Final report - Voting centre accessibility

4.1 Introduction

In selecting venues to be voting centres, accessibility and inclusion must be fundamental requirements. As discussed in Section 3.3, voting centres are an essential means of participation for some people with disability. Legislation also places multiple requirements on the VEC in relation to accessibility and non-discrimination (see Section 2.3).

At the 2026 election, the Victorian Electoral Commission (VEC) plans to operate three types of voting centre:

• approximately 220 early voting centres, which will operate for the 10 days before election day^[1] and on election day (28 November)
• approximately 1,530 additional election-day voting centres, which will only open on election day
• at least 88 low-sensory voting centres, which will only open for six hours on Tuesday 17 November.^[2]

Section 4.2 of this chapter examines the VEC’s venue selection framework. The VEC has done considerable work in recent years to introduce new arrangements for people with disability. However, the Committee would like to see a broader set of criteria used to assess potential voting centre venues. The Committee would also like to see a more transparent approach. This would include publishing details of the VEC’s process and establishing measures to demonstrate the effectiveness of the VEC’s efforts in procuring appropriate venues.

Section 4.3 looks at some of the difficulties that the VEC has experienced finding suitable early voting centres. It also explores possible solutions to make it easier in the future. The VEC has called for legislation to require publicly funded venues to be available for use as early voting centres. There is also potential for additional accessible venues to be constructed as part of other infrastructure projects.

Low-sensory voting venues are explored in Section 4.4. The VEC is planning to provide low-sensory voting throughout Victoria at the 2026 election. The Committee would like to see access to low-sensory voting expanded to more groups and to see low-sensory characteristics considered as part of the selection process for all voting centres.

Section 4.5 notes the need to consider public transport in venue selection and to advertise which venues are close to accessible public transport stops. Providing additional public transport services on election day would also help people to get to voting centres to vote, campaign or work for the VEC.

4.2 How voting centre venues are selected

When planning elections, the VEC develops an Election infrastructure location strategy, which establishes the election infrastructure model in the context of a particular election. This guides and informs strategic and operational plans.^[3] Supporting these plans is a multi-step process involving the identification of possible venues, site inspections and an evaluation of the shortlisted venues.^[4]

To establish more inclusive elections, the VEC needs a robust selection framework that has an accessibility-first approach (see Section 1.4.1) embedded at every stage, aligned with universal design principles. This should include a strategy which identifies accessibility as a priority, a comprehensive and publicly articulated set of selection criteria, transparent weighting and prioritisation, and performance reporting after each election.

4.2.1 Accessibility must be prioritised at a strategic level

The Election infrastructure location strategy sets out four ‘core strategic principles’. These are intended to provide ‘a framework to assess election infrastructure solutions … [and] will assure that the VEC is able to deliver the desired outcomes in a rapidly changing environment with evolving voter and governmental expectations.’^[5]

Of the four principles, ‘Deliver voter-centric services’ is most relevant to this Inquiry. The related ‘elements’ are listed as

• Enable all Victorians with an eligibility to vote to do so
• Deliver electoral services on time and in line with public expectations
• Create a positive elector experience when engaging with our electoral services, products and processes
• Incorporate elector behaviour and trends into evidence-based solutions
• Capture elector feedback and implement continual improvements where possible.^[6]

While accessibility for people with disability is implied by some of these elements, the Committee would like to see accessibility explicitly included at this strategic level in future versions.

In describing the election context, the strategy does note that ‘Both voter and government behaviours and expectations are rapidly evolving, including … A strong desire for more convenient and accessible voting’.^[7] While it is good to see a reference to accessibility, the Committee is concerned that the VEC describes accessibility as a ‘strong desire’ of voters and government, rather than a legal obligation. As discussed in Section 2.3.1, legislation requires accessibility (except where accommodations cannot be reasonably justified). Embedding accessibility as an obligation into the strategy could help to ensure that it is prioritised through the venue selection process.

