CHIPMAN, Mr Doug, Private capacity HORTLE, Dr Robert, Private capacity JOHNSON, Dr Lachlan, Private capacity CHAIR: Welcome. Do you have any comments on the capacity in which you appear before the committee? Dr Johnson : Our small team is the Tasmanian Policy Exchange at the University of Tasmania. Dr Hortle : I'm a deputy director of the Tasmanian Policy Exchange, but we're all appearing in our individual capacities rather than representing the University of Tasmania. Mr Chipman : I'm also part of the Tasmanian Policy Exchange team as a PhD candidate. CHAIR: Although the committee does not require you all to give evidence under oath, I should advise you that this hearing is a legal proceeding of the parliament and therefore has the same standing as proceedings of the respective houses. The giving of false or misleading evidence is a serious matter and may be regarded as a contempt of parliament. The evidence given today will be recorded by Hansard and attracts parliamentary privilege. I now invite you to each make a brief opening statement before we proceed to discussion. Dr Hortle : I'll kick off very briefly by talking about the importance of fixed term parliaments, which is something that I'm sure you've heard about in other places but something that we want to reiterate support for. Of course, Tasmania and the Commonwealth are now the only jurisdictions in Australia that don't have fixed parliamentary terms. On the advantages of fixing terms, it means that governments know how long they have to implement their agenda and provides greater business confidence because business has an understanding of how long a government has in its term. Similarly, for the Public Service, it aids their ability to plan without fear of sudden change. Parliamentary committees, of course, can carry out their inquiries without untimely interruptions, and it's very beneficial for electoral administrators not to have to organise snap elections. Finally, a sometimes overlooked point is that fixed term parliaments create an important degree of equity for minor-party and independent candidates. Because these are often the candidates that don't have the resources of the major parties, they need longer to prepare their campaigns. For example, at a state level, in the 2024 Tasmanian snap election we saw a quite a decent chunk of independent candidates who'd been planning to run but, when the election was brought forward so rapidly, were in no position to do so. So there's an interesting democratic narrowing there. Of course, there are some disadvantages. We could get stuck with an unworkable parliament, but we don't believe that is an insurmountable issue. There are various provisions for dissolving a parliament if things become unworkable that can be put in place. There's also an argument that fixed term parliaments can prevent governments from testing the appetite for a major reform. For example, Howard called the early election to test the GST. They were the main things I wanted to put forward. Dr Johnson : Thanks very much for having me and all of us. It's a real pleasure to be here, and hopefully we can help the committee today. I will briefly run through a couple of issues that I had in mind, and then we can have either a broader discussion or specific questions about those. The things I was interested in particular—and I understand you've been looking at these already—are misinformation and disinformation questions, particularly this issue around truth in political advertising legislation. I know that is something that's come before the committee already. Personally, I'm quite sceptical that truth in political advertising laws achieve the things that they set out to achieve and satisfy the desires of the people who advocate for them. It's a kind of legislation where, generally, the problems that people imagine it will solve aren't the kinds of things that it can do. I think these laws usually don't achieve what people hope they will. Partly this is because there's a very, very high bar to achieve a conviction or an outcome under these laws, and also the penalties are usually quite low as well. There's not a huge disincentive. In South Australia it's something like $5,000 for individuals and $20,000 for parties, so it's not an enormous financial disincentive. Usually, when these things come up, the kind of text that we talk about is something like the South Australian legislation. The act refers to 'a person who authorises or permits the publication of an electoral advertisement that contains a statement purporting to be a statement of fact that is inaccurate and misleading to a material extent'. There are a huge number of ways that the vast majority of political communications that people worry about fall well short of that standard. Very little political communication misleads to a material extent. It can only be in the context of a formal, endorsed, authorised electoral advertisement. It has to be a statement purporting to be a statement of fact, not an opinion or a prediction. The kinds of statements that people raise in discussions about TIPA laws are almost never the kinds of things that would be justiciable under that legislation. We can come back to some of the other issues with those. My other interest, noting that it would also be great to discuss the size and composition of parliament, is