Bradfield Division Conceded

Bradfield Member in the House of Representatives: Formerly a "Liberal seat" in north Sydney, there were two contrary results in the election period. There must have been a lot of tension in the party ranks! The winner's margin was very slender! Both times!

No stolen elections here! No claim of this Division being "stolen". (Historically we did have the controversial dismissal and the claim the Government was stolen. That is an entirely different matter, coming from within the Parliament, not the electoral  sysyem.)

The 2025 work of the AEC withstood the test! As always it does. The AEC has (again) demonstrated that it can be trusted and its procedures are reliable.

In the initial Bradfield count process, including full distribution of preferences, candidate Kapterian lead candidate Boele by 8 votes.

There followed a recount, in which ballot papers would have been reconsidered. The vote numbering on those ballots was 1 to 8. Some of the numbers were claimed to be misinterpreted. The count for each candidate must have changed, as the questioned characters were read differently. (I have not located the first count.)

There were two "illegal" votes in the total of voters. Their markings are (of course) unknown - they may have been informal; they can not be identified. (Our votes are secret.) They may have inflated the winner's numbers? Too few to make a difference to the validity of the Declaration.  

After the recount and full distribution of preferences, Boele 56,104, then lead Kapterian 56,088 votes. This is somewhat unusual - it means ballots had been placed in wrong "piles" and counted to the wrong candidate, or, they were moved in and out of the bundles of  6,656 informals. In view of the eventual Petition to the Court - see below for details - that seems more likely,. The Petition involved 795 "reserved" (ie, disputed) ballots that the senior AEC officer had determined finally.  (The scrutineers at the counts, regardless of the late hour, would have been on high alert to challenge and then to report to their people.) That was the result for the Declaration of the Poll.

It would only have required 14 voters to give their preference to the loser, and the result would have been in favour of the actual loser!

The reversed (Declared) Bradfield result was in process of being taken to the Court of Disputed Returns. The Court gives the final answer.

https://www.aec.gov.au/media/2025/07-16.htm

A Court challenge ("Petition") was lodged on 15 July 2025 (see below). It details individual ballot papers disputed by the challenger. The challenge was about the clarity of markings voters placed on their ballot papers, or even markings that should not be there because they could identify the voter. The petitioner wanted some admitted ballots to be rejected and some rejected ballots to be admitted.

Evidently the losing candidate (ie, Party) finally saw that they had no realistic chance of successfully challenging even the AEC decisions on 14 ballot papers. (Presumably, after careful study of the 795 ballots, the petitioner saw there was insufficient chance of success to argue in the Court.) The electoral machinery had also worked correctly - ie, the workers had done their jobs as specified. And so the Party (candidate) conceded. The Court case was abandoned. Ceasing Court action is the one concession that matters. Claims of victory or concession speeches make no difference. The one thing that matters is the Declaration of the Poll in favour of X, and that the return can withstand any Court of Disputed Returns proceedings.

(We see frequent media mentions of "X" conceding an election. I can see that has validity, if the defeated candidate admits that the winner's margin is secure and the loser has no intention of lodging a Petition with the Court. No challenge to make. Nothing further to do.)  

The attempted legal challenge by the Bradfield losing party to overturn the last result has done two things: ceased, and endorsed our processes. This election was not stolen! No hanging chats; or rigged machines; or dodgy pens; or fake battalions, or violence, or threats to officials...  And so a wafer-thin, and even reversed, result stood and the elected MP is secure - till next time.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-09-25/liberal-gisele-kapterian-abandons-bradfield-court-challenge/105815662? 

The data I have seen shows an increased number (not untypical) of informal Bradfield ballot papers (6,656) compared to the previous election. If those ballot papers, or even a small part of them, had been formal, they obviously could have changed the result.

Perhaps some voters treated the ballot as "optional preferential", their NSW State system. I do not know how many voters completed fewer than 8 boxes using only the numbers 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8. A pity they failed?

I argue, for example, that a missing final digit (in this case, "8") should not invalidate a ballot - in such a case the voter's intention is really crystal clear. However, (I consider) the Commonwealth has very rigid House of Representatives ballot formality rules, eg ticks, broken number series, or duplicated numbers, etc, mean the voter gets nil say, despite fully participating in the poll.

POSTAL Story

I am very interested to note in Bradfield Division, only 174 voters used their third-party Postal Vote Application form (PVA). A substantial 1,150 voters used the AEC form. (The Bradfield Divisional office is very accessible at the North Sydney end.) If, as I assume, the party or parties did a mass mail-out of their form, that is very curious. Perhaps, as seems likely to me, it had an advertising campaign value and swelled online PVA?

Applications for Bradfield postal votes: 

General PV 3,402; 

online PVA 12,550; 

AEC paper form 1,150; 

3rd Party paper 174; 

total PVA 17,276 (ie, ballot packs sent to address requested). In the scrutiny 14,668 PV. (An unknown number will have been rejected at the preliminary scrutiny - not signed; not witnessed; too late; etc.) Others were not returned - presumably unused, or lost in transit.

