Final report - Voting centre accessibility

The lived experience of people with disability is critical for understanding the barriers they encounter and what should be done to provide more accessible services.

That, in responding to and implementing the recommendations in this report, the VEC consult with its Electoral Access Advisory Group, Aboriginal Advisory Group and other stakeholders with lived experience.

A contemporary approach to accessibility builds accessibility into plans from the beginning, considers the whole journey of people using a service and takes account of the diversity of disability.

That the VEC develop a new approach to accessibility, guided by three principles:

• an accessibility-first approach, which involves designing systems (including voting centres) to be accessible by default wherever possible, rather than trying to add accessibility into systems that have been designed without accessibility in mind
• a whole-of-journey approach, which takes into account the entire experience of the voter, from finding out that an election is happening through to returning home after casting their vote
• understanding the diversity of disability, which includes visible and invisible disabilities, physical conditions, mental/behavioural disorders, psychosocial, cognitive, intellectual and sensory disability, and recognising that voters with disability may also have other characteristics that result in barriers to electoral participation.

It is important to recognise the diversity of people with disability, including the range of physical, psychosocial, intellectual, cognitive and sensory impairments, and the consequent barriers to participation. In addition, some disability is hidden and it may not be obvious from looking at a person that they are facing barriers.

Victorian and Commonwealth legislation contains a number of obligations regarding people with disability that are relevant to the VEC’s delivery of elections. These include ensuring that voting centres are accessible, that venues and processes do not discriminate and that reasonable adjustments are made for people with disability. Additional standards are set in the United Nations’ Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities which it would be appropriate for the VEC to take into account.

That the VEC conduct an audit of its policies, decisions and processes in relation to the obligations in legislation and the standards set in international agreements with respect to voters with disability. As part of this, the VEC should identify the barriers to accessibility that need to be removed and develop a short-, mid- and long-term implementation framework of actions to address them. This should be supported by relevant data to justify accessibility-related decision-making, and recommendations for legislative change if required.

Mobile voting involves VEC staff travelling to certain locations to allow people to vote in person at that location on a specific day. This can be valuable for some people with disability who find it difficult to travel to voting centres. Some stakeholders have called for mobile voting in more locations at future elections, including inpatient psychiatric units and prisons.

That the VEC identify opportunities to provide mobile voting at more prisons and inpatient psychiatric units in future elections.

That the Parliament refer an inquiry into prisoners’ access to voting and their access to the information needed for voting to the Electoral Matters Committee.

While any elector can apply to vote by post at a specific election, only people meeting certain criteria can become general postal voters (who are automatically sent postal votes at every election). Both the Victorian and Commonwealth electoral acts allow people who are seriously ill or infirm to become general postal voters. However, the Commonwealth act also allows people who cannot travel from their home to a voting centre because of disability or because they care for a person with disability. The difference between eligibility at the state and Commonwealth levels may cause confusion.

That the Victorian Government introduce legislation amending the Victorian Electoral Act so that the eligibility criteria for general postal voting match the criteria in the Commonwealth Electoral Act.

That the Victorian Government work with the Commonwealth Government to expand the eligibility for general postal voting at both the state and Commonwealth levels to include:

• any people with disability who may face barriers at a voting centre (including people with psychosocial disability)
• people who care for a person with disability who may face barriers at a voting centre.

Attending a voting centre can be the best option for some people with disability. This is because there are limitations to mobile, postal and telephone-assisted voting that result in them not meeting some people’s needs. In addition, there are certain benefits to attending a voting centre, such as access to support from voting centre staff and participation in shared civic rituals.

The VEC’s planning is supported by a number of documents, including a Disability education and engagement plan, which set out how the VEC will support people with disability. The VEC also seeks input from an Electoral Access Advisory Group, which consists of representatives from multiple organisations that support people with disability.

The VEC’s strategy and strategic plan for election infrastructure do not recognise accessibility as an obligation. Accessibility is also framed narrowly as physical accessibility, referenced only in relation to early voting centres and not identified at all as a location need for election-day voting centres.

As part of its assessment of venues for use as voting centres, the VEC relies on forms completed during site inspections. These forms include multiple criteria and are primarily completed with yes/no tick boxes, with some limited space for commentary. The accessibility criteria predominantly relate to wheelchair accessibility and leave out the needs of many people with disability. Some additional criteria are used to select low-sensory voting centres, but these criteria are not used to assess other venues.

