't know where $50k goes. Maybe. But I think I'd know if my husband was supporting a divisive disgusting political organisation and if he was, I'd then file for divorce. Even if she didn't know before the weekend, she knows now. For those who don't know, Advance Australia campaigns against immigration (Mr Roth, pretty sure you are from a family of migrants), it campaigns against Welcome to Country. It was part of the ugly campaign against the Voice to Parliament. Which is weird. Is it just opposed to an Indigenous Voice to Parliament? Or all voices to parliament? And if so, why is it not campaigning against special envoys on anti-Semitism and Islamophobia? Let me be straight with you. These special envoys are just voices to parliament with direct access to government. They act as advocates and advisors for their specific cause. I would dearly love to wipe out both anti-Semitism and Islamophobia and am thrilled that the government decided these two forms of bigotry and hatred needed to be addressed in this particular way. So let's also address one elephant in the room. While Israel continues to commit mass murder in Gaza, anti-Semitism will continue to rise. There's a link between military operations (also known as war) conducted against Palestinians by Israel and the resultant rise in anti-Semitic behaviours. Three studies all found a clear correlation - including one paper by Deakin University academic Matteo Vergani and others that examined 673 incidents between October 2013 and September 2017, well before this current razing of Gaza. The other elephant? Why not a special envoy to address the hatred of Aboriginal people in this country? Yes, Australians voted against the Voice to Parliament. Why did this government give Australians the chance to be racist bigots, the chance to play to their lowest natures? Anthony Albanese could have had an entire phalanx of Indigenous envoys to write reports and make recommendations on how to fix the problem, so devastatingly expressed in the coroner's report into the death of Kumanjayi Walker. Racism coming out of our bleeding ears. So, if 50 grand is unimportant, how about the sentiment of the man who gives this money to a bunch of racists? Can't you tell the measure of a man by the company his money keeps? Or is it only racism against Jews which concerns you? Because if so, you are part of a much bigger problem. Which brings me to your report. One of the key recommendations in your report is that all levels of government should adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance's (IHRA) working definition of anti-Semitism. As Josh Bornstein writes: "In part, this definition states that it is anti-Semitic to target the state of Israel and/or claim the existence of a state of Israel is a racist endeavour." I'm a Jew. I want to be able to criticise Israel freely. I especially want to do that now as Benjamin Netanyahu bombs Gaza relentlessly, continues its mass slaughter of starving civilians. The IHRA definition also says it is anti-Semitic to draw comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis. I'm assuming that means you can't mention the G-word. But in an extraordinary essay, leading genocide scholar Omer Bartov writes: "Discrediting genocide scholars who call out Israel's genocide in Gaza as anti-Semitic threatens to erode the foundation of genocide studies: the ongoing need to define, prevent, punish and reconstruct the history of genocide. Suggesting that this endeavour is motivated instead by malign interests and sentiments - that it is driven by the very hatred and prejudice that was at the root of the Holocaust - is not only morally scandalous, it provides an opening for a politics of denialism and impunity as well." Australia could adopt the Jerusalem definition, one which doesn't spend two-thirds of its focus on Israel. Dear Jillian, in your wafty deer-in-headlights performance, utterly lacking in facts, on the ABC's 7.30, you thought it was OK to suggest that you would monitor the outputs of the ABC and SBS. I mean, Lawyers for Israel already did that. It campaigned hard against Antoinette Lattouf's brief appearance on ABC Sydney. It led to Lattouf losing her gig. It led to the ABC losing $2 million in fighting a futile court case. And I'll tell you what else it led to. It led, in my view, to people using the phrase "Jewish lobby", one of the most ill-conceived and racist phrases ever. I would not for one minute complain about social media posts sharing Human Rights Watch information. And there are many Jews here and elsewhere who rightly criticise the use by Israel of starvation as a weapon of war. The prospect of you trying to censor what the ABC broadcasts is so horrific. We don't need more censors in this country. We don't need lobby groups like Lawyers for Israel trying to silence those with valid opinions LIA doesn't like. Or you don't like. Which brings me to the federal government. How is it even possible that it did not do a check on those adjacent to Segal? My mind is boggled by this. And how did it think it was appropriate to nominate a person to this role who so clearly supports Israel's current behaviour? Jews experience anti-Semitism every single day in this country and that's what needs to be urgently addressed. If you conflate anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism you make it worse for all of us, you make anti-Semitism far more likely. Turns out that the federal government's anti-Semitism envoy Jillian Segal and I have a lot in common. We are both oldish. We are both Jewish. And we are both so very married. I reckon Segal must have been married to John Roth for close to 40 years. Same! Same! My spouse and I got married in 1983. Now I'd like to think I know my spouse better than I know the back of my hand (and he is far more interesting than my wrinkled, be-veined specimen). Shocking news this week that not all couples married for decades have a clue about their partners. The Australian