POSTAL POINTS - How they Come (edited)

Did you receive an unrequested Postal Vote Application mail package?

I did. It came early, about the first week of April, 2025. It was in a "To the Householder" mass mail through Australia Post. (It actually contained two convenient separable PV Application forms and reply envelope.)The mail came from a "third party", not from the AEC. Not from the AEC!

That was effectively a promotion of voting (early) by post. One of the two third party forms set out on the back the eligibility criteria. (Why do we need eligibility? That is a question for the MPs.)

In order to get a postal vote a voter must make application to the authority. That is a PVA. 

                         

In a federal election, there are 5 ways for the application to happen. A voter may be listed [by application to Australian Electoral Commission (AEC)] as a General Postal Voter (GPV). That means they are automatically sent their ballot pack every federal election as soon as it is available. It goes, of course, to their enrolled address.

The AEC offers online application (OPVA).

The AEC has a standard one page paper form for application (see image).

"Third party" applications come using forms supplied by political parties and possibly or probably via the party mailing system; parties also advertise postal voting applications via their websites.

Third party paper forms are distributed by indiscriminate mass mail methods. The numbers of forms used are shown in the table below. (I was astonished to learn that all 150 Divisions had third party forms in use.) I deplore the misleading nature of the party packages.

The 2025 Federal election eventually included 2,234,834 returned postal votes.

More applications were received than that (2,561,473 detailed below) and thus more postal vote packs were sent to the requested address than were received back.  The huge range in Application numbers (seeing NT as a special case) was Braddon, TAS, with 7986 PV, to Deakin, Vic, with 28,384.

Many Federal postal votes are requested using the "third party" applications mentioned above. That includes paper forms and digital redirection from political party websites.

I deplore this fact. The "third party" practice is easily misleading - I believe that is by design. (If you wonder at that, I can scan and send a copy from 2025.)

Note that the Victorian electoral legislation forbids "third-party" in State elections. Now, that's a good idea! The AEC would like to see the end of the practice.

The PV application numbers in 2025 (data courtesy AEC)  

So, 2,561,473 Postal Vote applications (PVA) were received and processed. Of those, 111,971 applications used the AEC paper form, BUT 316,117 used the "third party" paper form(s).

The PVA totals in 2025

GPV 455,330

OPVA 1,671,055 (includes 357,000+ by redirection from party websites)

AEC form 118,971

Third party form 316,117

The majority of applications, 1,671,055 were made online. I am unable to distinguish those made by direct access to the AEC website from those redirected there by "third parties". However, to the JSCEM the AEC reported the AEC in election 2025:

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.

Paper forms were used (118,971 AEC; 316,117 third party). If you look carefully, you may see that, in some instances where the AEC office (Divisional Returning Officer) is accessible to them, electors used the AEC form. I believe that is for preference.

However, note the huge difference in Deakin Division (metropolitan Victoria; 28,384 PVA) where the DRO is located quite centrally. (There must be another reason behind the Deakin numbers; first preferences for Deakin show 24,665 valid PV received. I suspect the party advertising campaign effect.) The surrounding Divisions had similar high PVA numbers, for example, Goldstein. In Goldstein of 20,730 PV first preferences, the Liberal candidate received 52.65% (10,717); the unseated independent 23.55%; ALP 13.50%.

PV cost (the federal budget) additional money. At least two postage charges; printing;  3 envelopes or more; hours of processing time. Like all votes they have to be marked on the roll. However, PV certificates have to be examined to pass security checks and then be opened. Finally the folded ballots are dropped into their box, with others. Thereafter the procedure is as for ordinary. 

What is wrong with involving the "third party" PVA? Not wrong, but, by using the third-party material you:

1. are not in the original count (as for all PV and Absents)
2. cost more for the taxpayer if influenced by third party to PV
3. give away your privacy if you send it to them.
4. lose precious processing time.
5. rely on the "third party" carrying out the process and without delay.
6. make yourself a "third party" advertising target

The Federal MPs COULD prevent "third party" involvement. (Somehow the Victorian Parliament's MPs did so for their elections.)

BETTER ACCESS

Lots of people use digital technology. Some do not. Some do not have access.

It would be good if the AEC introduced simple and effective elector access to the AEC, apart from digital means. 

For example, an advertised dedicated telephone number to request postal vote applications.

For example, earliest possible distribution of the relevant information, including telephone numbers.

As stated above, only 2,234,834 Postal Votes are included in the processing. That means 326,639 did not come back to the AEC, or were too late for inclusion in processing, or failed the tests. (At least the Australian Electoral Act no longer wants a postmark before 6 pm on polling day!)

Various factors may lead to "missing" postal votes, including:

1. The elector may have put an incorrect address for receipt of their postal vote pack.

2. The elector may not be at the address when the pack is delivered.

3. The returned postal vote in its Certificate Envelope (Declaration Envelope) may not pass security tests (signature[s], date and time).

4. The returned postal vote Certificate Envelope may be received too late.

5. The opened Certificate Envelope may lack a ballot paper.

6. The elector voted in person instead

7. Possibly - the person's name is not found on the Certified Roll. I am unsure of this one. Perhaps, if the person has been enrolled at another address, the voter could be reinstated and the vote processed.

8. The application may be too late (and thus is not included in the PV numbers at all).

Another simple explanation of "missing" PV is that voters were able after all to vote in person and did not use their postal vote. (I suspect that, in Bradfield Division, two voters did both! See post.)

We can all only do our best!  

Images: author

Image: Commonwealth of Australia from AEC website (Media).

Yours sincerely

Allen Hampton

Coburg

achamptonmob@gmail.com