The VEC’s continued reliance on wheelchair accessibility as the primary measure of accessibility is a systemic limitation in the VEC’s approach to accessibility. It fails to reflect the full range of barriers experienced by voters and does not adequately support inclusive venue selection or accurately reflect the lived experience of people with disability. The VEC is considering ways to expand its assessment of accessibility.

That the VEC comprehensively review and redevelop its venue accessibility audit process. The new audit process should reflect the full range of barriers and access requirements and include both qualitative and quantitative measures. The process should be based on an accessibility-first approach to venue selection, assessing all potential voting centres against a comprehensive set of accessibility requirements. The VEC should aim to have the highest possible number of voting centres meet the broadest range of accessibility criteria.

While the VEC applies several processes, tools and tasks when assessing venues, it does not have a formal, clearly articulated strategy for venue selection. The VEC’s reporting on the suitability of venue selection is restricted to the proportion of voting centres categorised as having independent or assisted wheelchair access.

That the VEC undertake a comprehensive review of its Election infrastructure location strategy and associated strategic plan and develop a new venue selection framework that recognises accessibility as an obligation, embeds the three guiding principles recommended by the Committee in Section 1.4 of this report and identifies accessibility as a need for both early voting centres and election-day voting centres. Key elements of the framework should include:

• the relevant legislative obligations and policy commitments
• clear and specific accessibility objectives that prioritise equal participation for all voters including acknowledging, identifying and addressing the barriers people with disability may encounter
• criteria for venue selection grounded in universal design principles that include more than just access for people with mobility impairments
• a uniform and justifiable process for venue selection, with criteria that enable the selection of venues that may not meet all aspects of universal accessibility, but are appropriate as a way to address a wider range of accessibility barriers and other operational considerations
• a decision-making process that requires evidence that any limitations to accessibility could not reasonably be avoided
• a process to continuously review and refine processes based on performance, feedback and accessibility outcomes.

That, following each election, the VEC report against a comprehensive set of performance measures that assess the overall suitability of early voting centres and election-day voting centres for a range of users.

The VEC has previously struggled to find suitable accessible venues to use as early voting centres. Despite this, the VEC plans to increase the number of early voting centres at the 2026 election and to increase the proportion of early voting centres classified as ‘independent wheelchair access’.

The VEC has recommended legislative change to require publicly funded venues to be made available for use as early voting centres. This would increase the number of accessible venues which could be considered. Research-based evidence identifying specific venues that would be suitable but are currently not available to the VEC would strengthen the VEC’s recommendation.

That the VEC undertake research to identify specific publicly funded venues that may be suitable for use as early voting centres but are not currently available. In determining the venues, the VEC should take into account the full breadth of accessibility and not just wheelchair access. The VEC should provide a list of these venues to the Government and this Committee, in support of the previously recommended legislative change, together with the reasons these venues cannot currently be accessed.

The Government is currently planning infrastructure projects across the state which are required to follow universal design principles. Where practicable, accessible venues could be included within these projects which could be used as voting centres and community facilities.

That the Government develop and fund a strategic program to incorporate purpose-built, universally accessible spaces suitable for use as voting centres into government infrastructure projects where practicable, affordable and where there are no similar facilities in the vicinity. These facilities could be used as early voting centres and election-day voting centres during election periods and for broader community purposes at other times.

The VEC will establish a low-sensory voting centre in each district at the 2026 election. These voting centres will benefit people with sensory sensitivities by providing a less overwhelming environment. However, the low-sensory voting centres will only be open on the day before early voting commences. As a result, people wanting low-sensory voting will be restricted in terms of when they can vote and would need to vote before all policies are available from parties and candidates.

That the VEC expand its trial of low-sensory voting at the 2026 election to include at least three different sessions across the voting period.

Low-sensory voting was developed by the VEC to support neurodivergent people. However, the Committee was informed that it would benefit a broader range of people who have sensory sensitivities or would benefit from a quieter, calmer environment.