A strategic plan sits underneath the Election infrastructure location strategy. In describing learnings from the previous election, the strategic plan notes:

There is a lack of physically accessible spaces for use as both early and election day voting centres. While securing more venues will be a challenge, the focus could be on ensuring that as many leased venues as possible meet the accessibility requirements for voters who may have mobility issues.^[8]

At the same time, in relation to ‘location needs’ for early voting centres, the strategic plan states:

All EVCs [early voting centres] should be fully accessible to the public (aim for 100% compliance with disability accessibility targets)^[9]

However, accessibility is not listed as a location need for election-day voting centres.

The Committee is disappointed to see accessibility only listed as a need for early voting centres. The Committee is also disappointed that the discussion of accessibility is restricted to voters with mobility issues (the Committee presumes that the ‘disability accessibility targets’ referred to are the wheelchair access targets).

In addition, in 2022, there appears to have been a mismatch between the goal of all early voting centres being fully accessible in the strategic plan and the final 2022 state election service plan, which only aimed for 25% of voting centres to be classified as ‘independent wheelchair access’.^[10]

Similarly, in the 2026 election service plan, the VEC states:

We are committed to ensuring that each district has at least one fully accessible VC [voting centre] or EVC [early voting centre] to provide maximum access for voters.^[11]

This is a much less ambitious goal than what was set out in the strategic plan. The Committee also considers that the VEC is overstating by claiming that providing ‘at least one fully [wheelchair] accessible venue’ for around 50,000 voters constitutes ‘maximum access for voters’. It suggests that accessibility has not been prioritised or treated as an obligation.

The Committee considers that accessibility for people with disability should be more thoroughly integrated into planning at the strategic level. The three guiding principles outlined in Section 1.4 should also be incorporated into the plan—an accessibility-first approach, a whole-of-journey approach and understanding the diversity of disability. The VEC may find it difficult to remove barriers to accessibility when the issue is framed as a desire rather than an obligation, defined narrowly as physical accessibility and not identified as a need for election-day voting centres.

4.2.2 The current accessibility criteria are limited

After identifying potential sites, the VEC assesses the venues using a set of criteria relating to:

• operational factors (such as cost, logistics, security, telecommunications and size)
• basic amenity considerations (including entries, pathways, internal movement, toilets, lighting)
• political neutrality.^[12]

The VEC notes in its submission that:

Accessibility requirements feature across some of these factors [that are used to assess venues], for example:

• proximity to public transport services
• accessible parking, pathways, entrances, doors, ramps, handrails, toilets and, if needed, lifts
• availability of audible and Braille features
• adequate internal and external lighting
• reasonably free from hazards and risks.^[13]

Key to the VEC’s venue selection process are two forms used in inspecting a site: an ‘inspection form/selection checklist’ and an ‘accessibility audit form’. The Committee reviewed the latest versions of these as part of this Inquiry. The VEC has indicated that these forms will be merged into one document for the 2026 election.^[14]

4.2.3 The inspection form/selection checklist provides some information about accessibility

The VEC’s inspection form^[15] includes a checklist of features related to the needs of the VEC and voters. The form is completed using a combination of yes/no/NA responses, check boxes, measurements and subjective responses with some opportunities for commentary.

The form includes multiple criteria related to physical accessibility. However, some complex issues are reduced to yes/no answers, even when the reality may be nuanced. For example, a yes/no response is required for accessible parking, but no quantity is specified. One field asks whether there are accessible toilets, but it does not specify whether they are in spaces that the public has access to or only staff. No option is available for identifying ambulant toilets.

Twelve criteria relating to low-sensory considerations are listed but are only used if the venue has been pre-designated as a low-sensory voting centre.

The form does not clearly define or distinguish between the needs of voters, carers, staff and campaigners. The inspection form also relies in part on subjective and undefined judgements such as ‘risky-neighbours free’, ‘easy to open’ doors or ‘enough’ fixed toilets.

4.2.4 The VEC’s accessibility audit form is focused on wheelchairs

The VEC introduced a wheelchair accessibility audit for the 2002 Victorian state election. This is used to classify a voting centre into one of three categories:

• independent wheelchair access
• assisted wheelchair access
• limited or no wheelchair access.

This is currently the only publicly advertised measure of accessibility (see further discussion in Section 7.6.1).

