BLIND CITIZENS AUSTRALIA

Submission to the Victorian Parliament's Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee Inquiry into Electronic Democracy

This submission has been compiled by John Power, National Policy Officer, Blind Citizens Australia and has been authorised by both the Executive Officer and President of Blind Citizens Australia.

13^th January 2005

Contact Details

John Power

National Policy Officer

Blind Citizens Australia

PO Box 24 Sunshine Victoria 3020

Phone: (03) 9372 6400

Fax: (03) 9372 6466

Email: john.power@bca.org.au

TABLE OF CONTENTS

A. Introduction 3

B. Technical considerations for people who are blind and vision impaired 3

Consequential project considerations for e-democracy initiatives 4

C. Blind Citizens Australia: Response to the Inquiry’s Terms of Reference 5

1) Netcasting of Parliamentary proceedings 5

2) Online interactive and collaborative approaches to policy discussion, including citizen email and online forums 5

3) Other technology solutions to promote access and participation. 6

Core Issue (1) Potential impact of new and emerging technologies on the democratic processes of government 6

Core Issue (2) Options available to improve democratic processes through the use of such technologies (for example, through electronically enabled voting) 7

Voting for people who are blind or vision impaired: The current Victorian situation 7

The Victorian 2002 Election 7

Electronic Voting: The Australian Capital Territory’s 2001 and 2004 election 10

Electronic Assisted Voting (EAV): A model for Victoria’s future 10

EAV: Diagram: 1 Error! Bookmark not defined.

Core Issue (3) Costs and benefits of new technologies that promote e-democracy 11

Core Issue (4) Equitable access of all citizens to e-democracy 12

Core Issue (5) Legal and regulatory factors 12

Core Issue (6) Educational or social barriers to the implementation of e-democracy. 13

End Notes 14

A. Introduction

Blind Citizens Australia (BCA) is the National peak organisation of people who are blind or vision impaired. Our mission is to achieve equity and equality by our empowerment, by promoting positive community attitudes and by striving for high quality and accessible services which meet our needs.

This submission begins by outlining the specific technical considerations required to equally involve people who are blind or vision impaired in any e-democracy initiative. The terms of reference are then considered in the light of these considerations. In our response to the terms, particular emphasis is given to improving the voting process to allow people who are blind or vision impaired to cast an independent, secret and verifiable vote through a system of e-voting termed ‘Electronic Assisted Voting’ (EAV).

B. Technical considerations for people who are blind and vision impaired

People who are blind or vision impaired access electronic communications independently through the use of adaptive technologies. These technologies include:

1. Screen reading software: Converts on screen text to synthetic speech and/or refreshable braille display output.

2. Print size variation and magnifying software: Converts on screen text to very large font sizes at the user’s discretion.

Important Note

For these technologies to work successfully, the form in which the electronic information is disseminated, whether it is through a web site, online discussion board or another electronic interactive medium, must comply with the requirements of the World Wide Web Consortium guidelines for accessible web sites. These guidelines can be found within the consortiums Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) (http://www.w3.org/WAI/). For more information on e-accessibility guidelines, visit the Blind Citizens Australia web site at http://www.bca.org.au/webacc.htm.

To view more information on adaptive technologies and suppliers visit our site at http://www.bca.org.au/ausequip.htm for Australian suppliers and http://www.bca.org.au/osequip.htm for overseas suppliers.

We encourage the members of the committee to browse our web site to see how the design complies with the W3C guidelines.

Consequential project considerations for e-democracy initiatives

From the information above, it is imperative that any e-democracy project contain an ‘adaptability’ component during design and testing stages to ensure that citizens who are blind or vision impaired have equal access to the government’s initiatives to expand the democratic process. Blind Citizens Australia would be pleased to assist in this task.

C. Blind Citizens Australia: Response to the Inquiry’s Terms of Reference

Response to items -

1) Netcasting of Parliamentary proceedings

2) Online interactive and collaborative approaches to policy discussion, including citizen email and online forums

Blind Citizens Australia strongly favours these measures to increase the level of public participation in the political and policy making process. These initiatives will expand the level of access people who are blind or vision impaired have in the political process. Unfortunately, history has shown that for blind people new technologies which have potentially enormous benefits are not realized because the end user interface is poorly designed.