That the VEC explicitly expand low-sensory voting to a broader range of voters who may benefit, including people with psychosocial, cognitive and neurodegenerative conditions, older voters and voters with support people. The VEC should clearly advertise the service as open to any person who would benefit from a low-sensory environment and target communications to a wider range of groups. This should include renaming it ‘low-sensory and inclusive voting’.

That the VEC provide staff at low-sensory and inclusive voting centres with additional training in how to support voters with dementia, vision impairment, psychosocial disability and other relevant disabilities, as well as neurodivergence.

The VEC does not currently assess all potential voting centre venues for barriers to people with sensory sensitivity. As a result, the VEC may be missing opportunities to reduce barriers when selecting voting centres. This approach may also be unnecessarily restricting some voters to using designated low-sensory voting centres on a specific day, rather than giving them more options.

That, as part of implementing an accessibility-first approach, the VEC assess all potential early and election-day voting centre venues against a comprehensive, multi-dimensional universal accessibility audit, including all low-sensory criteria. Information about which venues meet low-sensory criteria should be published, giving voters options to determine which voting centre will be most appropriate for them.

That the VEC look for ways to incorporate low-sensory features more generally into voting centres, including by looking at the approaches that other electoral bodies have undertaken, considering ideas presented as part of this Inquiry and considering input from the VEC’s stakeholders.

Public transport proximity, frequency and accessibility (including paths between the nearest stops and the voting centre) do not always meet the needs of voters, campaigners and scrutineers.

That the VEC include proximity to high-frequency public transport, proximity to accessible public transport stops and unobstructed paths from public transport stops to a venue into its voting centre venue assessment criteria.

That the VEC, the Government and public transport service providers work together to ensure sufficient public transport services are available during the election period to meet the needs of voters, election staff, campaigners and scrutineers. This could include extra services and free public transport on voting days.

A clear, safe approach to a voting centre is essential. This includes all paths of travel from public transport stops, parking and drop-off points to the entry/exit of the voting centre. Conditions associated with the approach, entry and exit of voting centres can compromise accessibility and pose barriers to participation.

That the VEC provide drop-off zones at voting centres wherever possible to assist voters who do not have accessible parking permits and for when allocated accessible car spaces are insufficient. Drop-off zones should be safe, have accessible paths to the entrance of voting centres and have sheltered seating where possible.

The activity of candidates and campaigners at the entrance to voting centres can deter and prevent people from participating in elections, especially people with sensory sensitivities, psychosocial conditions, neurodegenerative conditions or cognitive impairments.

Legislation currently provides the VEC with limited powers to exclude or control campaigners at voting centres. The Committee has previously recommended legislative change to allow the VEC to apply an extended campaigning exclusion zone at specified voting centres and for specified times to facilitate low-sensory voting.

Waiting for long periods in queues can make voting centres inaccessible for some people with disability. The VEC currently manages this through designating people as queue controllers at busy voting centres, whom people can ask for assistance, training these people to look for voters who might have difficulty standing and providing signage indicating that people can ask for help.

That the VEC work with relevant stakeholders to formally review and evaluate its queue management approach for people with disability. This should include:

• ensuring that training recognises that people with hidden disability may have difficulty standing in queues
• training staff not to rely solely on spoken instructions for people in queues
• developing protocols for establishing fast-track queue lanes
• identifying alternative options for supporting people, including publishing real-time data about queue lengths at each voting centre
• ensuring that seats are available at voting centres for people who have difficulty standing in queues or who require rest before moving to the next stage of voting.

The Electoral Act allows the VEC to bring ballot papers to people outside voting centres (for example, in their cars) where they are physically incapable of entering the voting centre. However, the VEC has chosen not to communicate this option to voters because access to the service depends heavily on local conditions and the discretion of individual voting centre managers. In other states, in-car voting is advertised and facilitated by electoral commissions.

That the VEC revise its approach to voting outside voting centres, including:

• informing voters about the option
• providing a way for voters to request the service without leaving their car, such as advertising a phone number in car parking areas or enabling voters to pre-book the service
• communicating which voting centres are able to offer the service and which ones are not.

That the Government introduce an amendment to the Electoral Act extending the eligibility for voting outside voting centres to any person with disability who may face barriers to entering a voting centre.

Takeaway voting is offered in New Zealand, in which a voter or another person on their behalf can provide a form at a voting centre during the voting period and receive a ballot pack, which is taken away and returned to the voting centre later. This is similar to postal voting, but provides a faster turnaround and provides an option for people who missed the deadline for postal voting.