In 2002, the introduction of a formal audit and categorised ratings represented a significant improvement in transparency and accessibility. However, more than two decades later, the framework has not evolved in line with contemporary understandings of accessibility, human rights obligations or the diverse needs of voters (see Section 1.4.3).

The accessibility audit form,^[16] while technically detailed, focuses predominantly on wheelchair accessibility and does not account for broader accessibility considerations, including sensory, cognitive, communication and whole-of-journey factors. As with the inspection form, it primarily consists of yes/no questions, plus a few questions with other multiple choices. Depending on which criteria are met, a venue is categorised as one of the three wheelchair access categories listed above.

The current accessibility audit form collects some information that would also be useful to people who do not use wheelchairs, such as the presence of automatic doors, audible and braille information in elevators and slip-resistant floors. However, this information is not communicated to voters, despite its importance for many voters (see Section 7.6.1). Further, the absence of key details, such as the availability of accessible or ambulant toilets or the number of accessible car parks, limits the usefulness of the tool, even for wheelchair users.

4.2.5 Accessibility assessments must consider more than wheelchairs

Submitters consistently highlighted that accessibility extends well beyond physical accessibility. In addition, physical accessibility cannot be understood solely in terms of wheelchair use. They emphasised that accessibility barriers affect not only wheelchair users but also people with other mobility limitations, fatigue, cognitive impairment, neurodiversity, deafness, vision impairment and other disabilities.^[17] Submitters emphasised the need for a broader, more inclusive approach:

Feedback [from Endeavour Foundation members] included looking beyond wheelchair accessibility and considering other factors such as environment and noise, queue management, and priority access for people with disability. Excessive noise or crowded spaces can cause distress, physical pain and anxiety for some people with disabilities such as Autism making it very difficult to absorb information and concentrate on the task at hand, while long wait times without seating can be physically exhausting for those with fatigue or pain-related conditions.^[18]

Similarly, Women with Disabilities Victoria noted that:

Voting centre accessibility should not be limited to a wheelchair accessibility rating and limited to access aids and tools. Voting centre accessibility should take a whole-of-journey approach. This means considering the voter’s experience from travelling to the centre, to casting their vote, and returning home. The goal should be to ensure the process is safe, easy and empowers voters with disabilities.

The Committee should develop best practice accessibility and inclusion guidelines for voting centres. These guidelines should be co-designed with people with disabilities. This will help ensure that accessibility measures are meaningful, not tokenistic, and allow every voter to confidently chose in-person voting if they wish.^[19]

Other specific criteria are discussed in other parts of this report, including clear approaches, entries and exits (Section 5.2), the provision of accessibility tools and services (Chapter 6) and sensory accessibility (Section 4.4.2).

Of note, the VEC’s accessibility audit form does not include fields to identify whether either ‘ambulant’ or ‘accessible’ toilets are available for voters. This information is also not published for voters. However, this is a fundamental requirement for many people with disability with or without wheelchairs, or those who have children with disability who must accompany them.

The Committee also heard evidence that current practices may fail to consider voter dignity. A voting centre cannot be listed as ‘independent wheelchair access’ unless the main entrance is accessible, but a venue can be classed as ‘assisted wheelchair access’ if there is an alternative accessible entrance.^[20] However, the Committee heard that alternative entrances sometimes fail to provide voters with a dignified experience.^[21]

The Committee notes that contemporary policy approaches, including the Victorian Government’s Inclusive Victoria: state disability plan 2022–2026, emphasise the application of universal design and co-design principles across infrastructure and service delivery. Universal design is the design and development of products, environments, programs and services in such a way that they are ‘usable by all people, to the greatest extent possible, without the need for adaptation or specialized design’.^[22] It goes beyond accessibility, which often focuses on meeting legal standards for people with disabilities, by creating solutions that are naturally easier and more intuitive for all users.

A simple example of this approach would be to consider the low-sensory voting features as part of every audit and not just audits of low-sensory voting centres (see further discussion in Section 4.4.2).

Considering a broader range of criteria would also be in line with the new guiding principles recommended by the Committee in Section 1.4.