whether there's a case for particular special interest electorates—rather than expanding the size of the parliament drastically, having electorates, not unlike they do in New Zealand or local government, for particular groups and, in particular, Indigenous Australians. In New Zealand, local governments and many councils have Maori wards. I think that there's an interesting case to be made for a similar structure in our Commonwealth parliament here. My final one is probably pushing the boundaries of the terms of reference a little bit, but— CHAIR: Don't forget, we've got one that says 'and all other matters'. Dr Johnson : All other matters—great! This is another matter: gambling and, particularly, prediction markets in elections. There was a bit of interesting engagement in prediction markets at the 2025 election. Potentially, that could be read as a bit of a watershed. The 2024 election in the United States was the same. There was several million dollars in the market for who would actually win the election. Of much bigger concern, I think, are smaller and more niche prediction markets about particular activities, statements and behaviours that politicians might or might not make that really open themselves to concerning abuse and can distort people's behaviour in electoral campaigns. I think it'd be really interesting to touch on that as well. There are these issues because of the fact that small or thin prediction markets can be very easily distorted, and that can change people's perception of the probabilities or likelihoods of outcomes relative to other measures like opinion polling. But there is probably this much more concerning issue of prediction markets about, 'will X candidate use such and such a word in their speech?' which can be very tempting to abuse. We've seen a lot of cases in the United States, for example, where congress people, members of state assemblies, election officials, public officials and public servants have been fined or booted off these platforms for abusing prediction markets and trying to make money by manipulating prediction markets. I think it would be naive to think that's either not happening here or won't be a big issue in the near future. That's probably more than three minutes. Sorry, Doug. Mr Chipman : That's okay. I'll take advantage of the 'other matters' part of your remit—it applies to your standing remit, certainly. My first concern is about communities of interest during electoral redistributions. By way of background, I made a submission to the most recent Redistribution Committee for Tasmania, for a radical redistribution, which was largely adopted, which I was delighted to see. I thought I'd share with you some of the underlying principles behind those arguments. Section 73 of the Electoral Act rightly requires the distribution committees to consider communities of interest alongside numerical quality and geographic area. One important expression of a community identity is a local government area. That's not specifically mentioned, although civic participation is one of the criteria that comes up in the act. I'm not suggesting that council boundaries should override the principle of electoral equality. Rather, the committee may wish to consider that, wherever practicable, maintaining the integrity of local government areas is very important as a consideration in designing federal electoral boundaries. I was very pleased to see that the most recent distribution in Tasmania has resulted in every single local government area in Tasmania—lock, stock and barrel—in one federal electoral division. I think that has enormous advantages for representation and for building relationships between, for example, local civic officials, mayors, councillors and the federal representative. In many ways, local government areas are very much a partner with federal government in terms of delivering programs. To be able to achieve that outcome, certainly, is very powerful in that sense. The second observation concerns the naming of electoral divisions. The principles governing electorate names have evolved over many years and have successfully recognised distinguished Australians as well as Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander names. I believe there's now an opportunity to broaden those principles further, by recognising Aboriginal nations as a legitimate source of electorate names where that would provide a stronger historical and cultural connection with the electorates. For example, for the new electorate in south-eastern Tasmania, I proposed that the name Paredarerne be adopted, because that's the name of the Aboriginal nation, that Oyster Bay nation, that largely shared the boundaries of the new electorate. It would have been a very neat connection, I think, to have named it that way. This proposal would not replace existing naming conventions. Rather, it would complement them by acknowledging that enduring communities and peoples can also provide appropriate and commemorative identities for the electoral divisions. Both suggestions seek to strengthen the relationship between Australia's electoral framework and the communities they represent. CHAIR: Thanks very much for your evidence. I had a question in regard to the fixed term. To clarify, are you proposing a three-year fixed term or a four-year fixed term? Dr Hortle : Ideally, a