Why is voting compulsory in Australia?
- jasonsix3
- Aug 11
- 22 min read
Updated: Nov 7
Voting is widely considered a right, as recognised in Article 21 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights, but it is also considered a duty in some countries [1]. Australia is one of them, and one of a small number to actively enforce the requirement to vote in its elections [2]. It’s been that way for over one-hundred years, and Australians have largely accepted it as part of the nation’s culture, but is it the foundation of our democratic system, or an outdated tradition out of step with the modern world?[3] In this article, we examine the arguments that justify the practice, and whether it is a net benefit to the country.
The History of Compulsory Voting in Australia
The Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 describes doing one’s bit for democracy as “the duty of every elector”. This was not the case for the first nine federal elections after Federation in 1901, however, when an uncharacteristically lax policy permitted Australians to suit themselves when it came to their civic responsibilities. This freedom ended in 1924 when a Senator from Perth introduced a private member’s bill to mandate voting (described as being “of a revolutionary character” in Hansard debate records [4]) following the 1922 federal election, when voter turnout fell to 60% [5]. It also came after the precedent set nine years earlier in Queensland, when the sunshine state became the only place in the British Empire at the time to oblige electoral participation. The passage of the bill into law was expedited with little debate and no formal opposition [6], and, perhaps predictably, voter turnout surged to over 90% at the 1925 election. It has remained at similar levels since.
A review of Parliamentary debate records from 1924 reveals that the proposed law excited more controversy than is generally supposed. Transcripts of its second reading in Parliament help to explain the motivation behind it, largely based on concern for the democratic legitimacy of elected representatives who receive less than 50% of the popular vote [7]. Excerpts from the debate (included at the end of this article) are essential to understand the bill’s justification. The opposing arguments, rarely heard in contemporary public debate, are of particular interest.
Arguments for and against
Today, the justification for compulsory voting rests upon several key arguments. These are outlined below, followed by possible cases for and against the practice.
Legitimacy
The strength of a representative system (Australia is a representative parliamentary democracy and constitutional monarchy) relies on a strong connection between the government and the people they represent; a government has a better claim to legitimacy when more voters have their say. This connection is primarily established by voter participation in elections: all votes cast are made in favour of the system, and each registers consent for it to provide a suitable government. If enough citizens chose not to vote, it would diminish the idea that the overall electorate is represented by politicians who seek to address, or are at least aware, of their concerns and issues.
A similar issue arises in relation the voting system in countries with and without compulsory voting. The ability of parties and their representatives to gain power with a minority of votes strikes many people, including the representative who argued in favour of the 1924 bill, as being somewhat un-democratic. For example, in the 2025 Australian federal election, the Labor Party formed government with a majority of seats in the House of Representatives, though only received 35% of first preference votes (the opposition Liberal Party received 21%) [8]. In the 2024 UK general election, in which voting was voluntary, the Labour Party formed government with 34%, though voter turnout was only 60%, which means only 20% of the electorate approved of the party and its policies [9].
Participation rates
Election outcomes better represent the will of the people when voter participation rates are high. A referendum on a change to Australia’s constitution is an example of where participation rates are considered especially important, and such a change is, by law, justified only by a ‘double majority’ (a national majority and a majority of states); it warrants the attention and participation of the entire electorate.
“The effectiveness of our democracy depends on the active participation of all Australian citizens.” (AEC, 2024).
The British government recently announced its intention to lower the voting age from 18 to 16, which would increase voter participation and “help increase political engagement of younger people” (House of Commons, 2025). The decision was supported in an article written by a young author (Kareem, 2025) and published by the ABC, which encouraged Australia to follow the UK’s lead. In this and similar articles supporting the change, there was, naturally enough, no mention of Australia adopting that country’s practice of voluntary voting, which might be expected to reduce participation.