4.2.6 The VEC recognises the need for change

In its submission to this Inquiry, the VEC acknowledged that its current approach to accessibility audits has potential for improvement:

We are continuing to evolve our consideration of accessibility at voting centres to encompass a wider range of access challenges, acknowledging that mobility-related disabilities are not representative of the full scope of disability challenges faced by Victorians that may present barriers to voting in person. Feedback from the community and our disability sector partners has indicated that we should identify opportunities to expand our selection checklist to encompass a broader scope of disability access considerations. We are looking to incorporate this into the selection checklist, noting that the limited available venue options in turn limit our capacity to meet additional criteria when sourcing voting centres.^[23]

The Disability education and engagement plan also includes a commitment to ‘review our building access checklist for reasonable adjustments to voting centres and election offices’.^[24]

The Committee is pleased to see that the VEC recognises the need to revise its criteria and to consider a broader range of barriers. The Committee further notes the VEC’s consideration of feedback from the disability community and sector partners as a constructive step towards improved access. Incorporating that feedback, along with the guiding principles outlined in Section 1.4 of this report and the recommendations made throughout this report, would provide a more robust set of criteria that would present fewer barriers to voters.

4.2.7 The VEC should adopt a more transparent process

As noted in Section 4.2.4, the VEC is expanding its concept of accessibility and trying to reduce barriers for a wider range of people with disability. However, without clear commitments, defined standards and accountability mechanisms, the VEC’s intention may remain aspirational and may not result in meaningful improvements in practice. The Committee would therefore like to see more transparency around the VEC’s selection of voting centres, including the development of a publicly available venue selection strategy, along with post-election evaluation and reporting.

The VEC produces several infrastructure location documents (see Section 4.2.1) and provides some details about its strategy for voting centres in the election service plan (see Section 3.4.3).^[25] These materials provide some visibility of the process by which venues are identified and assessed, as well as the strategic configuration of the broader network. However, they do not constitute a clearly articulated strategy for venue selection. Many of the VEC’s commitments are described at a high level in the state election service plan, through aspirational statements such as ‘ensure every Victorian can take part in a fair, accessible and trusted election’^[26] and an ‘intent to provide an accessible experience.’^[27]

In addition, much of the VEC’s documentation is not publicly available. The Election infrastructure location strategy and the strategic plan that sits underneath it are not published. Nor are the criteria in the inspection and accessibility audit forms (see Section 4.2.2).

The Committee would like to see a clear evidence-based ‘venue selection framework’ published at future elections. This would include a defined strategy, processes and comprehensive accessibility criteria. This would incorporate the Committee’s suggested guiding principles (see Section 1.4) and universal design principles to ensure that both early and election-day voting centres meet diverse needs, including mobility, sensory and communication requirements. This should also be accompanied by clear performance measures to assess and report on the effectiveness of the VEC’s efforts.

In its inquiry on the 2018 election, the Committee recommended that the VEC introduce performance indicators assessing the suitability of early and election-day voting centres, beyond operational considerations.^[28] The VEC responded by citing its targets for assisted and independent wheelchair access ratings.^[29] In 2022, the Committee reiterated and broadened its recommendation, seeking assessments of venue suitability against multiple criteria, including transport access, shelter, disability access and campaigning space.^[30] The VEC did not support this recommendation, asserting that wheelchair access ratings were sufficient.^[31]

The Committee continues to believe that this is an area of the VEC’s performance which needs to be tracked and reported on. Performance measures would be an important part of a robust venue selection framework. They would help to embed the VEC’s intentions into the organisation’s systems, reporting practices and organisational ethos. The framework as a whole, including performance measures, would also provide transparency and accountability to the community.

4.3 The VEC has struggled to find accessible early voting centres

Submissions to this Inquiry indicated that many voters with disability choose early voting to avoid queues and for a calmer, less crowded experience.^[32] Voters wanting to use assisted hearing devices also need to use early voting, as these devices will only be offered at early voting centres (and low-sensory voting centres).^[33] It is therefore important that early voting centres are accessible to people with disability.