Electoral Commission donation records show that Henroth Investments gave $50,000 to Advance Australia in 2023-24. Segal's husband, John Roth, is a director of Henroth. And Segal claims she didn't know about the donation. I asked one of my kids about this. She said: Maybe rich people don't know where $50k goes. Maybe. But I think I'd know if my husband was supporting a divisive disgusting political organisation and if he was, I'd then file for divorce. Even if she didn't know before the weekend, she knows now. For those who don't know, Advance Australia campaigns against immigration (Mr Roth, pretty sure you are from a family of migrants), it campaigns against Welcome to Country. It was part of the ugly campaign against the Voice to Parliament. Which is weird. Is it just opposed to an Indigenous Voice to Parliament? Or all voices to parliament? And if so, why is it not campaigning against special envoys on anti-Semitism and Islamophobia? Let me be straight with you. These special envoys are just voices to parliament with direct access to government. They act as advocates and advisors for their specific cause. I would dearly love to wipe out both anti-Semitism and Islamophobia and am thrilled that the government decided these two forms of bigotry and hatred needed to be addressed in this particular way. So let's also address one elephant in the room. While Israel continues to commit mass murder in Gaza, anti-Semitism will continue to rise. There's a link between military operations (also known as war) conducted against Palestinians by Israel and the resultant rise in anti-Semitic behaviours. Three studies all found a clear correlation - including one paper by Deakin University academic Matteo Vergani and others that examined 673 incidents between October 2013 and September 2017, well before this current razing of Gaza. The other elephant? Why not a special envoy to address the hatred of Aboriginal people in this country? Yes, Australians voted against the Voice to Parliament. Why did this government give Australians the chance to be racist bigots, the chance to play to their lowest natures? Anthony Albanese could have had an entire phalanx of Indigenous envoys to write reports and make recommendations on how to fix the problem, so devastatingly expressed in the coroner's report into the death of Kumanjayi Walker. Racism coming out of our bleeding ears. So, if 50 grand is unimportant, how about the sentiment of the man who gives this money to a bunch of racists? Can't you tell the measure of a man by the company his money keeps? Or is it only racism against Jews which concerns you? Because if so, you are part of a much bigger problem. Which brings me to your report. One of the key recommendations in your report is that all levels of government should adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance's (IHRA) working definition of anti-Semitism. As Josh Bornstein writes: "In part, this definition states that it is anti-Semitic to target the state of Israel and/or claim the existence of a state of Israel is a racist endeavour." I'm a Jew. I want to be able to criticise Israel freely. I especially want to do that now as Benjamin Netanyahu bombs Gaza relentlessly, continues its mass slaughter of starving civilians. The IHRA definition also says it is anti-Semitic to draw comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis. I'm assuming that means you can't mention the G-word. But in an extraordinary essay, leading genocide scholar Omer Bartov writes: "Discrediting genocide scholars who call out Israel's genocide in Gaza as anti-Semitic threatens to erode the foundation of genocide studies: the ongoing need to define, prevent, punish and reconstruct the history of genocide. Suggesting that this endeavour is motivated instead by malign interests and sentiments - that it is driven by the very hatred and prejudice that was at the root of the Holocaust - is not only morally scandalous, it provides an opening for a politics of denialism and impunity as well." Australia could adopt the Jerusalem definition, one which doesn't spend two-thirds of its focus on Israel. Dear Jillian, in your wafty deer-in-headlights performance, utterly lacking in facts, on the ABC's 7.30, you thought it was OK to suggest that you would monitor the outputs of the ABC and SBS. I mean, Lawyers for Israel already did that. It campaigned hard against Antoinette Lattouf's brief appearance on ABC Sydney. It led to Lattouf losing her gig. It led to the ABC losing $2 million in fighting a futile court case. And I'll tell you what else it led to. It led, in my view, to people using the phrase "Jewish lobby", one of the most ill-conceived and racist phrases ever. I would not for one minute complain about social media posts sharing Human Rights Watch information. And there are many Jews here and elsewhere who rightly criticise the use by Israel of starvation as a weapon of war. The prospect of you trying to censor what the ABC broadcasts is so horrific. We don't need more censors in this country. We don't need lobby groups like Lawyers for Israel trying to silence those with valid opinions LIA doesn't like. Or you don't like. Which brings me to the federal government. How is it even possible that it did not do a check on those adjacent to Segal? My mind is boggled by this. And how did it think it was appropriate to nominate a person to this role who so clearly supports Israel's current behaviour? Jews experience anti-Semitism every single day in this country and that's what needs to be urgently addressed. If you conflate anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism you make it worse for all of us, you make anti-Semitism far more likely. Turns out that the federal government's anti-Semitism envoy Jillian Segal and I have a lot in common. We are both oldish. We are both Jewish. And we are both so very married. I reckon Segal must have been married to John Roth for close to 40 years. Same! Same! My spouse and I got