The online figure probably includes third-party redirected claims. To the JSCEM the AEC states that the AEC:

recorded over 357,000 redirections to the AEC website from third party postal voting websites. These websites required voters to add their details into an online form before being redirected to the AEC’s online postal vote application, providing third parties with sensitive personal data.

On first preferences the postal voters favoured Kapterian 6,098 vs 3,193 for Boele. (Actually, Kapterian had most first preferences in all vote types.)

(Data from second (final) distribution of preferences below.)

Text Copy of Petition to Court.

ELECTION PETITION (BRADFIELD) – S100/2025

Form 22

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SITTING AS THE COURT OF DISPUTED RETURNS  

SYDNEY REGISTRY

BETWEEN:                                                                                                    GISELE KAPTERIAN

                                                                                                                                                      Petitioner

   and 

                                                                                                                               NICOLETTE BOELE

                                                                                                                                        First respondent

                                                                     THE AUSTRALIAN ELECTORAL COMMISSION

                                                                                                                            Second respondent 

ELECTION PETITION

This petition concerns the election to the House of Representatives for the electoral division of Bradfield, New South Wales, held on 3 May 2025.

RETURN OF WRIT

The writ for the election was returned on 12 June 2025.

ENTITLEMENT TO FILE THIS PETITION

The petitioner is entitled to file this petition because she was a candidate at the election in dispute. 

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. On 3 May 2025, there was a federal election.  As a part of the federal election, there was an election to the House of Representatives for the electoral division of Bradfield (the Election).

2. There were 8 candidates in the Election, including the petitioner and the first respondent.

3. From shortly after 6.00 pm on 3 May 2025, to 23 May 2025, the second respondent conducted a first count of the votes cast in the Election.

4. At the conclusion of the full distribution of preferences on the first count, the petitioner led the first respondent by a margin of 8 votes.

5. The second respondent’s Divisional Returning Officer for Bradfield determined that there would be a formal recount.

6. From shortly after 9.00 am on 26 May 2025, to 4 June 2025, the second respondent conducted a formal recount of the votes cast in the Election.

7. From around midday on 26 May 2025, to 4 June 2025, Ms Rebecca Main, the Australian Electoral Officer for New South Wales (the AEO), made determinations in respect of 795 reserved ballot-papers (AEO determinations).  

8. At the conclusion of the formal recount, the first respondent was declared the successful Election candidate, with a margin of 26 votes.

9. Within the AEO determinations the AEO wrongly rejected at least 56 of the reserved ballot-papers, where those ballot-papers indicated a preference, by the voter, for the petitioner ahead of the first respondent. In particular:

a. The AEO rejected: 

i. at least 1 ballot-paper on the basis that she was not satisfied that the figure 1 in one square was distinguishable from the figure in another square;

ii. at least 3 ballot-papers on the basis that she was not satisfied that the figure 2 in one square was distinguishable from the figure in another square;

iii. at least 3 ballot-papers on the basis that she was not satisfied that the figure 3 in one square was distinguishable from the figure in another square;

iv. at least 3 ballot-papers on the basis that she was not satisfied that the figure 4 in one square was distinguishable from the figure in another square;

v. at least 5 ballot-papers on the basis that she was not satisfied that the figure 5 in one square was distinguishable from the figure in another square;

vi. at least 4 ballot-papers on the basis that she was not satisfied that the figure 6 in one square was distinguishable from the figure in another square;

vii. at least 1 ballot-paper on the basis that she was not satisfied that the figure 7 in one square was distinguishable from the figure in another square; and

viii. at least 2 ballot-papers on the basis that she was not satisfied that the figure 8 in one square was distinguishable from the figure in another square. 

Each decision was made even though in each case the two figures were distinguishable, such that one of the figures was a different figure from 1 to 8; it was clear from the ballot-paper as a whole that the voter intended to indicate a first preference for 1 candidate and an order of preference for all remaining candidates. In each such case the ballot-paper was not informal and should not have been rejected.

b. The AEO rejected:

i. at least 4 ballot-papers on the basis that she was not satisfied that the mark in one square on the ballot-paper was discernible as the figure 1;

ii. at least 3 ballot-papers on the basis that she was not satisfied that the mark in one square on the ballot-paper was discernible as the figure 2;

iii. at least 3 ballot-papers on the basis that she was not satisfied that the mark in one square on the ballot-paper was discernible as the figure 3;

iv. at least 8 ballot-papers on the basis that she was not satisfied that the mark in one square on the ballot-paper was discernible as the figure 4;

v. at least 5 ballot-papers on the basis that she was not satisfied that the mark in one square on the ballot-paper was discernible as the figure 5;

vi. at least 2 ballot-papers on the basis that she was not satisfied that the mark in one square on the ballot-paper was discernible as the figure 6; and

vii. at least 7 ballot-papers on the basis that she was not satisfied that the mark in one square on the ballot-paper was discernible as the figure 7.

