Latest news with #Labor
West Australian
43 minutes ago
- Business
- West Australian
LATIKA BOURKE: Pentagon's MAGA-style push on AUKUS and defence spending may backfire in Indo-Pacific
Elbridge Colby, the man reviewing AUKUS inside the Pentagon, thinks he can replicate MAGA's success in scolding, berating and bullying Europe into lifting defence spending in Australia and the Indo-Pacific. But his cut-and-paste approach may not only fail, but backfire. This is because his hectoring approach fails to recalibrate for the important ways that Europe differs from Asia. Mr Colby's demands that Indo-Pacific allies raise defence spending are legitimate in Australia's case. But he is far from the first person to raise the issue. Well before US President Donald Trump appointed Mr Colby Under Secretary of Defence, the Australian authors of the 2023 Defence Strategic Review, Peter Dean and Angus Houston, the former Chief of the Australian Defence Force, were urging an increase in spending from around 2 per cent of GDP to 3 per cent. Kim Beazley, former Labor Leader, defence minister and ambassador to the United States, preceded them both. And it is the same plea made by Mike Pezzullo, the former Home Affairs boss who authored the 2009 Defence White Paper for the Rudd Government, the last time Labor was in power. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese should raise defence spending and match it to the capabilities that the defence review, which he commissioned, said Australia needed. Should the region become even more dangerous, he will not be remembered for his 94-seat landslide but as the Labor prime minister who ignored every siren call and left the country, negligently and dangerously unprepared. While he should not need to be bullied into doing so by the United States, it is also unwise for MAGA to be pushing the issue as hard as it is and so publicly and not leaving more of the heavy lifting to Australian voices. Mr Colby said in a social media post on Tuesday that: 'Europe's progress over the last few months is showing the wisdom of President Trump's approach.' 'We are actively applying his successful approach to enable our allies around the world to step up efforts for the common defence.' Earlier this week he said urging allies to step up their defence spending was a 'hallmark' of President Trump's strategy in Asia as in Europe, 'where it has already been tremendously successful.' 'Of course, some among our allies might not welcome frank conversations,' he said. 'But many, now led by NATO after the historic Hague Summit, are seeing the urgent need to step up and are doing so. 'President Trump has shown the approach and the formula - and we will not be deterred from advancing his agenda.' But there are good reasons for MAGA to pause, reconsider and recalibrate. Their methods might have worked at NATO, when member states agreed to lift their spending to 3.5 per cent next decade, but this is no guarantee of their success in Australia's neck of the woods. Firstly, the Indo-Pacific is not at war. Europe is. It is a statement of the obvious that being caught unprepared to deal with a nuclear-armed imperialist on your border who has rolled tanks inside the borders of an innocent country would inspire a sense of urgency, if not panic. It is true, as NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte has said, that US President Donald Trump's methods, including threatening the very concept of the defensive alliance, were also decisive in changing European minds about the need to start to put their shoulder to the wheel. But this is the point. Taking Europe to the edge of the cliff and forcing them to look over the edge and contemplate a world without the United States' security blanket works because of NATO and Article 5. Article 5 is the clause that states an attack on any member state shall be considered an attack on all. It is this clause that allowed Europe to freeload off the United States under more benevolent Presidents for so long. And it is why the US and MAGA's complaints about Europe spending big on its social welfare while expecting the US to pay its security bills was so legitimate. As Vladimir Putin demonstrated, Europe had a menacing bear on its border and remains in a position where it cannot subdue the beast on its own. But these dynamics do not exist for Australia and the wider Indo-Pacific. While it is accepted that China seeks dominance of the region and control of shipping routes, war is neither current nor inevitable. While China's President Xi Jinping has said he wants his military to be ready to take Taiwan by 2027 and, with force if necessary, there are many ways he can subdue the democratic island without an invasion. At one end, this could include a blockade that may or may not be seen as an act of war by the United States. Another more worrying tactic could be China declaring a 'quarantine' of Taiwan, and claiming it is an internal matter, making it even more difficult to define whether it constituted an act of war or not. This is why expecting countries like Australia to start declaring in 2025 that they will take part in a hypothetical war with submarines we will not possess until the early 2030s, in a best-case scenario, is dangerously reductive, as it misses a vital opportunity to talk about how to push back on China's already coercive and menacing behaviour towards Taiwan, and the Philippines. The other, and perhaps most powerful element MAGA misses when it comes to the Indo-Pacific is the one of choice. Australia has a choice about how it wants to respond to the great power competition underway between the United States and China. And so far, MAGA's methods are only moving Anthony Albanese one way – in China's direction. Australians fundamentally don't like Donald Trump, but still believe in and back the alliance. However, it would be hazardous to assume these attitudes are fixed. Australia's population is increasingly migrant-based, as Mr Albanese's appeals to Indian and Chinese voters at the last election and throughout his first term underlined. It