Early voting has grown substantially over recent elections, rising from 16.3% of votes in 2010 to almost 50% at the 2022 state election.^[34] All Victorians have the option to vote at an early voting centre before election day. No particular reason is required. Anticipating that this trend will continue, the VEC plans to increase the number of early voting centres by over 40% at the 2026 state election.^[35]

However, the VEC has reported ongoing challenges in sourcing appropriate, accessible venues:

In the lead up to the [2022] State election, the VEC was faced with extremely low vacancy rates (<0.5%) for commercial property in some districts, significantly impacting venue searches and acquisition. This was amplified by a reluctance by owners/landlords to enter into short-term leases … For early voting centres, this left no option other than to lease a number of sub-optimal sites in terms of accessibility, which required investment in significant works by the VEC to render the venues compliant.^[36]

As noted in Section 3.4.3 of this report, the VEC has increased its target for the proportion of early voting centres classified as ‘independent wheelchair access’ at the 2026 election. It is not clear how the VEC intends to achieve this at the same time as increasing the number of early voting centres by approximately 40%, especially given that the VEC has previously struggled to find suitable accessible venues.

The VEC has recommended legislative change to make more accessible venues available. Action from the Government to create more venues would also be beneficial.

4.3.1 Compulsory access to publicly funded venues may remove barriers

To increase the number of accessible venues, the VEC previously recommended legislative change to require suitable publicly funded venues to be made available for use as early voting centres.^[37] Legislation currently requires publicly funded venues to be available for use as election-day voting centres but not as early voting centres. The Committee supported the VEC’s recommendation and similarly recommended legislative change.^[38] The VEC reiterated its recommendation as part of this Inquiry.^[39]

In February 2025, the Government indicated that it supported the change ‘in principle’ and that it needed to consult with the VEC and local councils.^[40] No legislative change has been introduced to date.

The Committee continues to believe that this legislative change would be beneficial. In particular, the VEC has argued that ‘community facilities owned and operated by local councils are ideal for the placement of early voting centres and in many cases already meet high standards of accessibility’.^[41]

The Committee believes that the VEC could make a stronger case by identifying specific publicly funded venues which would be suitable but which the VEC cannot currently access. This would demonstrate that the recommended legislative amendment would increase capacity, improve accessibility and enhance compliance with Victoria’s legal and human rights obligations. This would support the Government in proposing legislative change and assist the Parliament in considering it.

4.3.2 Creating universally accessible venues

Another way to increase the number of accessible venues would be to build new ones. There are currently many infrastructure projects being constructed by the Government across the state. Accessible community facilities could be incorporated into some of these projects, which would provide a useful venue at all times and a voting centre during elections.

When constructing new buildings or renovating existing buildings, government bodies are already required to make them accessible. The Victorian Government has committed to this responsibility with universal design, co-design and user engagement statements in its Whole of Victorian government universal design policy:

All new Victorian Government infrastructure projects should demonstrate how their design and construction will align with the universal design principles. Projects should be assessed on their alignment with the universal principles in procurement processes or against building design standards.^[42]

The Committee therefore recommends that all future infrastructure projects be required to consider whether it would be feasible to include an accessible venue for use by the VEC as an early voting centre during elections and as a community facility at other times. This could include projects such as train stations, bus interchanges, state government buildings and local government facilities. Where it is practicable and affordable to incorporate such a facility, and where there is no similar venue in the vicinity, an accessible venue should be included as part of the project. Integrating purpose-built, fully accessible spaces into suitable government infrastructure projects would expand the availability of suitable voting venues while also providing benefits to communities.

4.4 Low-sensory voting venues

Voting centres can involve noise, crowding, bright lighting and high levels of social interaction. These factors can make voting overwhelming or inaccessible, even where physical access is adequate. Low-sensory voting tries to remove these barriers to make voting more accessible for people with sensory sensitivities.