That the VEC review the benefits and practicability of providing takeaway voting in Victoria, as is provided in New Zealand. Following this review, the VEC should make any appropriate recommendations to the Parliament, including for legislative change if required.

Voting centre managers are currently instructed to place voting compartments along one or two walls of a voting centre. They are instructed to set up low-level or table-top compartments in line with the other compartments, with two chairs, plus a magnifier and large pencil attached to table-top compartments. This may not allow sufficient space for voters using mobility aids, being guided or being accompanied by a support person. It also may not provide privacy for voters who need to talk with a support person. It is also important that accessibility tools are not restricted to table-top compartments.

That the VEC work with relevant stakeholders to formally review and evaluate its voting compartment protocols. This should include identifying layouts that:

• are adequate for people using mobility aids, people who are guided by a dog or human and people accompanied by a support person
• meet the privacy needs of people who need to talk with support people while voting.

That the VEC ensure that accessibility tools such as magnifiers and large-grip pencils are available at all issuing tables and/or at each voting compartment and are not restricted to table-top voting compartments. This could include providing large-grip pencils as the default pencil in all booths at all voting centres.

Multiple stakeholders have raised concerns about a lack of wayfinding signage outside voting centres. In addition, key information is frequently only provided inside the voting centre, a practice that does not support preparedness and informed decision-making. In some cases, information appears to only be provided on one sign, which means that it may not be seen when it is needed.

That the VEC work with relevant stakeholders to formally review and evaluate what signage is provided to voting centres and the directions for how it should be placed. This should include:

• the number of each type of sign to be provided to voting centres
• the instructions for voting centre managers about where to locate signs
• what signs should be placed inside the voting centre and what should be placed outside the voting centre, taking a whole-of-journey approach
• what signs are necessary to provide clear messaging for people with disability about what support and accessibility tools are available
• the formatting of signs (including font, font size and colours) to ensure that they are as accessible as possible.

Voting centre staff have to make a range of decisions about how a voting centre operates. These decisions affect how accessible the voting centre is for people with disability. In some cases, adjustments for people with disability are delivered on a discretionary, case-by-case basis. Barriers to accessibility can arise from reliance on ad hoc decisions rather than consistent procedures and guidelines.

That the VEC provide clear and consistent operational guidance across all training modules, manuals and guides regarding the importance of accessibility and how to operate voting centres in the most accessible way. Reliance on discretionary decision-making should be minimised. Where discretionary decision-making is needed, it should be supported by clear, consistent guidelines based on an understanding that providing services in an accessible way is a legal obligation.

In addition to its standard voting compartments, the VEC provides low-level voting compartments and table-top voting screens to enable voters to use a chair or wheelchair when filling out ballot papers. The Committee was told that some voters with disability had to wait to use these compartments as there was sometimes only one in a voting centre and they were not labelled to prioritise their use by people with disability. Stakeholders also raised concerns about voting compartments not being wide enough to include a support person.

That the VEC review its voting compartment designs to ensure that they align with universal design principles, benefit the widest possible range of voters and reduce reliance on voters self-identifying or requesting assistance. Among other matters, the VEC should ensure that voting compartments are accessible by people using a range of mobility devices, have sufficient space for a support person and are visually distinguishable.

That the VEC review the number of low-level voting compartments and table-top voting screens provided to voting centres to ensure that they are provided in sufficient numbers to reduce waiting times for people with
disability.

Although VEC manuals note the importance of seating for some voters, submitters have reported that seating has not been available in some voting centres. Guidance on the provision of seating within voting centres relies heavily on discretionary judgement by voting centre managers and staff and the VEC generally only provides one or two chairs to a voting centre for voters to use.

That the VEC review its processes to ensure sufficient seating is consistently available at all voting centres, including through the introduction of minimum standards for the provision of chairs. Processes and training should ensure that seating is available by default in queues, within some voting compartments and in clearly marked rest areas accessible to voters before and after voting.

Accessibility tools are supplied to voting centres in limited numbers. While they are technically available, they are not automatically offered, visibly available or adequately signposted. They may be attached to one or more compartments or provided on request, rather than as standard-issue equipment at every compartment, visibly available at issuing tables or placed at convenient locations.