Voting as a Civic Duty
Article 29 of the UN Human Rights Declaration recognises that: “Everyone has duties to the community.” But can any right also be an obligation? The idea is used to justify a range of civic obligations, including taxation, jury duty, and the requirement to vote. Attitudes towards such duties do change over time, however; one no longer enforced in Australia is national military service, which was required of 20-year-old men from 1965 until 1972 (NAA, 2025).
An article published by the Australia Electoral Commission provides two quotes that express the prevailing the view that some civic obligations, even those that some find objectionable, may be imposed if they are not regarded as too burdensome, or if Parliament believes them important to democracy:
"All our voting system requires is for a voter to attend a polling booth and mark some papers as they wish, approximately once every three years. This does not seem to be an insurmountable burden to be part of a democracy."
"There are many things that people do not wish to do and which they would not do if they were able to exercise 'individual freedoms', but which parliament has legislated to require. The role of parliament in a parliamentary democracy includes passing laws to ensure the effectiveness of that democratic system."
(AEC, Compulsory Voting, 2023)
Public support
The level of public support for compulsory voting in Australia is generally established by citing opinion polls conducted using representative sampling methods. The Australian Election Study (AES), coordinated by the ANU in Canberra and carried out jointly by several universities, is a reliable source of such data. Support for compulsory voting was 69% in results published as part of its 2022 report on long-term trends in political opinion, consistent with prior election years [10]. 77% of respondents ‘would have voted if voting was voluntary’.
Aside from polls and surveys, support for the law is often presumed from the lack of public opposition to it. In an article examining the Australia’s acceptance of compulsory voting, academic Lisa Hill asks: “The question still remains to be answered: why has compulsory voting survived for so long without serious public contestation?” and cites European studies that conclude there is little data to establish how voters feel about compulsory voting. She writes that an examination of Australia’s tolerance for the practice might prove instructive to countries who wish to emulate it, and argues that the law operates under favourable conditions in Australia because of the nation’s unique culture and history, which includes high trust in its institutions and a strong sense of civic responsibility. Hill suggests that a strategy to reduce minority, or potential future, opposition to the policy might include requiring that voters attend a polling place but not obliging that they mark the ballot paper, as is the case in South Australia (on this basis, a European court decision held that compulsory voting did not violate citizens’ civil and political rights). (Hill, 2010)
Resources and funding
Political parties and independent candidates in Australia are publicly funded based on election results. If they receive more than four per cent of first preference votes, they are entitled to an ‘automatic’ lump sum and a rate per first preference vote ($3 for the 2025 federal election). It is argued that compulsory voting allows political parties to be more efficient with their resources, as they can focus on creating policies, rather than encouraging voters to participate; though resources must also be allocated to enforce compliance with the law.
Ian Farrow made the case in the economic journal Agenda, that the entrenched two-party system and compulsory voting combine to maintain the political power of the Liberal and Labor parties, which he notes are ‘private organisations’. That is, the high voter participation rate (91% in 2025) means that public funding also remains high, and this funding is directed to the two major parties because of traditional voting patterns. On this basis, he argued that compulsory voting had long helped secure the parties’ financial security and power (while they also receive large donations from big business and labour unions). Voting patterns have changed to some degree since Farrow’s article was published in 1997, when the primary vote for the major parties had been steady at around 40% for many decades, and their combined vote share above 80%. The combined share dropped to 66% for the 2025 federal election, as part of a long-term voter trend towards independents and minor parties (Predavec, 2025).
Using these arguments, and others taken from prominent advocates for both positions, possible cases for and against compulsory voting might be made as follows:
A case for
Compulsory voting forces the major political parties to consider the views of the total electorate, all of whom are required to participate. This means the major parties must provide moderate, centrist policies that appeal to the reasonable people who form the majority of the electorate. For example, compulsory voting helped save Medicare in the 1980s by keeping the Labor Party in power and preventing a Liberal government, whose voters are less sympathetic to citizens who benefit from such welfare programs, from abolishing it [11]. A system that must provide accessible voting methods for the whole electorate is also more inclusive of minority or disadvantaged voters.