We call upon the committee that if the initiatives outlined under items one and two do become a reality, that the technological methods employed take into consideration and test the accessibility requirements for people who are blind and vision impaired outlined under section (B) of this submission. This would mean, for example, that the netcasting of parliamentary proceedings would be executed using plain text and minimal graphic images. Again, Blind Citizens Australia would be pleased to assist in this testing process.

With specific reference to the ‘Netcasting of Parliamentary proceedings’ we ask the committee to also consider the mediums of television and radio for the broadcasting of Parliament. These more conventional mediums could be more cost effective and accessible to the general population.

Response to item -

3) Other technology solutions to promote access and participation.

Not all people who are blind or vision impaired have access to a computer and adaptive technology or are even computer literate. For these reasons we ask the committee to consider the option of providing telephone facilities, such as Interactive Voice Response (IVR) systems and direct telecast of parliamentary proceedings to ensure all citizens who are blind or vision impaired can have equal participation in the political and policy process. These alternative mediums may also prove to more cost effective.

Response to ‘Core Issues’

Core Issue (1) Potential impact of new and emerging technologies on the democratic processes of government

Over recent time, the advent of adaptive technology has greatly improved the level of independent participation people who are blind or vision impaired have in the community. To expand these new and emerging technologies to broaden the influence citizens who are blind or vision impaired have on the political landscape can only have a positive impact on the democratic process.

Core Issue (2) Options available to improve democratic processes through the use of such technologies (for example, through electronically enabled voting)

Our response to this core issue will focus on the matter of electronic accessible voting for the blind or vision impaired. This issue will dominate subsequent core issues 3 and 5 of the terms of reference.

Voting for people who are blind or vision impaired: The current Victorian situation

Under Section 94 of the Victorian Electoral Act 2002 voters who are blind or vision impaired must disclose their voting intentions to a trusted partner, friend or family member who will execute the vote for them. If these supports are unavailable, they must rely on the discretion of an electoral official present at the polling station.[1] Before the advent of adaptive technologies, it easy to understand why this provision in Victorian’s electoral law was made. However in the present climate of Australia’s wealth and technological capabilities, the continuation of these practices is openly discriminatory to people who are blind or vision impaired and calls into question Australia’s democratic reputation.

The Victorian 2002 Election

In 2002, Vision Australia Foundation entered into a contract with the Victorian Electoral Commission to make facilities available for blind or vision impaired people to vote independently and with the dignity which is afforded all others in the community. Four ‘Early Voting Centres’ were established at Vision Australia’s Kooyong, Essendon, Bendigo and Ballarat premises. These centres were open from 9.00 am to 5.00 pm the week prior to the Election and offered a number of options available to blind or vision impaired voters, including:

· closed circuit television and hand-held magnifiers to view enlarged text on the ballot papers;

· braille template ballot papers which enabled braille users to vote unassisted;

· appropriate lighting;

· pencils and pens which were easy to grip.

While welcoming the initiative undertaken by the Victorian Electoral Commission and Vision Australia, BCA was concerned that the provisions made for braille users did not meet the aim of providing independent and unassisted voting. To gauge the level of these concerns, BCA obtained a copy of the braille kit that was to be made available to braille users at the ‘Early Voting Centres’ and conducted a short qualitative survey with a sample of blind or vision impaired members of BCA.

The Braille Kit

The braille kit contained a template which fitted over the standard ballot paper with cut-out boxes on the lefthand side and the initials and party to which the candidate belonged (if applicable) on the right. An instruction sheet explaining the process was also provided. A set of numbered stamps and an ink pad was also included in the kit. To vote, the elector would choose the order in which the candidates would appear on their ballot paper and use the numbered stamps to print the numbers in the boxes of the ballot paper.

BCA survey results

A number of issues were raised by BCA members who took part in the survey. In summary, these included:

· the boxes were very hard to identify and manoeuvre the stamp into;

· there was no way of knowing whether the stamp had printed;

· greater difficulties arose where there were many candidates and some voters lost track of where they were up to with their voting and needed assistance to find their place;

· the stamps had to be placed in the centre of a very small area and some participants cast invalid votes;

· the process took quite a long time;

· many commented that electronic voting would have been a preferable option.

After passing these concerns onto Vision Australia, the original stamps were changed to self-inking stamps.