Each decision was made even though in each case the figure in question was discernible and the remaining squares on the ballot-paper contained the remaining figures 1 to (at least) 7; it was clear from the ballot-paper as a whole that the voter intended the mark in question to be the figure in question, and to indicate a first preference for 1 candidate and an order of preference for all remaining candidates. In each such case the ballot-paper was not informal and should not have been rejected.

c. The AEO rejected at least 2 ballot-papers on the basis that she was not satisfied that the mark in one square on the ballot-paper was discernible as the figure 8. This decision was made even though in each case the figure 8 was discernible and the remaining squares on the ballot-paper contained the remaining figures 1 to 7; it was clear from the ballot-paper as a whole that the voter intended the mark in question to be the figure 8, and to indicate a first preference for 1 candidate and an order of preference for all remaining candidates. In each such case the ballot-paper was not informal and should not have been rejected.

10. Further or alternatively, within the AEO determinations the AEO wrongly admitted at least 95 of the reserved ballot-papers, where those ballot-papers indicated a preference, by the voter, for the first respondent ahead of the petitioner. In particular:

a. The AEO admitted:

i. at least 10 ballot-papers on the basis that she was satisfied that the figure 1 in one square was distinguishable from the figure in another square;

ii. at least 9 ballot-papers on the basis that she was satisfied that the figure 2 in one square was distinguishable from the figure in another square;

iii. at least 5 ballot-papers on the basis that she was satisfied that the figure 3 in one square was distinguishable from the figure in another square;

iv. at least 2 ballot-papers on the basis that she was satisfied that the figure 4 in one square was distinguishable from the figure in another square;

v. at least 4 ballot-papers on the basis that she was satisfied that the figure 5 in one square was distinguishable from the figure in another square;

vi. at least 10 ballot-papers on the basis that she was satisfied that the figure 6 in one square was distinguishable from the figure in another square;

vii. at least 6 ballot-papers on the basis that she was satisfied that the figure 7 in one square was distinguishable from the figure in another square;

viii. at least 3 ballot-papers on the basis that she was satisfied that the figure 8 in one square was distinguishable from the figure in another square;

Each decision was made even though in each case the two figures were not distinguishable; it was not clear from the ballot-paper as a whole that the voter intended to indicate a first preference for 1 candidate and an order of preference for all remaining candidates. In each such case the ballot-paper was informal and should not have been admitted.

b. The AEO admitted:

i. at least 5 ballot-papers on the basis that she was satisfied that the mark in one square on the ballot-paper was not indiscernible as the figure 1; 

ii. at least 3 ballot-papers on the basis that she was satisfied that the mark in one square on the ballot-paper was not indiscernible as the figure 2;

iii. at least 2 ballot-papers on the basis that she was satisfied that the mark in one square on the ballot-paper was not indiscernible as the figure 3;

iv. at least 8 ballot-papers on the basis that she was satisfied that the mark in one square on the ballot-paper was not indiscernible as the figure 4;

v. at least 8 ballot-papers on the basis that she was satisfied that the mark in one square on the ballot-paper was not indiscernible as the figure 5;

vi. at least 6 ballot-papers on the basis that she was satisfied that the mark in one square on the ballot-paper was not indiscernible as the figure 6;

vii. at least 6 ballot-papers on the basis that she was satisfied that the mark in one square on the ballot-paper was not indiscernible as the figure 7; and

viii. at least 6 ballot-papers on the basis that she was satisfied that the mark in one square on the ballot-paper was not indiscernible as the figure 8.

Each decision was made even though in each case the figure in question was not discernible; it was not clear from the ballot-paper as a whole that the voter intended the mark in question to be the figure in question, and to indicate a first preference for 1 candidate and an order of preference for all remaining candidates. In each such case the ballot-paper was informal and should not have been admitted.

c. The AEO admitted at least 2 ballot-papers despite the ballot-paper in each case having upon it a mark or writing (not authorised by the Act or the regulations to be put upon it) by which the voter could be identified. In each such case the ballot-paper was informal and should not have been admitted.

11. In making the erroneous determinations referred to in paragraphs 9 and/or 10 above, the AEO contravened s 279B(7) of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 (Cth) (the Act).

12. In the premises: 

a. illegal practices were committed in connexion with the Election, within the meaning of ss 352(1) and 360(3) of the Act;

b. the first respondent was not duly elected at the Election; and

c. the petitioner was duly elected at the Election.

RELIEF

A. The petitioner asks the Court to declare:

1. Pursuant to ss 360(1)(v) and (3) of the Act, that first respondent, who was returned as elected, was not duly elected to the House of Representatives for the electoral division of Bradfield.

2. Pursuant to s 360(1)(vi) and (3) of the Act, that the petitioner was duly elected to the House of Representatives for the electoral division of Bradfield.

B. The petitioner asks the Court to order, pursuant to s 360 of the Act, that the respondents, alternatively the Commonwealth, pay the petitioner’s costs of the petition. 

Dated 15 July 2025

That final distribution count (as copied from AEC website)

Yours sincerely

Allen Hampton

Coburg

achamptonmob@gmail.com

AL 04/11/25