should not be assumed that this voting bloc will always have an enduring loyalty and affection to the United States. And MAGA's behaviour to date could easily provoke questions about whether the United States would have Australia's back as per our treaty alliance. All this said, it is extremely likely that were the United States to fight China in the foreseeable future, Australia would take part. Our joint intelligence facility with the US at Pine Gap, as well as the US bases on Australian soil, would make us a target at any rate and all but guarantee our involvement. There is a fundamental inconsistency, if not incoherence, to the premise of the Financial Times report that Mr Colby is demanding allies, including Australia, state whether they would fight over Taiwan, when Mr Trump – wisely — himself refuses to say, strategic ambiguity carries a deterrent effect of its own. But perhaps the greatest question, that MAGA's methods will only justify if it continues to self-righteously and sanctimoniously badger its Indo-Pacific allies, is what values and order would we be fighting for? As Richard Spencer, the former US Navy Secretary who war-gamed these scenarios, recently said, such a war would 'not pretty at all, for either side' ie. it would result in the deaths of thousands of lives. The resolve of the United States and its allies must be to avoid this at all costs. But if Xi were to make such a catastrophic mistake, like his authoritarian collaborator Mr Putin, then Australians would naturally ask, what would we be fighting for? And this is where the MAGA approach could backfire. Because the Trump Administration looks more focused on shoring up American dominance rather than a global order that protects its smaller friends. How else to read the symbolism of his first tariff-imposition letters going to Indo-Pacific allies South Korea and Japan? On top of the tariffs on Australian steel and exports, is now the threat of 200 per cent duties on pharmaceuticals. This is despite Australia and the United States having a free trade agreement. Australia is no stranger to economic coercion. It experienced the Chinese Communist Party's wrath after the pandemic when Beijing effectively killed Australian wine, lobster and barley imports overnight because the Coalition asked for an inquiry into COVID. But unwarranted duties from a treaty ally, that, at the same time has injected uncertainty into the AUKUS deal are such difficult pills to swallow, precisely because of the 'friend' who is administering them. It may well be that if faced with the poisons of a bullying, authoritarian China and a free but selfish, 'America First' mercurial United States, Australians would still prefer the latter. Our joint intelligence facility with the US at Pine Gap, as well as the US military presence on Australian soil, would highly likely make us a target and force our involvement at any rate. But Mr Colby and his MAGA friends should realise that there is a range of tactics that can engineer success, and a one-size-fits-all bully boy model may prove ultimately nihilistic.
Perth Now
an hour ago
- Business
- Perth Now
Pentagon AUKUS pressure risks backfiring in Australia
Elbridge Colby, the man reviewing AUKUS inside the Pentagon, thinks he can replicate MAGA's success in scolding, berating and bullying Europe into lifting defence spending in Australia and the Indo-Pacific. But his cut-and-paste approach may not only fail, but backfire. This is because his hectoring approach fails to recalibrate for the important ways that Europe differs from Asia. Mr Colby's demands that Indo-Pacific allies raise defence spending are legitimate in Australia's case. But he is far from the first person to raise the issue. Well before US President Donald Trump appointed Mr Colby Under Secretary of Defence, the Australian authors of the 2023 Defence Strategic Review, Peter Dean and Angus Houston, the former Chief of the Australian Defence Force, were urging an increase in spending from around 2 per cent of GDP to 3 per cent. Kim Beazley, former Labor Leader, defence minister and ambassador to the United States, preceded them both. And it is the same plea made by Mike Pezzullo, the former Home Affairs boss who authored the 2009 Defence White Paper for the Rudd Government, the last time Labor was in power. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese should raise defence spending and match it to the capabilities that the defence review, which he commissioned, said Australia needed. Should the region become even more dangerous, he will not be remembered for his 94-seat landslide but as the Labor prime minister who ignored every siren call and left the country, negligently and dangerously unprepared. While he should not need to be bullied into doing so by the United States, it is also unwise for MAGA to be pushing the issue as hard as it is and so publicly and not leaving more of the heavy lifting to Australian voices. Mr Colby said in a social media post on Tuesday that: 'Europe's progress over the last few months is showing the wisdom of President Trump's approach.' 'We are actively applying his successful approach to enable our allies around the world to step up efforts for the common defence.' Earlier this week he said urging allies to step up their defence spending was a 'hallmark' of President Trump's strategy in Asia as in Europe, 'where it has already been tremendously successful.' 'Of course, some among our allies might not welcome frank conversations,' he said. 'But many, now led by NATO after the historic Hague Summit, are seeing the urgent need to step up and are doing so. 