married in 1983. Now I'd like to think I know my spouse better than I know the back of my hand (and he is far more interesting than my wrinkled, be-veined specimen). Shocking news this week that not all couples married for decades have a clue about their partners. The Australian Electoral Commission donation records show that Henroth Investments gave $50,000 to Advance Australia in 2023-24. Segal's husband, John Roth, is a director of Henroth. And Segal claims she didn't know about the donation. I asked one of my kids about this. She said: Maybe rich people don't know where $50k goes. Maybe. But I think I'd know if my husband was supporting a divisive disgusting political organisation and if he was, I'd then file for divorce. Even if she didn't know before the weekend, she knows now. For those who don't know, Advance Australia campaigns against immigration (Mr Roth, pretty sure you are from a family of migrants), it campaigns against Welcome to Country. It was part of the ugly campaign against the Voice to Parliament. Which is weird. Is it just opposed to an Indigenous Voice to Parliament? Or all voices to parliament? And if so, why is it not campaigning against special envoys on anti-Semitism and Islamophobia? Let me be straight with you. These special envoys are just voices to parliament with direct access to government. They act as advocates and advisors for their specific cause. I would dearly love to wipe out both anti-Semitism and Islamophobia and am thrilled that the government decided these two forms of bigotry and hatred needed to be addressed in this particular way. So let's also address one elephant in the room. While Israel continues to commit mass murder in Gaza, anti-Semitism will continue to rise. There's a link between military operations (also known as war) conducted against Palestinians by Israel and the resultant rise in anti-Semitic behaviours. Three studies all found a clear correlation - including one paper by Deakin University academic Matteo Vergani and others that examined 673 incidents between October 2013 and September 2017, well before this current razing of Gaza. The other elephant? Why not a special envoy to address the hatred of Aboriginal people in this country? Yes, Australians voted against the Voice to Parliament. Why did this government give Australians the chance to be racist bigots, the chance to play to their lowest natures? Anthony Albanese could have had an entire phalanx of Indigenous envoys to write reports and make recommendations on how to fix the problem, so devastatingly expressed in the coroner's report into the death of Kumanjayi Walker. Racism coming out of our bleeding ears. So, if 50 grand is unimportant, how about the sentiment of the man who gives this money to a bunch of racists? Can't you tell the measure of a man by the company his money keeps? Or is it only racism against Jews which concerns you? Because if so, you are part of a much bigger problem. Which brings me to your report. One of the key recommendations in your report is that all levels of government should adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance's (IHRA) working definition of anti-Semitism. As Josh Bornstein writes: "In part, this definition states that it is anti-Semitic to target the state of Israel and/or claim the existence of a state of Israel is a racist endeavour." I'm a Jew. I want to be able to criticise Israel freely. I especially want to do that now as Benjamin Netanyahu bombs Gaza relentlessly, continues its mass slaughter of starving civilians. The IHRA definition also says it is anti-Semitic to draw comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis. I'm assuming that means you can't mention the G-word. But in an extraordinary essay, leading genocide scholar Omer Bartov writes: "Discrediting genocide scholars who call out Israel's genocide in Gaza as anti-Semitic threatens to erode the foundation of genocide studies: the ongoing need to define, prevent, punish and reconstruct the history of genocide. Suggesting that this endeavour is motivated instead by malign interests and sentiments - that it is driven by the very hatred and prejudice that was at the root of the Holocaust - is not only morally scandalous, it provides an opening for a politics of denialism and impunity as well." Australia could adopt the Jerusalem definition, one which doesn't spend two-thirds of its focus on Israel. Dear Jillian, in your wafty deer-in-headlights performance, utterly lacking in facts, on the ABC's 7.30, you thought it was OK to suggest that you would monitor the outputs of the ABC and SBS. I mean, Lawyers for Israel already did that. It campaigned hard against Antoinette Lattouf's brief appearance on ABC Sydney. It led to Lattouf losing her gig. It led to the ABC losing $2 million in fighting a futile court case. And I'll tell you what else it led to. It led, in my view, to people using the phrase "Jewish lobby", one of the most ill-conceived and racist phrases ever. I would not for one minute complain about social media posts sharing Human Rights Watch information. And there are many Jews here and elsewhere who rightly criticise the use by Israel of starvation as a weapon of war. The prospect of you trying to censor what the ABC broadcasts is so horrific. We don't need more censors in this country. We don't need lobby groups like Lawyers for Israel trying to silence those with valid opinions LIA doesn't like. Or you don't like. Which brings me to the federal government. How is it even possible that it did not do a check on those adjacent to Segal? My mind is boggled by this. And how did it think it was appropriate to nominate a person to this role who so clearly supports Israel's current behaviour? Jews experience anti-Semitism every single day in this country and that's what needs to be urgently addressed. If you conflate anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism you make it worse for all of us, you make anti-Semitism far more likely.