four-year fixed term would be great, but I understand that would need a referendum, because the three-year term is mandated. Three-year fixed terms, as an intermediate stage, would be a good start. CHAIR: That would be done through legislation, but still with the provisions of the governor-general, and if there's no Constitutional change—you're setting it as a guide, which I think is evidence we've received, where the prime minister can still call an early election, but it would be— Dr Hortle : It sounds like you're talking about something a bit like the WA model. They have a default election date within their four-year period. Technically, the premier can still call an election within that period when they want to, but it's an important signalling device. I don't think they've had an early election since that provision was brought in. CHAIR: You're suggesting a similar model for a three-year term, but ideally four years; why four years over three years? Dr Hortle : Four years is the standard across Australian states at the moment. Three years is one of the shorter electoral terms that we would see globally; the UK has five years, of course. Three years is pretty rapid for the federal level where, often, the policy programs that we're trying to implement are really large-scale, national and systemic. It's important for voters to have a bit more of a chance to see those things play out before they are asked to come back to the polls and have a verdict on them. CHAIR: Do you think Australians have the appetite for another referendum? Dr Hortle : No, not at the moment. CHAIR: Did anyone have any questions on fixed terms? Dr RYAN: I do, if I may. Thanks for your time. What's your suggestion, regarding fixed terms, about how we deal with the nexus between the House and the Senate? Senator COLBECK: [inaudible] Reps member who'd asked that question! Dr Hortle : That's probably one I'd have to take on notice to look at models from elsewhere. Dr Johnson : It does pose big challenges having to, potentially, stagger House and Senate elections. Obviously, this is something that has happened in Australia in the past. We haven't always had House and Senate elections aligned. It's probably too much to call it a risk of Constitutional crisis, but the way that our House and Senate elections work currently—without a fixed term, even on the three-year term—does pose a bit of a risk in situations where a House and Senate are elected and the House needs to go to an election earlier, or we have a normal election where half of the Senate is re-elected but then, in the interim between the House term and the fixed Senate term, there's a double-dissolution trigger. There are potential risks of having two duly elected Senates and not knowing which to seat. It's maybe less of a Constitutional issue than a political and representational issue, in that sort of situation. I think having a fixed term in the House could help resolve some of those risks as well. Senator CAROL BROWN: To clarify, have you turned your mind to terms for senators being eight years? Dr Johnson : No, sorry. This is still within a three-year cycle. CHAIR: I think that was the question—do you think there's appetite for senators to have an eight-year term? I think that's the case in New South Wales on four-year fixed terms. Their upper house has eight years. Senator COLBECK: Canada has eight. Dr Johnson : To me, instinctively it feels too long. Like Rob, I'd have to check whether there's a strong political science literature on the impact of an eight-year term on churn and that sort of thing, but I feel that eight years is probably a bit much. Senator COLBECK: The issue comes back effectively doing a double D and removing the cyclical process of a half-Senate election. You're removing that element of the Constitution on the formation and structure of the Senate and the way it works by going to a four-year term the same way the House does. We were talking earlier in the day about the quota required for the election of a senator. It really does change that dynamic significantly in terms of an electoral process if it's done on a full cycle. As a senator, I'm cognisant of the point that's being made with respect to an eight-year term versus a six-year term. However, Canada is probably the example in that sense where they do have eight-year terms, seemingly without too much of a hassle. It does change the dynamic of the electoral process quite significantly if you take away that half-Senate election. If there are 12 or however many senators depending on the nexus provisions, and if we're talking about increasing the size of the parliament as well, which is also part of the remit, we'll have to increase the size of the Senate accordingly—unless you remove the nexus provision. That goes to your point about a referendum. You're talking about a really major upheaval in the way the electoral system works, and so the possibility of that occurring becomes, I think, really quite difficult. We had a suggestion this morning of 18 senators. The quota for that would be very small. I think it would be a very interesting parliament to be a part of. If you're electing 18 senators from each state as part of a process, it would really change the dynamic of the parliament and possibly even work against—I'm giving my own evidence now—the intent of a four-year