8.1 Introduction
Staff should be trained to offer assistance in a respectful, proactive and inclusive way. This includes providing clear information about accessible routes, quiet spaces, alternative voting options, and waiting time. Support should be offered without making assumptions or requiring people to justify their disability.
Staff should also be trained in disability awareness and communication, including how to support people with hidden disabilities. For example, they should understand that not all disabilities are visible and avoid questioning or gatekeeping access to priority queues or entrances.
The focus should be on enabling people to vote independently and with dignity, rather than singling people out or making them feel different.
Source: Nicole Karidis, Submission 28, p. 1.
The accessibility, inclusivity and dignity of the voting process are closely linked to the quality of interactions between voters and staff. Where staff are well trained, voters may experience fewer barriers, greater confidence, reduced stress and an increased willingness to vote in person. Conversely, gaps in staff awareness or capability can be a significant barrier to participation.
As Blind Citizens Australia stated, ‘Staff play a critical role in ensuring voting centres are accessible in practice, not just in theory.’[1]
This chapter examines the structure and delivery of the Victorian Electoral Commission’s (VEC’s) training strategy and framework, and the extent to which it results in consistent learning and application. The chapter considers whether the training enables staff to develop the knowledge and skills required to deliver accessible and inclusive services. It looks at limitations in design, timing and delivery that may contribute to inconsistency in staff capability and practice.
The Committee recognises the large and complex challenge associated with training election officials. At the 2022 election, the VEC employed more than 20,000 people in temporary roles and operated 1,765 voting centres on election day.[2] All these staff needed training, with many performing a variety of tasks in a complex, high-pressure environment with many rules.[3] It is therefore critical that the VEC’s training products and processes are effective.
Voters’ experiences with voting centre staff are discussed in Section 8.2 of this chapter. The evidence suggests that people have had mixed experiences. Some people have encountered helpful and responsive staff who have reduced barriers and made voting accessible. Others have had negative experiences where staff have been unsure how to communicate with people with disability, unaware of accessibility tools in the voting centre or have questioned the legitimacy of support people. The remaining sections of this chapter explore why people have had these mixed experiences.
Section 8.3 outlines the training model used by the VEC. While the VEC’s training does include information for supporting people with disability and making elections inclusive, there are additional topics which should be added to the training. A change to the overall approach to disability would also make the training more effective.
Some of the negative experiences noted by stakeholders have occurred despite the VEC explicitly providing guidance that should have prevented these experiences. This is explored in Section 8.4. Further work is required to understand why there is a gap between training and implementation. However, the fact that not all staff do the required training and the large volume of material that voting centre staff need to know may be contributing factors. To improve things in the future, the Committee recommends having a designated ‘accessibility officer’ at each voting centre to oversee compliance with the VEC’s processes and to act as a liaison for people with disability needing support. The Committee also recommends ensuring that head office staff have accessibility training as well as voting centre staff. This will help to embed accessibility considerations into decisions about process design, training and service delivery.
8.2 Voters’ experiences with staff have been mixed
Our local voting booths have been fantastic, supportive welcoming, inclusive … [my son] enjoys fronting up and having his say …
Source: Joanna Middleton, Submission 20, p. 1.
As a carer, previous voting centre experiences in Victoria have been mixed. In many cases, staff were polite, patient and willing to assist when asked, and support people were generally welcomed. [But] not all staff appeared confident in supporting people with sensory, cognitive or communication needs.
Source: Respondent to consultation by Carers Victoria, Submission 41, p. 6.
I’m deaf and blind. I couldn’t vote on my own and couldn’t follow verbal instructions due to being deaf. No one there was helpful and staff kept talking to me verbally despite me saying I’m non verbal please write it down.
Source: Respondent to the Committee’s survey of voters with disability (Inquiry into the conduct of the 2022 Victorian state election).
Multiple submitters to this Inquiry shared their experiences with voting centre staff. These experiences were a mixture of positive and negative interactions.
Positive experiences included staff allowing people to skip queues, being patient, being respectful, taking people to a quiet area and providing assistance when asked.[4] These experiences helped to make voting centres accessible for the voters.