That the VEC review the number of accessibility tools that are supplied to each voting centre to ensure that they are supplied in sufficient quantities.

That the VEC review its processes for supplying accessibility tools to voters, including ensuring that staff know what tools are available, that available tools are advertised in voting centres so that people know to ask for them or look for them and that tools are available for voters to help themselves where practical. The VEC should also supply low-cost, easily used accessibility tools in every voting compartment.

Assistive listening systems make it easier for people with hearing loss to hear. They are currently only offered by the VEC at early voting centres and low-sensory voting centres.

That the VEC make assistive listening systems available in as many voting centres as practicable, advertising those places that have these systems available. This may be as simple as keeping them in use at early voting centres when they are subsequently used as election-day voting centres, or redistributing equipment to nearby election-day voting centres.

The VEC offered an Auslan interpreting service at the 2022 state election, though the usage was lower than the VEC expected. The VEC attributes this primarily to insufficient promotion and has committed to considering improved promotion in future elections. However, the VEC does not appear to have factored improved promotion into its planning. It is also not clear that a lack of promotion is the reason for the low usage.

Although other commissions supply text-to-speech pens at selected voting centres, the VEC has not offered this technology. Instead, voters who have difficulty reading voting instructions and ballot papers must rely on magnifying sheets, assistance from another person or supplying their own devices.

That the VEC investigate and trial the introduction of assistive reading technology, including text-to-speech pens, accompanied by measures to avoid exposing votes through audio, as part of in-person voting.

Pencils can be difficult for some voters to use and pencil writing can be difficult for some voters to read. This can increase the likelihood of errors or force people to seek assistance to complete their ballot papers. If voters want to use a pen or marker, they are expected to bring their own.

That the VEC supply a range of marking options (including pens and ergonomically adapted writing tools) at voting centres for voters who face difficulties when using pencils.

The VEC developed the Voters Voice app for the 2018 election. The app included an electronic communication board that voters could download to their device and use at any voting centre. This facilitated people with communication difficulties communicating with voting centre staff by pressing buttons to select key phrases and responses and by allowing users to type information into the app. The app was developed in response to feedback from the VEC’s Electoral Access Advisory Group and co-designed with external disability groups. Despite generally positive feedback from users, the VEC discontinued the Voters Voice app. Some features of the app are available on the VEC’s website. However, the communication board is not.

Communication boards, when co-designed, tested and maintained, are potentially a low-cost and low-risk way of supporting a wide range of communication needs. They are used in a variety of other sectors. They are consistent with universal design principles, as they do not require voters to self-identify or explain their disability and they reduce reliance on voters supplying their own supports.

That the VEC work with relevant stakeholders to develop communication boards for use in voting centres. Paper-based communication boards should be supplied to all voting centres, including early voting and election-day locations, in sufficient quantities to have them available at each point of contact between staff and voters.

Electronic voting on kiosks in voting centres would potentially provide a way for some people with disability to vote independently, privately and on an equal basis with others. However, trials between 2006 and 2014 found that few people used the service and it was not offered by the VEC at the 2018 and 2022 elections. Electronic voting also involves a number of integrity, cost and technical issues that are beyond the scope of this Inquiry.

That the VEC and Government regularly review developments in electronic voting to assess whether it should be offered to people with disability. These reviews should examine technical developments, the potential benefits to people with disability, integrity concerns and costs.

Evidence indicates that some people with disability do not have access to information about their voting options, about how to vote and about their candidates. This makes it difficult for them to choose the method of voting best suited to them and to make informed and accurate votes.

Stakeholders and the Committee’s analysis identified a number of limitations in the information materials produced by the VEC for people with disability. To reduce or remove barriers for people with disability, the VEC should produce information in a variety of formats, including plain English, Easy English, large print, video, Auslan, braille, audio and digital products that are compatible with screen readers.

That the VEC review all of its information products for people with disability to ensure that they are available in an appropriate range of accessible formats and that they are complete, accurate and effectively support full participation. Going forward, the VEC should continually monitor the usage of its products to identify where changes are needed.

People with disability may also face barriers to electoral participation related to other factors, such as age, cultural background and gender. Information products should be designed with these factors in mind, as well as needs relating to disability.