Without compulsory voting, disengaged voters would likely abandon politics completely, but as they are required to vote, new candidates are motivated to enter the race and provide better alternatives for them.
The requirement to vote once every three years is at most a minor inconvenience, though is of great benefit to the democratic system by helping to establish the legitimacy of election results. Those who vote have had their say, and are therefore less likely to dispute, or be seriously dissatisfied, with the result.
Representative polls and surveys consistently demonstrate popular support for compulsory voting at around 70% of the electorate. This shows that Australians have accepted it as a part of a culture that helps to maintain a healthy democratic system.
No convincing case has been made against compulsory voting, and no significant opposition was formed to its implementation. The idea of voluntary voting is very much a minority position.
A case against
It could be argued that, since compulsory voting legislation was enacted without public consultation and little debate, no case is required to repeal it. The ‘well-developed philosophical case’ against the law that its advocates claim would be required [12] was never made in its favour. But if one were to be made, it might begin with the fact that voluntary voting would do no harm and only benefit Australians. No citizen would lose the right to vote, and those who wish to vote can still do so, while others would gain the right not to: citizens who believe there are no suitable candidates who represent their views can avoid supporting those with whom they disagree (including through public funding).
Those not engaged with the electoral system will have their indifference or dissatisfaction recognised by their absence, rather than helping to provide legitimacy for its outcomes. Unengaged voters are more likely to be uninformed, and the omission of their votes would mean that election results better reflect informed opinion. Compelled participation creates only the appearance of engagement and conceals any lack of engagement.
Polls may not tell the true story of support for compulsory voting. Only voluntary voting would provide a true view of voter sentiment: a referendum on the practice. If the polls are accurate, participation would remain high [13].
The global democratic consensus is for voluntary voting. Allowing citizens to abstain from voting has not been shown to weaken or destabilise electoral processes in the United Kingdom and United States, where comparable systems exist; nor does voluntary participation seem to be a factor in creating any deficiencies that may be attributed to their respective systems. There has been no significant public demand in favour of compulsory voting in countries without it, and the long-term trend is decidedly against it: “It could be argued that Australia is out of step with the world, or at least the industrialised world.” (AEC, 2023)
Neither voluntary nor compulsory voting inherently helps or harms one political cause or party. If it does inadvertently, this is not an argument in its favour. “The Labor Party is a fierce defender of compulsion because it is certain that it derives a partisan advantage from compulsory voting” [14].
There has been consistent support for voluntary voting at the political level. Discussion of, or recommendations to adopt, voluntary voting in some form have been made through the independent Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters (JSCEM), which holds an inquiry into each federal election. The recommendation to adopt voluntary voting was made in 1996, and submissions or discussions of the issue were included in the 1998, 2001, 2004, 2016, and 2019 reports.
The relative strength of Australia’s democracy has, historically, rested upon the electorate’s faith in the electoral system’s integrity, the high degree of trust between its citizens, including its representatives, the perception of a political system that broadly operates responsibly and responsively, and the nation’s history of economic opportunity and political stability. These factors have existed independently of the requirement to vote, which has to date been accepted in good faith as part of a culture that values fairness and honesty by a people willing to work together for the common good.
Which case do you find more convincing?
Penalties
Australia enforces the requirement to vote, though the penalty for not voting at first glance seems quite mild, with a cash payment of $20 enough to satisfy the Australian Electoral Commission [15]. The fine is even waived if you “provide a valid and sufficient reason for failing to vote” (AEC, Non-voters, 2025). But those who elect to provide neither can end up in court, or even jail.
The JSCEM Report on the conduct of the 2016 federal election provides some insight into the potential punishment for not voting.
The AEC has the option to take further action against those who refuse to pay fines for non-voting. Mr Rogers informed the Committee that: If you do not pay the small sum of $20 and it goes to court action, that can actually become a significant amount of money. If you do not pay the money, eventually that can lead to some fairly dramatic consequences…when you go through process that is in the Crimes Act, section 4AB, it converts across to one penalty unit. The fine for failing to vote is $180, plus court costs. That is a maximum fine.