term because of getting things done. We see that here in Tassie, where you've got a much lower quota required to get representation in the lower house and the diversity that that demonstrates in the way our parliament currently sits. I'm curious to hear your reaction to all of those sorts of things. Dr Hortle : I have a couple of quick things to say. In my view, a diversity in parliament is a good thing. I know it poses challenges in terms of passing legislation, but it's something we talk about in Tassie a lot with the distinct trend towards minority government at the moment. Minority government isn't in and of itself inherently a bad thing. It's how it's approached as a parliament. There are plenty of examples globally of a parliamentary culture that is used to minority governments and that therefore focuses more on collaborating across party lines and so on, whereas, particularly in Tassie, we have quite a polarised system at the moment. The two major parties are much less willing to work with the crossbench. and that makes minority government much more difficult—that's a side note. I have something else to say on the eight years— Senator CAROL BROWN: I thought the Tasmanian government was a minority government working with the crossbench. Dr Hortle : Well, sort of! I could go on about Tassie politics all day, but I know your remit is more federal. In terms of the eight-year terms for the Senate, it's not necessarily something I have an answer to, but an interesting point—and I could get the stats for this at some point if you want—is that there is a trend towards people leaving the Senate early, more so than there used to be. So we do have an increasing number of casual vacancy appointments in the Senate. I don't know if that says something about contemporary politics and people not wanting to be in one job for as long, for example. Senator COLBECK: The average term for a senator, I think, across the entire parliamentary time is about 6½ years. There are some of us who've been around awhile, but there are also quite a few who haven't, if you look at the average term as a bit over 6½ years. Dr Hortle : We are seeing a gentle uptick in casual vacancy appointments, though. If that were to continue, we'd, at the very extreme of it, be at risk of ending up with a more appointed House than a voted one. It's just something to add into the discussion about the length of a Senate term. CHAIR: From my research, I think one of the main arguments against fixed terms at the '84 referendum was the eight-year Senate term. But, having said that, since then obviously the states have brought it in, and those states that do have an upper house have managed that well. Did you have a question, Senator Brown? Senator CAROL BROWN: Not on this issue. CHAIR: Did you want to ask about another issue? Senator CAROL BROWN: I did want to just go back to what Dr Johnson was talking about—truth in advertising. I'd like to ask about your position. Is there a problem with truth in advertising? Dr Johnson : I think there probably is, whether or not it's a problem specifically in the kinds of advertising that would be covered by a law like this. There is, but I think it's probably more of a cultural and political problem than a legal problem. It's something that I think we need to solve with a culture of truthfulness, accountability and honesty rather than legislated— Senator CAROL BROWN: You weren't particularly in favour of the legislation, but have you turned your mind to what other sorts of measures can be put in place to counter this anti truth in advertising. Dr Johnson : I suppose it depends on the issue. Obviously there are things that can be done about very specific sources of active mis- or disinformation. But I'm not really sure that that's what we're talking about when we have this conversation about truth in political advertising. I think we all want more-truthful political discourse in political advertising, but I'm not convinced that we can solve that with legislation. There are a few other issues there. To me it seems quite a risky and worrying game to put the electoral commissions and judiciary in the position of determining what counts as a true statement. I understand that South Australians are mostly quite happy with that legislation; they like the way it works, and they think it's a positive influence on their political culture. I think the South Australian Electoral Commissioner was announcing that they're going to have to double the staff they assign to assessing complaints around truth in political advertising, so it's becoming quite an expensive and challenging piece of legislation to administer. It's potentially also becoming more prone to—'vexatious' is the wrong word—a kind of litigiousness in political advertising claims where you can complain about more and more and more political advertising. Again, I think the number of complaints is rising very rapidly in the South Australian and ACT models. Senator CAROL BROWN: Do you have any data? CHAIR: Yes, could you send us that, because that's not my recollection of the evidence we got from the South Australian Electoral Commission only a few months ago. Dr Johnson : Yes, I can. CHAIR: They've got a team of three who do this, which I thought was pretty lean. Dr Johnson : It's modest. CHAIR: From memory, they received only 39 complaints