A recurrent negative experience was voting centre staff not meeting the communication needs of voters with disability. This included staff:
- relying on physical gestures to point things out to people with vision impairments or not knowing how to guide them[5]
- relying exclusively on verbal communication[6]
- talking to support people rather than the voter[7]
- ‘talking down’ to voters with disability[8]
- being impatient or making voters feel rushed.[9]
Staff not knowing how to communicate through the virtual Auslan interpreting service (see Section 6.5) was also reported at Commonwealth elections. This included actions like talking to the interpreter rather than the voter, blocking the voter’s view of the screen or taking the device out of the voter’s hand.[10]
Several submitters felt that staff simply did not know what to do:
When I told staff I had hearing loss, they weren’t sure how to communicate with me …[11]
He said there’s an accessible booth over there and moved his arm. I said I have impaired vision so a statement like ‘over there’ is not useful because I can’t see ‘over there’ nor can I see where ‘over there’ is. I’m not sure he quite understood that message. He just kind of laughed/grunted.[12]
Nick wears his Hidden Disability Sunflower Lanyard when voting, but feels staff are not trained to understand its meaning or how to adjust their instructions to better support his disability.[13]
Another negative experience that was reported was staff not knowing about accessibility tools in the voting centre.[14]
Several submitters also reported staff questioning them having a support person or making them feel like they should not be there:
People with disabilities may need help from their carers. This shouldn’t be questioned by electoral staff as it can make the person with the disability embarrassed to be publicly outed as needing help.[15]
These experiences indicate a lack of appropriate training or problems with the training process.
Overall, it is difficult to know what proportion of voting centre staff have been effectively trained. The 2022 post-election evaluation commissioned by the VEC found that 14% of voters with physical disabilities who required assistance when voting were dissatisfied with the assistance they received.[16] The Council on the Ageing Victoria found much higher rates of dissatisfaction with its survey of voters with disability. More than a third of respondents to that survey reported inadequate personalised support at voting centres.[17]
While there is a large discrepancy between these surveys, they both indicate variability in staff performance. This can result in inconsistent voter experiences, unequal access across voting centres and stress for voters with disability who cannot feel confident about getting the support they need.
Voters with disability reported mixed experiences of staff at voting centres. Some had positive experiences of staff being helpful, patient and respectful, making voting centres more accessible. Others had negative experiences, including communication not being adapted to the voters’ needs, not knowing about the accessibility tools in the voting centres and questioning them having a support person. The negative experiences suggest problems with the VEC’s training materials or processes.
8.3 The VEC’s training products and processes could be improved
To understand why not all staff have the knowledge needed to effectively support people with disability, the Committee examined the VEC’s training materials and processes. This included the manuals provided to staff outlining what they should do and the online training provided.
The Committee found that these materials do contain content discussing how to support people with disability. However, there is scope for this to be improved in a number of ways.
There also appear to be cases where the instructions in the training materials are not being followed in practice. This is discussed in Section 8.4.
8.3.1 There are dedicated training pathways for different election roles
The VEC delivers election training through a combination of online modules, home study, in-person training and verbal briefings. In the voting centre, staff are expected to keep various role-specific manuals handy to consult throughout the voting period.
Online training for election officials is delivered in a short, click-through format that focuses on information rather than practical skill-building. Assessment is via multiple choice or true/false questions.
For the 2026 state election, the VEC explained:
Election managers and assistant election managers will complete a blended learning program that combines online and face-to-face training, supported by just-in-time reminder materials and detailed work instructions …
Online training will provide foundational knowledge of the election processes relevant to each role. This will form the basis for role-specific face-to-face sessions, which will give participants hands-on experience in completing processes through real-life scenarios in a partial election office or hub set-up.
Written work instructions provided to each role will include manuals, guides and task sheets tailored to specific responsibilities.
…
We will develop dedicated training pathways for different election roles. Roles with short duration or low complexity will receive a briefing at the start of the first shift. Supervisory roles such as early voting centre managers, mobile voting team leaders and voting centre managers will complete a blended program of online and face-to-face training.[18]
In addition, the VEC has indicated that its training program will include scenario-based role playing:
our training program for the 2026 state election will focus on fostering a culture of customer service and responsive accessibility by incorporating scenario-based role-playing to strengthen staff capability and understanding in managing a range of accessibility needs.[19]
Training is supplemented by role-specific manuals or guides for senior election officials, plus an Election official manual which all staff are expected to read and study independently and bring on election day.[20] There does not appear to be any verification of completion or learning assessment linked to the manual, although some sections are included in the online training with a knowledge check.