That, in developing information products and programs for people with disability, the VEC consult not only with disability advocacy groups but also with other groups (such as cultural and age-related groups) so that the needs of people with disability who also face other barriers to electoral participation can be taken into account.

The VEC has stated that it will post a printed EasyVote guide to every household in Victoria with electors at the 2026 election. This guide will include information about the election, including different ways of voting and wheelchair accessibility ratings for voting centres. The Committee welcomes the VEC’s return to mailing this guide. Adding some additional information about voting centres would help electors better understand their options.

That EasyVote guides at future elections include more details about accessibility at voting centres, including accessibility ratings for every voting centre in the district that cover more than just wheelchair access, details of the accessibility tools available at every voting centre and the fact that virtual Auslan interpreting is available.

To inform voters about the accessibility of voting centres, the VEC currently groups all voting centres into one of three categories—‘independent wheelchair access’, ‘assisted wheelchair access’ or ‘limited or no wheelchair access’. This categorisation is currently the only information published about the features of each voting centre.

That the VEC create a searchable online database of voting centres which allows users to select the accessibility criteria that matter to them and then returns a list of voting centres that meet those criteria. The database should be accessible via the VEC’s website. The VEC should also make the information available through an app.

That the VEC record data about which accessibility criteria are selected by people using the searchable online database to help understand what criteria are most frequently required by voters.

That the VEC work with its Electoral Access Advisory Group to develop a new system for displaying information about the accessibility of voting centres in static lists on webpages, in EasyVote guides and in other printed material. This new system should provide more details than the current three categories of wheelchair access.

Some stakeholders have indicated that more could be done to let voters know about support that is available from VEC staff at voting centres and about the accessibility tools provided. The Committee’s analysis showed that what information is provided about assistance from staff, accessibility tools and virtual Auslan interpreting varies between products and is not always provided together in one place. At times, inaccurate information about options for people with disability has also been published on the VEC’s website.

That the VEC examine its communication products to look for more opportunities to let people know about the availability of assistance from staff at voting centres, accessibility tools at voting centres and virtual Auslan interpreting. These should all be mentioned in the EasyVote guide and on the webpage that lists different voting options.

That the VEC review its processes for checking website content to prevent inaccurate information about accessibility options (and other matters) from appearing on its website in the future.

Many voters would benefit from additional information about what happens at a voting centre. The VEC intends to produce a small number of access keys or social scripts for the 2026 election. It will be important to evaluate these documents and their effectiveness to understand whether this approach should be modified in the future.

Information about where voting centres are and what features they have is essential for some people with disability to decide how to vote. As some people with disability may need time to organise support, transport or alternative arrangements, this information should be published as early as possible.

That the VEC publish information about the locations of voting centres and details about their accessibility features as early as possible, so that people have time to organise support or alternative arrangements if needed.

Some voters are not getting the information they need about candidates and parties in accessible formats. This limits their ability to make informed decisions when voting. The Committee has previously recommended further work to identify the best way to make this information readily available.

Some voters would benefit from having information available in voting centres about how to vote in Easy English, Easy Read or a similar format.

That the VEC make information about how to fill out ballot papers in Easy English, Easy Read or a similar format available to voters in voting centres. This may be with posters, information in voting compartments or brochures handed out by the staff giving people ballot papers. Printed versions of these resources should be available, not just online versions.

Some submitters suggested that being able to register their support needs online before voting would assist with communicating their needs to voting centre staff. It could also provide more privacy for voters who do not wish to explain their needs out loud.

That the VEC explore whether it would be practical and beneficial to establish a system where voters with disability could register their needs online before voting, so that voting centre staff can be notified of the voters’ needs when they get to a voting centre.

In the United Kingdom, ‘voting passports’ have been developed. These are documents that can be downloaded and printed, which voters can fill out to indicate any support they need and who they would like to provide the support. They typically include lists of available support to help voters know what is possible, along with a form for voters to indicate what supports they need. Some also include details about voters’ rights. The filled-out passports can be shown to staff to communicate a voter’s needs in the voting centre.

Voting passports may be helpful to voters with disability by illustrating the kinds of support they can ask for, giving them time to think about what help they want, making it easier for them to communicate their needs to voting centre staff and providing a more private way to communicate their needs.