at the last state election. Dr Johnson : What I saw in the reporting was more than that, but I will take that on notice. Senator COLBECK: They found about seven verified, or something of that nature. Dr Johnson : There's a very small number of them, and that's not necessarily because— CHAIR: Only 39 went to the next level of investigation. Senator CAROL BROWN: It's new piece of legislation. People are getting used to what is in and what is out. CHAIR: Oh, yes, eighties. Truth in political advertising [inaudible] the eighties in South Australia. I think it's all there. Dr Johnson : It's been around for a long time. It's reasonably recent in the ACT, but it's been around for quite a long time in South Australia. CHAIR: It's interesting that you mentioned the cultural impact of that law, because I think that's its true value. I believe it's set up in a way that stops electoral participants even putting that information out there in the first place. Where I don't think it works in South Australia and where it wouldn't work at a federal level is for third parties because they don't have that same accountability structure as a candidate. You mentioned it's not a legislative problem to fix, but, from what I saw in the events we got in South Australia, it was the legislation that created the culture. Do you think that that could not be replicated federally? Dr Johnson : That's entirely possible. Again, if the legislation contributes to creating a culture of honesty and accountability, terrific. I just think the legislation itself applies to an extremely narrow range of political communication, and the parties and members would be aware of that. Anything you would say in an interview or a doorstop or on social media, unless it's 'authorised by XYZ' as an actual political campaign ad on social media, things that you say in speeches, things that you say in phone calls, things that you say on the radio—anything like that is not covered. To me, I think that's so much of what people imagine a truth in political advertising law would solve. If you talk to most people about what an ordinary person might think of as dishonest electoral campaigning, it's very rarely that kind of thing. It's predictions about what an opponent will do. It's promises about what you will do that might not come to pass. Those sorts of things are what most people imagine truth in political advertising legislation would address, and it just can't. CHAIR: How would you define electoral matter? Dr Johnson : Electoral matter? CHAIR: Or political advertising. What is it? Dr Johnson : Inevitably, it does have to be paid for by either the person or the organisation, the political party, with an 'authorised by'. From a legislative perspective, I think it would be unworkable and really challenging to expand the definition beyond that. CHAIR: So it's the monetisation— Dr Johnson : It's corflutes and tv ads, exactly. CHAIR: and social media ads that are paid. Dr Johnson : Yes, social media ads that are paid. I mean there are obviously questions about— CHAIR: But a viral post by Joe Blogs that's gone around the world— Dr Johnson : No, exactly. CHAIR: That's not— Dr Johnson : There are questions about expanding the definition of things like an authorised electoral ad to stuff like social media influencers and people who are promoting on behalf of or are paid by a campaign. So there are certainly questions about whether certain types of political communication are in or out of the legislation definition used in South Australia and the ACT, but I don't think that expanding the definition would make it more workable. I think that would probably pose greater challenges. CHAIR: So for you the crux is whether or not it's being paid for? Dr Johnson : I think so. CHAIR: Member for Kooyong. Dr RYAN: On that, we've heard this morning evidence around the increasing involvement of third party entities who, in many instances, are a bit murky but we can see that they potentially have had funding either from industry groups or lobbying organisations that are choosing to push a specific issue. We've heard this morning about Australians for Prosperity and the fact that—it's on the record—they had several million dollars of support from Coal Australia. Questions have also been raised about other third party groups that haven't been as forthcoming around the sources of their donations. In fact, in some cases, they haven't registered with the AEC at all. Under your model, how do we have any insight into or control over the messaging that they might be disseminating? Dr Johnson : I think this is probably more an issue to be solved through campaign finance changes to disclosure and transparency than to truth-in-political-advertising legislation, giving people all of the information that they need to assess whether and why someone is making a claim rather than a narrower question about whether the claim itself is true under the definitions provided by this legislation. Broader and more accountable and transparent third-party disclosure rules and campaign expenditure rules—I'm absolutely all for that. Dr RYAN: In real time, though? I guess one of the issues we have is that for many of the organisations who were active in the 2025 election we still don't have full disclosure around their funding sources and their expenditure. Dr Johnson : The 2025 election