The VEC appears to consider a verbal briefing by the voting centre manager to be a failsafe for training. As noted above, the VEC states that, ‘Roles with short duration or low complexity will receive a briefing at the start of the first shift.’[21] It has similarly indicated that:
all staff will receive compliance training, delivered through our online learning portal or verbally at the start of their first shift if there is insufficient time to complete training online.[22]
The Voting centre manager guide outlines what managers are expected to cover in their briefing at the start of election day. It lists a broad range of topics, including location-specific information, customer service, queue management, roles, procedures, safety and a general direction to:
Remind staff to refer to ‘Providing accessible and inclusive services’ in Part 2 in the Election official manual for key points to help all electors have a positive experience.[23]
The briefing is delivered within a very tight timeframe in the 20 minutes prior to the commencement of voting.[24] A briefing within the 20 minutes prior to the opening of voting centres should not be a substitute for mandatory accessibility and compliance training. It relies heavily on the individual knowledge, confidence and priorities of the voting centre manager, and assumes the absence of pre-opening issues that could affect the amount of time available.
The Committee is concerned that given the timing, it would be extremely difficult for the briefing to be delivered in full and to cover the breadth of required information. Reliance on briefings by the voting centre manager in this context seems unlikely to ensure the consistent provision of accessible and inclusive services.
8.3.2 Training materials discuss several issues relating to voters with disability
The Committee examined the VEC’s training manuals, guides and online modules with a focus on accessibility and inclusive elections. It has not examined the content of the face-to-face training.
The Election official manual is mandated reading for all election officials. It contains five pages of instructions on providing accessible and inclusive services under the following headings:
- ‘Helping electors have a positive experience’
- ‘Electors with disabilities’
- ‘Electors needing help to fill out their ballot paper’
- ‘Electors from First Nations communities’
- ‘Electors from multicultural communities’.[25]
In addition to general guidance on communicating with and supporting people with disability, it includes:
- specific guidance on assisting people with vision impairment
- a list of tasks that people with disability may need assistance with
- a list of resources for people with disability available at voting centres
- guidance regarding people who need help filling out ballot papers, including instructions for voting outside a voting centre (see Section 5.5 of this report).
The VEC’s online training program Working inclusively 2025 is comprised of five click-through modules, including modules on ‘An inclusive customer environment and experience’ and ‘An inclusive team environment and experience’. The importance of ensuring inclusive outcomes for all voters is acknowledged in introductory notes. The program provides general advice about inclusive service and respectful behaviour. It includes a list of things that people with disability may need assistance with (the same list that is provided in the Election official manual). The online module also includes some information about the Hidden Disabilities Sunflower program, which is not included in the manual. The version of the online program for election supervisors also includes a link to a video on the Hidden Disabilities Sunflower program. The Committee encourages the VEC to also include information about the program in the manual.
8.3.3 A universal access, barrier-based approach may be more appropriate
The Committee is pleased to see that much of the advice about communicating inclusively is framed in the training as ‘services for all electors’.[26] This helps to embed universal accessibility into interactions rather than conceptualising certain approaches as relevant only to certain voters. However, this is weakened by some information being presented as related to specific groups.
The training materials focus on three groups of voters: First Nations people, people with disabilities and multicultural communities. Each group is treated separately, suggesting that each group has discrete needs. The training materials then provide guidance on tools, services and communication strategies aligned with the perceived attributes or needs of each group. Some of these are repeated across groups, while others are framed as though they are unique to a particular cohort.
While categorisation may assist in identifying barriers and inform operational planning, it risks reinforcing stereotypes, encouraging assumptions and limiting support to certain voters. The Committee is concerned that framing accessibility in this way can inadvertently reinforce narrow assumptions and oversimplifications, leading to misunderstandings. This approach does not reflect intersectionality (see Section 2.2.1), the fact that voters may present with multiple or overlapping attributes and face various barriers that relate to one or more of these attributes. It may also lead to staff not considering adjustments needed by people who do not fit into one of those three categories.
The problems with this approach may be reinforced by expectations that voters will be comfortable asking for accessibility tools and services[27] or that staff should visually identify voters who may need assistance:
Ask anyone using a mobility aid, such as a walking frame or crutches, or who appears to be having difficulty standing if they would like to come to the front of a queue or offer them a seat.[28]
The Committee considers that a universal access approach based on barriers may be more effective. With this approach, training would focus on identifying barriers to participation and describing the accessibility tools and services available to remove or reduce those barriers. This would help to better account for intersectionality, hidden disability and needs which may not be related to disability. It would encourage staff to focus on reducing barriers for all voters and not just the ones who look like they need it. This could be supplemented by intersectional and community-specific modules, where appropriate.