'President Trump has shown the approach and the formula - and we will not be deterred from advancing his agenda.' But there are good reasons for MAGA to pause, reconsider and recalibrate. Their methods might have worked at NATO, when member states agreed to lift their spending to 3.5 per cent next decade, but this is no guarantee of their success in Australia's neck of the woods. Firstly, the Indo-Pacific is not at war. Europe is. It is a statement of the obvious that being caught unprepared to deal with a nuclear-armed imperialist on your border who has rolled tanks inside the borders of an innocent country would inspire a sense of urgency, if not panic. It is true, as NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte has said, that US President Donald Trump's methods, including threatening the very concept of the defensive alliance, were also decisive in changing European minds about the need to start to put their shoulder to the wheel. But this is the point. Taking Europe to the edge of the cliff and forcing them to look over the edge and contemplate a world without the United States' security blanket works because of NATO and Article 5. Article 5 is the clause that states an attack on any member state shall be considered an attack on all. It is this clause that allowed Europe to freeload off the United States under more benevolent Presidents for so long. And it is why the US and MAGA's complaints about Europe spending big on its social welfare while expecting the US to pay its security bills was so legitimate. As Vladimir Putin demonstrated, Europe had a menacing bear on its border and remains in a position where it cannot subdue the beast on its own. But these dynamics do not exist for Australia and the wider Indo-Pacific. While it is accepted that China seeks dominance of the region and control of shipping routes, war is neither current nor inevitable. While China's President Xi Jinping has said he wants his military to be ready to take Taiwan by 2027 and, with force if necessary, there are many ways he can subdue the democratic island without an invasion. At one end, this could include a blockade that may or may not be seen as an act of war by the United States. Another more worrying tactic could be China declaring a 'quarantine' of Taiwan, and claiming it is an internal matter, making it even more difficult to define whether it constituted an act of war or not. This is why expecting countries like Australia to start declaring in 2025 that they will take part in a hypothetical war with submarines we will not possess until the early 2030s, in a best-case scenario, is dangerously reductive, as it misses a vital opportunity to talk about how to push back on China's already coercive and menacing behaviour towards Taiwan, and the Philippines. The other, and perhaps most powerful element MAGA misses when it comes to the Indo-Pacific is the one of choice. Australia has a choice about how it wants to respond to the great power competition underway between the United States and China. And so far, MAGA's methods are only moving Anthony Albanese one way – in China's direction. Australians fundamentally don't like Donald Trump, but still believe in and back the alliance. However, it would be hazardous to assume these attitudes are fixed. Australia's population is increasingly migrant-based, as Mr Albanese's appeals to Indian and Chinese voters at the last election and throughout his first term underlined. It should not be assumed that this voting bloc will always have an enduring loyalty and affection to the United States. And MAGA's behaviour to date could easily provoke questions about whether the United States would have Australia's back as per our treaty alliance. All this said, it is extremely likely that were the United States to fight China in the foreseeable future, Australia would take part. Our joint intelligence facility with the US at Pine Gap, as well as the US bases on Australian soil, would make us a target at any rate and all but guarantee our involvement. There is a fundamental inconsistency, if not incoherence, to the premise of the Financial Times report that Mr Colby is demanding allies, including Australia, state whether they would fight over Taiwan, when Mr Trump – wisely — himself refuses to say, strategic ambiguity carries a deterrent effect of its own. But perhaps the greatest question, that MAGA's methods will only justify if it continues to self-righteously and sanctimoniously badger its Indo-Pacific allies, is what values and order would we be fighting for? As Richard Spencer, the former US Navy Secretary who war-gamed these scenarios, recently said, such a war would 'not pretty at all, for either side' ie. it would result in the deaths of thousands of lives. The resolve of the United States and its allies must be to avoid this at all costs. But if Xi were to make such a catastrophic mistake, like his authoritarian collaborator Mr Putin, then Australians would naturally ask, what would we be fighting for? And this is where the MAGA approach could backfire. Because the Trump Administration looks more focused on shoring up American dominance rather than a global order that protects its smaller friends. How else to read the symbolism of his first tariff-imposition letters going to Indo-Pacific allies South Korea and Japan? On top of the tariffs on Australian steel and exports, is now the threat of 200 per cent duties on pharmaceuticals. This is despite Australia and the United States having a free trade agreement. Australia is no stranger to economic coercion. It experienced the Chinese Communist Party's wrath after the pandemic when Beijing effectively killed Australian wine, lobster and barley imports overnight because the Coalition asked for an inquiry into COVID. But unwarranted duties from a treaty ally, that, at the same time has injected uncertainty into the AUKUS deal are such difficult pills to swallow, precisely because of the 'friend' who is administering them. It may well be that if faced with the poisons of a bullying, authoritarian China and a free but selfish, 'America First' mercurial United States, Australians would still prefer the latter. Our joint intelligence facility with the US at Pine Gap, as well as the US military presence on Australian soil, would highly likely make us a target and force our involvement at any rate. But Mr Colby and his MAGA friends should realise that there is a range of tactics that can engineer success, and a one-size-fits-all bully boy model may prove ultimately nihilistic.