took place under the previous rules, so it will be interesting to see whether the new donations disclosure regime makes a difference to that at the next federal election. Beyond that, I'm not sure that's something that I support addressing with truth-in-political-advertising legislation specifically. If, after the next federal election, we can see that we've still got big problems with real-time or near real-time disclosure in a short window, transparency around funding and disclosure of campaign expenditure and so on, then absolutely that's something that needs to be revisited. Dr RYAN: I think many of us anticipate that at the next election many of the issues that we saw last year will be worse, not better, and that the disclosure rules won't materially affect those. Correct me if I'm wrong: if someone puts up an ad that says I bite the heads off children, but it's appropriately authorised and we've got an address, 1,100 Collins Street, from some party that no one's ever heard of, you think that's okay? Actually, let the record state that I do not bite the heads off children. Do you think that's okay? This is my problem. People can say anything, and they do. Many people have no concern about the truth when it comes to what's said in and around election campaigns. Dr Johnson : I agree, and I absolutely think that's a big problem. I would love to hope that we can foster a political culture where that kind of political speech is less acceptable. My concern is more that it's actually very easy to evade truth-in-political-advertising legislation. You could create an ad giving people exactly that impression without it falling foul of truth-in-political-advertising legislation. There are plenty of ways to make very, very negative campaign statements or advertisements about an opponent that use a prospective, hypothetical or opinion based formulation of a claim that wouldn't fall under the legislation, even in South Australia or the ACT, where it's in force. If you can create a culture of honesty and accountability using a legislative instrument, super. But I think that it's very unlikely that exactly this kind of thing actually would fall under that legislation. Even if it does, even in South Australia, you have to be able to demonstrate that it would affect the electoral outcome to a material extent. Again, we're talking about a vanishingly rare number of instances. There have been quite a few complaints that have been substantiated and the South Australian electoral commissioner has said, 'You need to retract this and apologise,' and that's happened. In the cases where it's actually gone all the way to the court, very few complaints have been upheld. So I think this cultural question is really important. I think that the actual achievements and constraints imposed by the legislative instrument are really, really minimal. Dr RYAN: Thank you. CHAIR: Mr Chipman, with regard to your comments about local government being within the federal electorates, have you considered state electorate boundaries in other parts of Australia? Would you give it the same weighting? Would you say that state electorates and local government electorates should be, wherever practical, in one federal electorate? Mr Chipman : I do think it should be nationally, but 'where practical' is a clear limitation because some electorates would have five or six local government areas in them, and some local government areas would have two or three electoral divisions in them. So it's not a hard-and-fast rule by a long shot, but I think it's an area where priority should be given to that thinking where it's possible. CHAIR: It needs more weighting, yes. You mentioned the Indigenous nations. To clarify, now the guidance is just Indigenous people but not nations. Is that right? You're just seeking for that addition to be made? Mr Chipman : Exactly. CHAIR: Thank you. Senator Colbeck. Senator COLBECK: In terms of the panel's submission and other matters, I want to explore the issue of presence at the polling booths, which is something that we've talked about. I'm curious as to your views on the Tasmanian experience, where there are no people at the polling booths on election day, and how you think that might impact the outcomes of elections. The point of being there is to have a presence; talk to the people, the constituency, coming to vote; and offer them your electoral material. I think the numbers are that 15 to 17 per cent of people turning up to a polling booth make their decision as they're going into the polling booth—so to grab your slice of that pie so to speak. One of the things that we've talked about as part of this particular inquiry is the number of people and the experience on a polling booth, which has varied significantly around the country. How do you think the Tasmanian experience for state elections, where there's no electoral material or party political presence within a hundred metres of a polling booth on election day, might translate? I'd be curious as to your reaction to that. Mr Chipman : I'm not aware of any research into that, but it's an excellent question. All I can do is relate my own personal sense in voting in different types of elections. I feel safer and I feel more in control of my own circumstances and what I intend to do when I'm voting in the Tasmanian system, where I'm not having to