When the VEC reviews its material to follow this approach, the Committee recommends considering whether there are additional barriers that should be discussed in the training. As noted above, the Hidden Disability Sunflower program is currently discussed in the online training, but not the Election official manual. It would be worth including information about the program in both. Although the manual includes information about the accessibility tools provided,[29] it does not provide information about their purpose or how they are to be used. The checklist of topics for voting centre managers to include when briefing staff does not include explaining where these tools are located.
While the VEC’s training materials include some information on supporting people with disability, much of this is presented through a segmented approach. Some accessibility guidance is organised around specific groups (First Nations people, people with disabilities and multicultural communities), with barriers and supports listed for each group. This risks reinforcing assumptions, rather than addressing common structural barriers that affect voters across multiple or overlapping identities, voters who do not fit into one of these groups or voters who may not appear to staff like they fit into one of these groups.
That the VEC revise its training materials to adopt a barrier-based framework, embedding universal accessibility principles across all training content. Guidance should focus on identifying and removing systemic barriers, with tools and services presented as universally applicable rather than linked to specific groups. This could be supplemented by intersectional and community-specific modules where appropriate.
That the VEC work with its Electoral Access Advisory Group and other stakeholders to review its training materials to identify any additional barriers that people with disability might face in voting centres and supports that should be discussed. The review should also identify other helpful information, such as the nature of hidden disability, the purpose of accessibility tools and the virtual Auslan interpreting service. The VEC should also ensure that voting centre managers are instructed to pass on all relevant information to staff about supports for people with disability, including the location of accessibility tools.
8.4 Current training arrangements are not sufficient to ensure consistent and effective support for all voters at voting centres
While some carers described positive experiences where staff provided priority access and appropriate assistance, others reported limited support, refusal of priority access, or accessibility provisions focused only on wheelchair use. Carers noted that inconsistent practices between voting centres and elections created stress and uncertainty and called for more uniform implementation of accessibility measures statewide.
Source: Carers Victoria, Submission 41, p. 6.
i had to fight for a chair it be able to sit down to vote, and once again i had to fight for my right to privacy whilst i voted. It was stressful and humiliating … it is not appropriate to offer a chair at a table where there is an official person very close by, able to see how you vote. You need to provide a low voting booth that is private. I find it so hard to understand why this can’t be possible, and why it isn’t a given. Disabled people need privacy like everyone else.
Source: Respondent to the Committee’s survey of voters with disability (Inquiry into the conduct of the 2022 Victorian state election).
As discussed in Section 8.3, there is certainly scope for improving the VEC’s training materials. However, a number of voters’ negative experiences (as described in Section 8.2 of this chapter) do not seem to be the result of the quality and content of the training materials. Rather, they appear to reflect a gap between that guidance and its consistent application in practice.
For example, the Election official manual advises staff when dealing with voters that, ‘You can offer a person a pen and paper as an alternative method of communication’[30] and a pen and note paper are supposed to be supplied at issuing points.[31] However, one submitter with hearing loss reported: ‘When I told staff I had hearing loss, they weren’t sure how to communicate with me and didn’t have the right resources … There was no pen and paper’.[32]
Similarly, although training materials state that a voter may be accompanied by a support person in the voting compartment if needed, multiple submissions described instances where support people were questioned or made to feel that they were not permitted to assist.[33] As another example, Blind Citizens Australia reported staff not knowing how to guide blind people,[34] despite the Election official manual having specific instructions on how to do that.[35]
These experiences indicate that training is not always translated into practice. There may be several reasons for this.
Firstly, not all staff complete the training. The VEC reported that only 88% of election officials completed its general online training and only 90% of relevant staff completed the core values training for the 2022 state election.[36] As discussed in Section 8.3.1, an unspecified number of staff may also rely solely on a briefing provided at the start of their first shift.
Secondly, voting centre staff are required to understand a large volume of complex information on many different topics. The Election official manual is 81 pages long and only some of the information in it is covered by the online training. Voting centre staff are temporary employees, with many only working for one day. The unavoidably fast-paced and short-term nature of election employment and training limits opportunities for in-depth learning and reinforcement.
There may also be other factors that lead to this gap between training and practice. The Committee has not been able to investigate this issue in depth as part of this Inquiry.
Concerns about the VEC’s training have been raised previously by the Committee and by the independent evaluator of the VEC’s election delivery.[37] Surveys of election management teams have also identified improving the clarity of instructional products as one of the actions that would have been of the greatest help. Some also believed that additional targeted training would have helped.[38]
In 2024, the Committee recommended a review of the VEC’s training products and procedures by an independent expert, including the observation of staff in voting centres to identify areas where improvements are needed.[39] The VEC indicated that it supported this recommendation, though the VEC did not commit to including the observation of voting centre staff, stating only that it would ‘explore the possibility’.[40]
The VEC has indicated that improving training and upskilling staff are priorities for the 2026 state election,[41] with independent auditing of some material already having taken place.[42] The VEC has also taken steps to strengthen oversight, including the proposed development of new performance indicators for staff training and support.[43] However, the Committee believes that additional work is required to understand why the guidance is not always followed, whether through observation of voting centre staff or by other means.