That the VEC develop ‘voting passports’ using the examples developed in the United Kingdom as a model. They should include fields for the voter to add their name, address and any support that they need at a voting centre. They should also include lists of the accessibility tools and support available at voting centres that voters can select, so that there is more awareness of what is available and to facilitate it being provided. The voting passports should be published on the Commission’s website. Voters should be able to fill them in online or print them and fill them in by hand. Voters should then be able to save digital versions to a portable device or print them and bring printed or digital copies to show staff at voting centres. A supply of printed copies should also be kept in every voting centre for voters who may need them. Staff should be trained in how to respond when presented with a voting passport.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

The VEC’s Monitoring and evaluation plan for the 2025–2027 VEC education and engagement plans contains 34 evaluation questions with associated performance measures. These are used to assess the effectiveness of the VEC’s efforts to improve inclusivity in elections, including the Disability education and engagement plan and the Electoral Access Advisory Group. The measures look at a variety of aspects, including processes, effectiveness and outcomes. However, some measures are limited in their breadth or not quantified. There are also additional measures which should be added to more fully evaluate the VEC’s efforts.

It is important for both new initiatives and ongoing practices to be monitored and reported on. Monitoring should be sufficiently detailed to enable proper evaluation, identifying whether or not the VEC is meeting the needs of people with disability and, if not, what should be done differently in future elections.

The Disability education and engagement plan sets out goals, objectives and actions for the VEC with respect to people with disability. However, many of its actions are defined at a high level, leading to a lack of clarity about what the VEC intends to do. In addition, measures and targets are not included in the plan, but in a separate document which is not published. There is also scope for additional measures and additional transparency about the VEC’s progress.

That the VEC change the way that it produces plans like the Disability education and engagement plan, with future plans:

• being more specific about what actions are planned
• including performance measures and targets in the plan from the beginning
• using all the relevant data that it collects to measure and report on activity
• including all commitments related to the topic.

That the VEC report comprehensively on plans such as the Disability education and engagement plan, including:

• reporting on all performance measures as part of progress reports
• comparing results to targets when reporting and explaining discrepancies
• publishing final evaluation reports on the VEC’s website at the end of a plan’s timeframe.

A dedicated accessibility performance report after each election would provide an opportunity for the VEC to report on the voting experience for people with disability from a whole-of-journey perspective and identify areas for future improvement.

That the VEC include a dedicated accessibility performance report in each report to Parliament on an election. The accessibility performance report should include:

• an analysis of voting for people with disability from a whole-of-journey perspective
• reporting on efforts to remove a variety of barriers, including physical, sensory and communication-based (not just barriers to wheelchair use)
• reporting on complaints related to accessibility for people with disability and any actions taken in response
• reporting on the suitability of voting centres and whether sufficient information was provided to voters
• evaluations of any new initiatives
• evaluations of ongoing practices
• details of what plans and initiatives were shaped by input from the Electoral Access Advisory Group and how the group contributed
• analyses from an intersectional approach to evaluate services for people with disability who also face other barriers (such as different cultural backgrounds, age, living in remote areas, limited English language skills, gender and imprisonment).

After each election, the VEC commissions an independent evaluation of its election services through a survey of voters and candidates. This survey asks a number of questions about services for people with disability. Additional questions could be asked to understand more about how satisfied people with disability are with the VEC’s new initiatives and ongoing practices.

That the VEC expand the number of questions asked in the post-election survey to evaluate new initiatives for people with disability and to understand the level of satisfaction of people with disability with ongoing practices. Particular focus should be given to the topics noted in Section 9.3 of this report.

Although the 2022 post-election evaluation commissioned by the VEC included a question about whether respondents had any physical disability, the answers to the survey questions for this group were not separately analysed or reported. Respondents were not asked about mental or cognitive disability.

That the VEC have questions added to the post-election survey about respondents’ disabilities and broaden the definition of disability to include mental, cognitive, psychosocial and neurodevelopmental disability (such as disability associated with anxiety disorders, neurodivergence or dementia) as well as physical disability.

That the VEC analyse the data from its post-election surveys to better understand the experience of people with disability and their satisfaction with election services. Additional analyses should be conducted to understand intersectional issues where the results are statistically meaningful.