BCA commends the steps taken by the Victorian Electoral Commission and Vision Australia to provide better facilities for voters who are blind or vision impaired. However, the results of our study suggested that the methods undertaken failed to provide true independent voting.

Electronic Voting: The Australian Capital Territory’s 2001 and 2004 election

In the 2001 and 2004 Australian Capital Territory (ACT) election, a model of electronic voting was employed in an Australian parliamentary election. Complementing the traditional electoral process, ACT voters were provided with the option of casting their vote through the standard paper ballot or through an electronic ballot using a personal computer that was fitted with audio technology, including screen readers and headphones. The electronic system not only registered votes electronically, but also counted and tabulated these votes using Local Area Networks (LANs) located within the pre-polling and polling day stations containing the electronic option. Requiring only minimal legislative change to the territory’s electoral law to initiate, the ACT experiment allowed voters who were blind or vision impaired to conduct their vote in private for the first time in an Australian parliamentary election. Reviewing the outcome of the 2001 electoral process, the ACT Electoral Commission (Elections ACT) found the feedback from those who used the audio assistance to be “very positive”.[2] The Canberra Times reported that the vision-impaired were ‘thrilled’ with the electronic option.[3]

Electronic Assisted Voting (EAV): A model for Victoria’s future

Blind Citizens Australia advocates for a variation of electronic voting that is comparable to the ACT system, but which does not contain the ingredient of electronic recording and counting of votes. This system is termed Electronic Assisted Voting (EAV). EAV uses the ACT ingredients of a standard personal computer equipped with audio technology to electronically register the vote, but the out put is a printed ballot paper which the voter can place in the standard ballot box along with other ballot papers that have been marked manually. There is no LAN involved because the vote is not permanently recorded electronically for counting purposes and the printer is attached only to the computers local printer port, effectively eliminating security concerns and maintaining a paper trail.

Core Issue (3) Costs and benefits of new technologies that promote e-democracy

Electronic Assisted Voting (EAV): Implementing a human right

Blind Citizens Australia argues that people who are blind or vision impaired are equally entitled to the same democratic rights as all other citizens when voting at elections. Further more, we contend that our contention for democratic equity, rather than cost, should be the communities driving force for change. While the financial arguments are reasonable, they are secondary to the simple reality that Victoria's current voting process discriminates against people who are blind or vision impaired. Blind Citizens Australia asserts that the cost of remedying this discrimination would be relatively small considering the public spent $23.7 million to conduct the last Victorian election in 2001,[4] with $6,743,149 of this total expenditure going to the 373 candidates eligible for funding.[5]

The pre-federation states of Victoria and New South Wales were the first in the world to develop the ‘secret ballot’. After this initiative, the secret ballot was implemented in many democratic nations and led to countries like the United States and others referring to the ‘secret ballot’ as the ‘Australian ballot’.[6] The technology is now available for Victoria to continue its democratic leadership by removing the discriminatory voting procedures against people who are blind and vision impaired by implementing Electronic Assisted Voting.

BCA calls upon the committee to place citizenship, inclusion and basic democratic rights above the issue of cost when considering the potential for electronic voting.

Core Issue (4) Equitable access of all citizens to e-democracy

To provide equal access to e-democracy for people who are blind or vision impaired, it is imperative that the design of the e-democracy initiatives meet the requirements for the successful use of adaptive technologies outlined in section (B) of this submission.

Core Issue (5) Legal and regulatory factors

Electronic Assisted Voting (EAV)

As mentioned above under ‘Core Issue’ number (2), section 94 of the Victorian Electoral Act 2002 stipulates that voters who are blind or vision impaired must disclose their voting intentions to a trusted partner, friend or family member who will execute the vote for them. If these supports are unavailable, they must rely on the discretion of an electoral official present at the polling station. To successfully implement EAV so citizens who are blind or vision impaired can exercise their democratic right to a secret, independent and verifiable vote, the Victorian Electoral Act 2002 must be amended.

Core Issue (6) Educational or social barriers to the implementation of e-democracy.

1. Many computer literacy training courses are inaccessible to blind people.

2. Financial, employment and physical access constraints prevent equal access to education and technology for people who are blind or vision impaired. These constraints create a further barrier by reducing the personal self-confidence necessary to acquire the computer literacy skills to participate in e-democracy.