The Committee considers that there are two other changes that would also help to ensure that services are delivered in an accessible way: designating some voting centre staff as ‘accessibility officers’ and ensuring that appropriate accessibility-first training is delivered to head office staff, as well as voting centre staff.
There is a gap between how the VEC trains and expects voting centre staff to act and how some staff perform their roles in practice. This may be related to not all staff completing the required training and to the volume of guidance that staff are expected to know. Further investigation would be required to understand whether these and/or other factors are the main reasons.
That, as part of evaluating the 2026 election, the VEC undertake research to understand why guidance in training is not always followed in practice and what can be done to reduce this at future elections.
8.4.1 Designated accessibility officers may help ensure that guidance is implemented
Given the large casual workforce and the complexity of their roles, training will always be a challenge for the VEC. The Committee considers that there may be value in designating at least one staff member at each voting centre as an ‘accessibility officer’. This role would involve targeted recruitment and/or additional training in how to identify and address barriers, support an inclusive environment and assist other staff in providing accessible services. The accessibility officer should be clearly identifiable so that staff and voters can seek assistance or raise accessibility needs.
This approach was suggested in a number of submissions to this Inquiry.[44] For example, one member of Women with Disabilities Victoria told the organisation:
It would be great if there was one or two clearly designated accessibility officers who can assist people with navigation, any questions they may have about the process, being able to reduce stress around what is happening, information on how to make the process more accessible etc. Adapting their style to work with the individual that is in front of them for example allowing processing time for those with communication needs, respecting when someone says that they don’t need help, asking how they can help rather than making assumptions or forcing help upon people.[45]
This role would complement, not replace, the need for all staff to be trained in universal access principles and how to support people with disability. It would recognise the importance of accessibility and the need for dedicated oversight. This officer would be a point of contact for staff and would ensure that accessible practices were taking place in the voting centre. All election officials should be sufficiently trained to assist in the first instance, but could call on the support of the accessibility officer for complex or exceptional requests.
The accessibility officer could also be a point of contact for people with disability or their support people, who may prefer to approach a designated person rather than other members of staff.
Submitters suggested having designated ‘accessibility officers’ in voting centres. These staff members could have responsibility for ensuring services are being delivered in an accessible way and could assist people with disability. This could help to ensure that the VEC’s guidance is being followed and that people with disability get the support they need.
That the VEC conduct a pilot program involving specially trained and clearly identifiable ‘accessibility officers’ present at multiple selected voting centres across various locations. These people would be points of contact for staff and would have responsibility for ensuring that accessible practices were being implemented. They could also be approached by voters or their support people seeking assistance or advice. The appointment of accessibility officers should not replace the need for all voting centre staff to be trained in supporting people with disability. As part of the pilot program, the VEC should establish mechanisms to evaluate whether the accessibility officers provided benefits to voters and staff, so that the VEC can assess whether the program should be rolled out on a larger scale or in each voting centre in future elections.
8.4.2 Head office staff need a good understanding of accessibility to ensure that it underpins all decision-making, process design, training and service delivery
Women with Disabilities Victoria noted the importance of training head office staff in disability inclusion.[46] The policies, systems and resources determined by head office will ultimately shape what voting centre staff do and the overall voter experience. Head office makes many decisions relating to accessibility, such as:
- the criteria used to select voting centres
- the number and type of accessibility tools provided to voting centres
- staffing levels
- systems and processes at voting centres
- training content.
Accessibility-first and universal design principles should underpin the decisions about these matters.
The Committee has not reviewed the VEC’s general staff training. However, the Committee encourages the VEC to ensure that all staff receive role-specific training on accessibility, including the three guiding principles set out by the Committee in Section 1.4. Embedding accessibility across the organisation would help staff proactively prevent, identify and remove barriers so that services are planned and delivered more inclusively.
Decisions made at head office determine how services are delivered in voting centres and the resources available to voting centre staff. It is important that these decisions are informed by a good understanding of accessibility and inclusivity.
That the VEC provide role-specific training for all staff, including head office staff, on accessibility, including the guiding principles set out by the Committee in Section 1.4 of this report.