Low-sensory voting involves choosing venues with low-sensory features and/or removing barriers that can make voting overwhelming or inaccessible. The VEC and other members of the Electoral Council of Australia and New Zealand described features that support low-sensory or quiet voting, including:

• reduced noise levels
• moderated lighting
• subdued visual stimuli (e.g. signage clutter, bright colours)
• step-free entries and exits
• controlled crowd levels and more space
• reduced or managed interaction with campaigners
• increased space between voting compartments
• the provision of designated quiet spaces.^[43]

The Committee commends the VEC for pioneering low-sensory voting for neurodivergent voters during the 2023 Warrandyte District by-election, which was a direct response to requests and feedback from reference groups.^[44]

At the Warrandyte by-election, the trial was conducted at an early voting centre during certain hours on one day during the early voting period. An evaluation conducted by the VEC found that 100% of surveyed participants would choose to vote at a low-sensory centre again if available.^[45] However, the VEC also found that there were problems. In particular, the VEC reported that the behaviour of campaigners at the voting centre during the low-sensory voting period ‘led to many voters turning away and not casting their votes.’^[46] This is explored further in Section 5.3 of this report.

The VEC offered low-sensory voting with different arrangements at the Prahran, Werribee and Nepean District by-elections in 2025 and 2026. At these by-elections, low-sensory voting was offered at a dedicated voting centre (technically classified as a mobile voting centre) on the day before early voting centres opened.

Since the VEC’s introduction of this initiative, other electoral commissions across Australia and New Zealand have trialled or will trial low-sensory voting in various forms:

• Tasmania designated a quiet voting hour at early voting centres every day of the early voting period^[47]
• Western Australia offered low-sensory voting at one polling place on four days of early voting^[48]
• the Australian Capital Territory appointed one designated low-sensory voting centre, co-designed with disability and mental health organisations, to operate for early and election-day voting, with appropriately qualified staff recruited for that venue^[49]
• South Australia designated three voting centres as ‘inclusive’, offering reduced barriers for people with hidden disabilities, as well as parents with children who need lower-stimulus environments; it was planned for the selected venues to have staffed set-down or decompression-style internal foyers and party campaigners would not be permitted in these spaces^[50]
• New Zealand plans to trial ‘quiet voting’ at specific voting centres across the country for the 2026 general election.^[51]

At the 2026 general election, the VEC will expand its offering of low-sensory voting. It plans to establish one low-sensory voting centre in each district, to operate for one day on the day prior to early voting (that is, on Tuesday 17 November).^[52] This trial will see low-sensory voting offered at a much larger scale than previously. The fixed date of the general election will also give the VEC more opportunity to communicate about the service than has been available in the compressed timeframes of by-elections.^[53]

However, the Committee is concerned about the approach of restricting low-sensory voting to one day before the early-voting period. This timing may not suit all voters who would benefit from this service. It also means that people using the service would have to vote before all policies from candidates and parties have been released. The Committee would therefore like to see the service extended to at least three sessions during the 2026 election. By expanding the trial in this way, the VEC will be able to reach a broader range of stakeholders. In addition, it will be able to compare the numbers of voters at the different sessions, which will assist with evaluating the initiative and planning in future elections.

The Committee understands that the VEC is still trialling low-sensory voting. If a formal evaluation of the program following the election, with effective performance measures and relevant targets, demonstrates its success, the Committee would like to see low-sensory voting offered to a broader range of people. The Committee would also like to see sensory considerations included in the audit of all voting centres at future elections, with an intention to remove and reduce barriers to sensory sensitivities wherever possible.

4.4.1 Expanding who can access low-sensory voting centres

The VEC developed low-sensory voting to reduce barriers for neurodivergent voters. While the Committee believes that this program is helpful for some neurodivergent voters, it may also benefit other people who have sensory sensitivities and face the associated barriers.