run the gauntlet through a whole raft of people throwing stuff in my face. That's a personal view. I'm not aware of any research on it though. Dr Hortle : Similarly, I'm not aware of any academic research, but I am a fan personally of the Tasmanian approach and quiet voting. I think there's a broader issue that you've identified there. If 15 to 17 per cent are making up their mind at the polling booth, we'd be potentially trying to shift that through better civics education and so on rather than relying on people getting the cards at the door. I'd rather do the quiet voting thing and expand civics education to change the culture and try and make people more informed before they get to the booth. Dr Johnson : As you said, I think the research shows that a fairly large share of the electorate and a very large share of undecided voters make up their mind at the booth. Personally, I find it vibrant and exciting having people buzzing around and trying to throw 'how to vote' cards at you and all of that kind of thing. If you're a genuinely undecided voter, in the absence of any other information on which to base your vote, I can't see why electoral materials at the booth are worse than any other source of information. Obviously, this is something that empowers parties and very well-organised and well-funded candidates or parties with a lot of volunteers over Independents, minor parties and smaller outfits, so that's a problem, but I think it's fun. Dr Hortle : I'd push back on that a little bit, Lachie. Particularly thinking about diverse communities or recently arrived Australians who've come from different systems, where potentially they haven't been able to vote before or voting has been strictly controlled—and then coming into this Australian system where you do have a free vote and so on and you don't have to take the leaflets from the people at the door. Maybe you're from a system where, if you don't take the leaflet, you might be in trouble. So I think that's worth thinking about. Something else is that, when I do some of the political science 101 education I do out in the community, there's already a lack of understanding around the fact that you don't have to follow a how-to-vote card. People get those and think that they have to stick to it if they want their vote to count for the party that they put first. I know that sort of literature is still going to be out there, even if you're having a quiet voting system, but it does take it away from that immediate thing. I think it does potentially confuse some people. CHAIR: I certainly wouldn't say that all Independents are understaffed, having seen some campaign photos of some of the Independents at this table. They certainly weren't underresourced. Dr RYAN: There are volunteers—passionate volunteers. CHAIR: Do you think there's a role, though, for—we've heard evidence, and this was certainly my experience at the 2025 election. I was at a booth that had 34 people from one party. We've made a recommendation in the interim report that material and the number of people be reduced. Do you feel that that's an approach the government should take? Dr Johnson : You can have too much of a good thing, certainly. As to whether there's a kind of cap per candidate or some sort of limit on the amount of staff or materials you can have at a booth, I'm certainly not averse to that. I just think that more information, resources and access for people to a diverse range of viewpoints at the booth are part of the fun and buzz of election day. But I grew up in Queensland. CHAIR: There are certainly some important discussions at the polling booth with voters who want information. Dr Johnson : Yes, of course, and I sort of enjoy it as well. I have a chat to the volunteers or a member if they're at the booth. I think it's an enjoyable part of voting. Dr Hortle : I think the recommendations in the interim report were sensible in that regard. Coupled with the recommendations around safety and AEC resourcing as well, it makes sense. Senator COLBECK: My interest is in its influence on the outcome of the election. Here in Tassie you would see both. I can flag that the next witness might get the same question, so he can think about it a bit. In terms of the voters now, as people who are studying elections, you would be engaged, aware and informed about who's who in the zoo and who's coming along. I have to say that my experience of the last Tasmanian election was that I was scrutineering after the booth closed but had to be in there before it closed so that I could get access, and listening to some of the last-minute voters coming in and talking amongst themselves about who they were going to vote for was a bit scary. But my interest is in the effectiveness of the election. Do you have any thoughts on that? It goes to the points that you were making about how well people were informed and how it plays out. But, if I think about the Tasmanian experience here and what I see as someone who is engaged, how it might affect the outcome of the election is the key question for me in a democratic process. How would you assess the comparison? Mr Chipman : Once again, it's a good question. You mentioned that 14 per cent of people were swayed at the last minute as they enter, but my experience— Senator COLBECK: Well, they make their mind up. Mr Chipman : They make their