(JSCEM, Report on the conduct of the 2016 federal election, 2018)
According to the report, revenue from fine payments for the 2013 election was $2.1 million, though the cost to pursue non-voters was $3.4 million; between 3000 and 3500 people were taken to court for the offence. ‘Several submissions’ argued that the current penalties are not high enough to deter non-voting, though 57% of respondents to the Electoral Integrity Project’s AVE survey, cited in the report, believed there should be no penalty, or that it should be reduced.
Conclusion
Australians have long been known as an easy-going lot ready to accept the status quo. We’re amenable to authority, sticklers for rules, and generally don’t mind being told what to do. Some have even accused us of apathy when it comes to politics.
Compulsory voting is a fact of life for now, with most Australians inclined to say C'est la vie to their civic obligation with the belief that it’s the right thing to do. Whether it’s right to make them do it is still a matter of debate.
Appendix: House of Representatives Debate on Compulsory Voting Bill 1924
[Representative Edward Mann]:
The bill is intended to give actual effect to a desire frequently expressed, not only in parliamentary circles, but amongst many thoughtful people outside. It proposes what is admittedly an experiment, but one which I think has more reason to commend it, both on practical and theoretical grounds, than many experiments which are proposed…but I think I should put on record the reasons for its introduction, so that in future there may not be any question as to the motives behind this action…
…The statistics showing the proportion of qualified voters in Australia who have exercised the franchise' are rather staggering. Ever since federation was established, of all those who have been returned to the Senate during the last 24 years, on only four occasions has an individual senator been returned by more than 50 per cent, of the voters enrolled…In the case of the House of Representatives, as a result of the last election, the most representative member sitting in this chamber is one who was returned by the votes of only 48.78 of those enrolled for his district.
In other words, honorable members are frequently returned not by a majority of the electors of the Commonwealth, but by a majority of one-half, or less, of the electors, and yet by these honorable members laws are enacted which control the whole community. If the principles of democracy are to be properly applied, it is evident that some attempt should be made to ensure that those who govern at least represent the majority of the governed. This bill is an attempt to bring that about.
The people should be jealous of their democratic privileges; and we have the right' to ask of them that they should regard those privileges, not only as something which they ought to prize, but as involving a duty which they should perform, and the performance of which the state has a right to demand of them…People need to be taught that they will be good democrats, not by being armchair or street-corner critics, but by becoming in reality responsible for public acts. There is some justification for hoping that this bill, if passed, will bring about what is desired…But by compelling people to vote, we are likely to arouse in them an intelligent interest, and to give them a political knowledge that they do not at present possess.
Two chief objections have been advanced against this measure, both of which are thoughtful and conscientious. It is well, therefore, that I should endeavour to meet them. First, it is contended that the bill is an interference with the liberty of the subject. [refer to the Hansard record for detail of this argument].
[The bill was opposed by representative John Duncan Hughes]:
I was somewhat surprised that he did not have more to tell us concerning this measure. Such a radical alteration of the electoral machinery of Australia is sufficiently important to justify the fullest details being laid before honorable members. I regret the haste with which this bill has been introduced. It was both introduced and passed in the Senate during the last week, and, apparently, a similar course is to be followed in this chamber. I intend to oppose the measure…
What freedom can there possibly be in a franchise the exercise of which is compulsory? That is a contradiction in terms. A franchise which gives an individual the right to decide whether he shall vote or not ceases to be freedom when made compulsory.