The Committee was told that people with mental health issues, cognitive disability and psychosocial disability, including dementia, could benefit from low-sensory voting.^[54] Other people such as survivors of abuse, people with post-traumatic stress disorder and people who need to take time to work with a support person could also benefit from low-sensory voting environments.^[55]

In its submission, the VEC noted that low-sensory voting centres offer benefits for a range of voters who require low-sensory environments.^[56] However, when questioned about low-sensory voting for a broader range of voters, the Electoral Commissioner said:

it has sort of been quite broadly very well received, including by people who may not specifically identify as a sort of targeted cohort for whom we are running this service … We have not deliberately phrased this offering as being that broader offering, because we want to make sure that we are primarily meeting the needs of people who are neurodiverse and have a very strong preference for a low-sensory voting environment. We do not want to dilute that. We are not going to be turning away people who may wish to use it, but we will be encouraging those to be very much targeted to people with neurodiverse needs …

What we will do though to ensure that the low-sensory option is available to those who most need it is we are going to be targeting our communications at those cohorts, their peak bodies and so on, so that we make a really deliberate effort on that.^[57]

In the EasyVote guide for the 2026 Nepean District by-election, the service was described as ‘for neurodivergent voters and their support people’.^[58] This is problematic, as it could easily mislead people who have sensory sensitivities but are not neurodivergent into thinking they are not eligible to use this service.

The Committee would like to see eligibility for this service explicitly extended and promoted to a broader range of voters.

The VEC’s Voting options webpage for the 2026 election is more inclusive, describing the service as ‘for neurodivergent voters and voters with sensory needs.’^[59] The Committee encourages the VEC to adopt similar, more inclusive descriptions in its other communication products for the 2026 election. The VEC should also ensure that its staff have the relevant training to support a wider range of people.

4.4.2 Incorporating low-sensory considerations into other voting centres

The VEC’s venue inspection form includes 12 criteria for low-sensory voting.^[60] However, these are only applied to pre-designated low-sensory voting centres. This limits the VEC’s ability to assess and compare all potential venues for barriers affecting people with sensory sensitivity, or to identify low-cost adjustments (e.g. lighting, noise, queue management) that could be made to reduce barriers.

The Committee would like to see low-sensory criteria applied to all venue assessments in the future. The current arrangements restrict access to low-sensory voting to one venue per district on one day before the early voting period. This may introduce new barriers, such as the need to vote earlier or travel further. Embedding sensory considerations into all venue assessments would support selecting more sites with low-sensory features, benefiting a wide range of voters, including older people, those with anxiety, fatigue, dementia or hearing loss, parents and first-time voters.

In addition, a number of stakeholders suggested other ways to incorporate low-sensory features into voting centres. Their suggestions included a quiet waiting area for people who feel overwhelmed or need breaks,^[61] quiet periods,^[62] for each voting centre to have a separate quiet and low-sensory zone^[63] and the provision of an alternate entrance to access quiet and low-sensory zones.^[64] Some of these would be feasible in many voting centres and should be considered by the VEC going forward.

4.5 The proximity and availability of public transport is important for accessibility

A venue’s physical accessibility is only one component of the broader ‘whole-of-journey’ experience required for an inclusive election (see Section 1.4.2). At an inclusive election, any elector should be able to arrive at a voting centre by any means, make their way to the main entrance and cast their vote. As well as arriving via private vehicle or on foot, voters also rely on public transport.

The VEC’s inspection form records the proximity of public transport and walking distance to the nearest stop.^[65] However, public transport availability and distance are not treated as qualifying factors, but as one of several considerations in venue selection.^[66] The assessment does not capture the accessibility of the transport services or stops themselves, barriers along the route to the venue or timetable constraints that may affect voter access.

In its submission, the Public Transport Users Association noted that deficiencies with public transport may be especially pronounced on Saturdays when state elections are held. Many public transport services run less frequently on weekends, and some routes do not operate at all or only within restricted hours (with some ceasing before the close of voting).^[67]

In addition to affecting voters, the restricted hours of operation on weekends may also limit people wishing to work or campaign at voting centres. In particular, counting may extend beyond the hours of operation of some bus services, and evening frequencies may be poor on many routes.^[68]

The Public Transport Users Association made several recommendations that it believed would help remove barriers. These included selecting voting centres that are near frequent public transport (such as trains, trams or high-frequency buses like Smartbuses) and near accessible tram stops served by low-floor trams. The Association also suggested that ‘the VEC should liaise with Transport Victoria to minimise the impact of service disruptions on voting centre access’.^[69]

Infrastructure Victoria also noted the importance of accessible public transport stops and called on the Government to prioritise upgrading stops near voting centres.^[70]