AU Financial Review
7 days ago
- Politics
- AU Financial Review
Is that 1 or 7? What the judge will have to decide in Bradfield
Liberal Gisele Kapterian's claim that she belongs in parliament rests on a challenge to 151 questionable ballots, which a judge will now have to decipher one pencil squiggle at a time. Kapterian has applied to the Court of Disputed Returns alleging the Australian Electoral Commission committed 'illegal practices' wrongly including or excluding these ballots in a bid to overturn her 26-vote defeat in a recount that stretched on for more than a month after the May 3 federal election.
The Advertiser
15-07-2025
- Politics
- 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.
The Age
15-07-2025
- Politics
- The Age
Government slams conservative group after donation by antisemitism envoy's husband
Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke has slammed conservative campaigning group Advance and its donors after it emerged that antisemitism envoy Jillian Segal's husband's family trust gave $50,000 to the controversial organisation. But Burke defended Segal, a lawyer and businesswoman with a long career of high-profile roles, saying that claims she should be held responsible for her husband's actions were outdated and misogynistic. Australian Electoral Commission donation records lodged on behalf of a trust called Henroth, which is named for the father of Segal's husband John Roth, show it gave $50,000 to Advance – formerly Advance Australia – in 2023-24, making it one of the group's largest donors. 'Advance is an appalling organisation, and those who fund it are not acting in the cause of social cohesion,' Burke said. 'But another of the forms of bigotry that we are fighting is misogyny, and there is no way I am going back to the 1950s and blaming a woman for the actions of her husband.' Segal distanced herself from the donation on Sunday, saying she had no involvement. 'No one would tolerate or accept my husband dictating my politics, and I certainly won't dictate his,' Segal said in a brief statement. 'I have had no involvement in his donations, nor will I.' This masthead does not suggest otherwise. Segal delivered a plan last week to tackle rising antisemitism in Australia, which called for widespread education on the issue, monitoring of media reporting and funding cuts to organisations that fail to tackle hatred of Jews. In media interviews, Segal described it as a good-faith proposal to advance social cohesion. Advance, a conservative campaigning group, has previously accused left-leaning politicians of being 'mostly on the same side as Hamas' and compared Labor to the Chinese Communist Party while advertising against the Voice to parliament referendum and immigration.
Sydney Morning Herald
14-07-2025
- Politics
- Sydney Morning Herald
Liberals mount court challenge in last ditch bid to reclaim Bradfield
Liberal candidate for Bradfield Gisele Kapterian has ended weeks of speculation and will on Tuesday lodge an appeal against the election outcome in the once blueribbon north Sydney seat. Kapterian fell short in Bradfield by 26 votes to teal candidate Nicolette Boele in a recount, leaving Bradfield the most marginal seat in the country. Kapterian won the initial count by eight votes. Boele's win marked the first time in 75 years that the seat was not held by the Liberals, but despite the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) declaring her the winner, Kapterian did not concede. NSW Liberal members pushed for party bosses to fund a court challenge and indemnify Kapterian in a bid to have her failed election result overturned, which could prompt a byelection. However, senior Liberals are pinning their hopes on the judge presiding over the Court of Disputed Returns examining several dozen ballots and ruling them invalid, and therefore declaring Kapterian the winner of the seat. A byelection, according to several senior Liberals not authorised to speak to the media, could be a huge risk for the party, especially if Labor does not run in Bradfield as expected.