San Francisco Chronicle
an hour ago
- Business
- San Francisco Chronicle
Google partners with Youngkin and offers AI training courses to Virginia job seekers
RESTON, Va. (AP) — Republican Gov. Glenn Youngkin announced on Tuesday that Google will partner with his administration to provide free and low-cost artificial intelligence certification courses to Virginians as part of his office's ongoing effort to connect citizens to new jobs amid changes to the state's economy. The partnership, which he has described as an AI career launchpad, will provide Google-sponsored AI training courses for up to 10,000 Virginians at any given time, officials said at Google's office in the northern part of the state. The training opportunities will be listed on a job website that Youngkin launched earlier this year, in response to significant layoffs among federal workers by the Trump administration, including many workers from Virginia. 'All fields, all career movements somewhere along the way, are going to incorporate this next generation of technology,' Youngkin said at the news conference. The initiative comes with unemployment rising in Virginia, which has roughly 20,400 continued unemployment claims, state Secretary of Labor George' Bryan' Slater said after the news conference. Roughly 2,800 people initially filed unemployment claims during the first week of July, which is about 6.1 percent higher than the previous week. The AI webpage will feature the free courses as well as some low-cost learning opportunities, ranging 'from beginner friendly courses on AI fundamentals and practical workplace applications of artificial intelligence to bootcamps and degree programs offered by Virginia's leading-edge community colleges and universities,' according to the governor's office. Nicole Overley, commissioner of Virginia Works, said businesses have told her office that AI proficiency has become increasingly necessary in their industries. She said the training would help Virginians become competitive in the job markets where these very businesses are hiring. Overly confirmed that the training courses won't cost taxpayers anything and are being donated by Google. Bronagh Friel, head of partnerships at Google, said she was proud of the collaboration with the state. 'Google is committed to championing economic growth and opportunity in Virginia,' she said. ___
Winnipeg Free Press
an hour ago
- Business
- Winnipeg Free Press
Google partners with Youngkin and offers AI training courses to Virginia job seekers
RESTON, Va. (AP) — Republican Gov. Glenn Youngkin announced on Tuesday that Google will partner with his administration to provide free and low-cost artificial intelligence certification courses to Virginians as part of his office's ongoing effort to connect citizens to new jobs amid changes to the state's economy. The partnership, which he has described as an AI career launchpad, will provide Google-sponsored AI training courses for up to 10,000 Virginians at any given time, officials said at Google's office in the northern part of the state. The training opportunities will be listed on a job website that Youngkin launched earlier this year, in response to significant layoffs among federal workers by the Trump administration, including many workers from Virginia. 'All fields, all career movements somewhere along the way, are going to incorporate this next generation of technology,' Youngkin said at the news conference. The initiative comes with unemployment rising in Virginia, which has roughly 20,400 continued unemployment claims, state Secretary of Labor George' Bryan' Slater said after the news conference. Roughly 2,800 people initially filed unemployment claims during the first week of July, which is about 6.1 percent higher than the previous week. The AI webpage will feature the free courses as well as some low-cost learning opportunities, ranging 'from beginner friendly courses on AI fundamentals and practical workplace applications of artificial intelligence to bootcamps and degree programs offered by Virginia's leading-edge community colleges and universities,' according to the governor's office. Monday Mornings The latest local business news and a lookahead to the coming week. Nicole Overley, commissioner of Virginia Works, said businesses have told her office that AI proficiency has become increasingly necessary in their industries. She said the training would help Virginians become competitive in the job markets where these very businesses are hiring. Overly confirmed that the training courses won't cost taxpayers anything and are being donated by Google. Bronagh Friel, head of partnerships at Google, said she was proud of the collaboration with the state. 'Google is committed to championing economic growth and opportunity in Virginia,' she said. ___ Olivia Diaz is a corps member for The Associated Press/Report for America Statehouse News Initiative. Report for America is a nonprofit national service program that places journalists in local newsrooms to report on undercovered issues.
The Advertiser
3 hours ago
- 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.
