Sunrise host Nat Barr has quizzed Anthony Albanese’s government on why voters are banned from using a cross to vote against the Voice to Parliament – but Yes voters can still just use a tick.
Her question comes after Elections Commissioner Tom Rogers sparked a debate by telling Sky News that ‘a tick will be accepted as a formal yes vote, but a cross will not be accepted as a formal vote’.
On the voting paper, the word Yes or No must be written in a box. This will be made clear in instructions from the Australian Electoral Commission.
Barr asked Albanian minister Jason Clare, “Should a cross be accepted as a no vote if the electoral commission is going to accept a tick for ‘yes’?”
Clare hit back, arguing that the same strategy had been used in the 1999 republic referendum and had caused no confusion.
“When John Howard held a referendum with the public, the same rules worked fine and I believe there was less than one percent of the informal vote,” he said.
John Howard didn’t want us to become a republic, he urged people to vote no and these were the rules that were set.
“I think this bursts the bubble of the argument that this is going to cause confusion.”
Yesterday, opposition leader Peter Dutton said voters should be able to validly use a tick or cross on their ballot, and that he would write to Rogers seeking clarification of his comments.
But Barr then asked Deputy Opposition Leader Sussan Ley why she had not expressed concern about the vote a few weeks ago when he passed through parliament.
‘If a tick counts for Yes, then a cross should count for No. It is that clear,” he told radio station 2GB on Thursday.
“Otherwise it gives a very, very strong advantage to the Yes cause.”
“We’re bringing it up now. It’s actually a matter for the AEC (Australian Electoral Commission),’ Ms Ley told the Sunrise host on Friday.
‘We want a fair referendum, the rules must be fair.’
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s referendum on the Voice to Parliament has plunged into chaos after election leaders said a tick counts as a yes vote, but a cross does not count as no
However, Ms Ley argued that Australia was now in the ‘modern era’ and the rules used almost thirty years ago in 1999 no longer applied.
“We have a lot more Australians who don’t speak English and we want everyone to vote in this referendum, so very simple: what would people think?”
“A check mark is yes, a cross is no,” she declared.
Mr Clare said if the opposition had been ‘serious’ about the ballot they would have tried to change the laws a few weeks ago.
“The fact that we’re using the same rules that have been in place for 30 years and that the last referendum had an informal vote of less than one percent says this is all political,” he said.
Nat Barr (centre) asked deputy opposition leader Sussan Ley (right) why she had not expressed concern about the vote as it passed through parliament a few weeks ago
The revelation has drawn strong criticism from the opposition, who say the yes vote will have an unfair advantage if Australians have their say later that year.
Former Prime Minister Tony Abbott said the advice appeared to be evidence that authorities were trying to support a yes result.
“The problem with all this is that there is a suspicion that the government is trying to make it easier for one party,” he told 2GB’s Ben Fordham.
At least as initially reported, it seems it will be easier to get a yes vote than a no vote, if a tick counts for a yes, but you have to specifically write ‘no’ to vote no . .
“This is the concern we’ve always had: that there’s a lot of official bias in this whole referendum process.”
Commissioner Rogers shrugged off accusations that this move would work in favor of the yes vote, saying: ‘No, not all of them. They couldn’t be taken that way.’
Former Prime Minister Tony Abbot said Election Commissioner Rogers’ advice appeared to be evidence that authorities were trying to support a yes result
Mr Abbott disagreed, saying this move tipped the balance in favor of the yes vote.
“There is no level playing field,” he said. “It’s not a fair fight and if a tick is a yes, why wouldn’t a cross be a no?”
“The only way to escape this kind of confusion is to make it absolutely crystal clear that you are either voting No or voting Yes.
The AEC confirmed the commissioner’s approval of a tick as a yes vote and said the use of a cross could be unclear as to what a voter meant
“But numbers of some sort that are neither No nor Yes don’t count.”
He added: “Given that this is such an important issue, given that this is the biggest change to our Constitution that we have ever been asked to do, there should certainly be no confusion or uncertainty about what constitutes a valid voice means.
“And unfortunately – I don’t want to be personally critical of the election commissioner – but it still seems that this is causing confusion and that is a real problem.”
Fordham joined the outcry, calling the decision “bizarre” and “unreliable.”
“If you’re going to count the ticks, you’ve got to count the crosses too, right? Otherwise, the Yes camp has an advantage,” he said.
Mr Dutton later added that he thought this was a sign that the system had been ‘manipulated’ from the start.
“I think it’s completely outrageous,” he told 2GB’s Ray Hadley. “I am going to write to the AEC Commissioner today.
“I don’t think we should have a process that’s rigged, which is what the Prime Minister has been orchestrating from day one.”