mind up. My experience is—if you go in there and there's a lot of posters and brochures being handed your way, how do you get a chance to read them anyway? How do you get a chance to absorb all that material as you're wandering into the booth, checking in, getting your name ticked off and actually then focusing on voting itself? Do you spend half an hour in the booth actually reading all those brochures? I suspect that a lot of people have made up their minds. It actually might influence which brochures they accept and which ones they don't get. So my intuitive reaction is that it wouldn't make a huge difference. Dr Hortle : If the core issue that we're worried about here that we're trying to solve is people not being informed ahead of time and not having considered all the options and developed an opinion and that they're turning up undecided, then having people handing out leaflets and campaign literature at the door is not the best solution for that. Senator CAROL BROWN: What about the assistance it gives with lowering informal voting? Dr Hortle : We'd need a counterfactual to assess what impact it has on informal voting. Senator COLBECK: Is there a direct comparator between state and federal which you could bring to mind? Dr Hortle : I'd have to have a look. Dr Johnson : I don't know whether there have been any studies about—is it right that Tasmania has less informal voting than some of the mainland states and territories? Dr Hortle : Tassie is not really comparable, though, because of Hare-Clark. Dr Johnson : Because we have Hare-Clark—exactly. Senator COLBECK: I would say potentially—we're getting into a conversation now—because we have Hare-Clark, people are a little bit more engaged and informed with the systems and the process because they're used to that with the way that we vote, particularly at a lower house level. Senator CAROL BROWN: But we don't have that data to support what you're saying. Senator COLBECK: I think it was almost referred to in evidence this morning, where we get past six and that becomes a point of commencement of confusion. Senator CAROL BROWN: We didn't have that data either. Senator COLBECK: It'd be interesting to make a comparison of the last election with five per electorate here in Tassie and seven to see whether there was a change in the informal vote. Dr Johnson : It's interesting. It still is, in a way, bringing in or conflating a slightly different issue, which is that you're given instructions on how to vote formally by a volunteer or a staff member when you take your ballot. So whether party materials make any difference— Senator COLBECK: But that would happen in any circumstance. Dr Johnson : Exactly. Dr Hortle : Yes, so we shouldn't be relying on the campaign literature to do it. Dr Johnson : Yes, we shouldn't be relying on campaign literature anyway. And it may be that a lot of people actually do want to vote strategically in a way that benefits their party to the maximum extent and are responsive to how-to-vote materials for that reason. I can't imagine that it would make a huge difference to informal voting. Senator CAROL BROWN: But we don't know, because we can give out how-to-vote cards on the day. Could I flag to all the panel but directly to Dr Hortle about whether you've turned your mind to the effect and use of social media and artificial intelligence on elections and misinformation and whether you've had a think about what can be done to make them more transparent. If you could quickly put something on the record now, I think the chair would be happy, but otherwise on notice. Dr Hortle : It's not a special area of mine. I'm not a political social media analyst, unfortunately, but it's certainly something that we can look at on notice and have a chat to some colleagues at the university about. Senator CAROL BROWN: I'd appreciate that. Dr Hortle : That was specifically social media— Senator CAROL BROWN: AI. Dr Hortle : and AI in political advertising. Senator CAROL BROWN: Yes, that's right. Senator COLBECK: Particularly given the evidence that we had earlier today, it's something of interest to us all. CHAIR: If you've got the time and the inclination to give some thought to the period of time that electoral matters should be regulated, is it just the period of the election? Should it be longer, given methods of distribution have changed wildly from when those laws were created? Dr Hortle : We've got a few things to take away and refer to you on. CHAIR: Nothing further? Mr Small, you're okay? Mr SMALL: Yes, all good, thank you. CHAIR: Thanks for your attendance today. You'll be sent a copy of the transcript of your evidence to assist with you answering questions taken on notice. You'll have an opportunity to request corrections to any transcription errors. Once you've received the transcript, you're asked to provide responses to any questions within two weeks, if that's okay. If you need a little bit longer, given the nature of some of the questions we've asked you, I'm sure we will be amenable to that. Please forward answers and any additional information that has been requested to the secretariat. The secretariat will confirm these arrangements when distributing the transcript. Please note that responses to questions on notice will be published on the committee's website as submissions to the inquiry. Thanks for your time..