I am aware that there are honourable members in this House…who stated on the hustings that they were in favour of compulsory voting; but not only did I not say that, but at no time during the election campaign was the subject of compulsory voting mentioned by me. With other honourable members I deplore the apathy of the electors, but, as I did not inform my constituents that if I were returned to represent them in this House I should assist to bring a bill to force them to vote, whether they desired it or not, I do not feel entitled now to support a measure which has compulsory voting as its object. I realize that there are occasions when honourable members must decide for themselves the course of action they shall take without first referring to their constituents. In matters of urgency honourable members must be prepared to take the responsibility of acting on their own initiative. This measure, however, is not one of urgency. There is no necessity for a vote to be taken on it until honourable members have had an opportunity to ascertain the views of their constituents concerning it.
At the Senate election of 1913 the persons who voted represented 73 per cent of the electors; the following year the percentage was 72 per cent; in 1917, it was 77 per cent; in 1919, 71 per cent; and, in 1922, nearly 58 per cent. That shows a falling off of 13 per cent, in 1922 as compared with 1919. The figures for the House of Representatives are a little different. In both 1913 and 19.14, 73 per cent, of the electors exercised their right to vote; 78 per cent, of them voted in 1917; 71 per cent, in 1919; and, in 1922, 59 per cent. There may be good reasons for the reduction in the number of persons who voted, but that falling off does not, of itself, justify this House in making such a radical alteration of the electoral laws of the Commonwealth as this bill proposes.
Except in a case of emergency, I do not consider that I am entitled, without consulting my constituents, to assist in passing legislation which would require them necessarily to vote. At no time did I ever suggest to them that there was any likelihood of a measure of this nature being passed by this Parliament. I have a duty, not only to those who actually voted for me, but also to the other residents of my district.
I also oppose the bill because compulsory voting is practically a new development. The honourable member who introduced the measure with so few words admitted that he knew of no place where compulsory voting is in operation except Queensland. In other words, he hardly thinks it necessary to justify the most radical change he is proposing. The attitude of Queensland will not prevail with me against the attitude of the rest of the world.
I oppose this bill because it is, as the honourable member for Perth suggested, an unjustifiable interference with the liberty of the subject…The proposal is altogether contrary to my idea of preserving the rights of individuals.
I have heard it said that members of parliaments have been absent when a division was taking place upon a matter upon which they did not wish to express an opinion publicly. As far as I know there is no compulsory voting in any parliament. It is certainly not obligatory upon honourable members to vote upon any question brought forward in this House. If honourable members are in favour of compulsory voting, the proper place to make a start is this House.
There is not a great deal of time for this debate. If the honourable member for Capricornia wishes to address the House when I have finished, he may do so. Meanwhile, I shall go ahead with what I intend to say.
[Interjection: But we want to get the bill through.]
The honourable member may interject as much as he likes, but I shall continue my speech…Many people do not vote because they consider that their knowledge of politics is not sufficient to justify them in doing so…Many will not vote because they do not think that they understand politics, and they prefer to leave the choice of members of Parliament to others who think that they do. Does the honourable member for Perth anticipate that such people would, under compulsion, develop an interest in elections?
It is certain that a man cannot be compelled to take an interest in political affairs if he does not want to do so. If electors have to vote, whether they like it or not, on a subject in regard to which they are indifferent, or on a subject which they say they do not understand, they will depend upon the opinions of others, so that their, votes, in the main, will not represent their own definite views.
…Some persons do not attach themselves to any political party. Possibly, they may not appreciate the advantages of voting for the candidate of any party. Is it fair if they do not wish to vote, or if they do not approve of any of the candidates, that they must go to the poll and vote? Considering the struggles of rival political parties and their wide advertisement in the press, I think it can be safely said that any elector who does not choose to vote must, on the whole, be satisfied with the Government in power and with the general conditions under which he is living.
…For instance, he has made no reference, to the extra cost which will be involved in administering the electoral law if it is passed. It stands to reason that even if an 80 per cent or 90 per cent poll is secured, the cost of administering the electoral law will be enormously increased.
…My attitude is not undemocratic. I do not suggest the limiting of the rights of any elector. The full franchise exists, but what I advocate is much more in accordance with the principles of Liberalism than are the provisions of the bill. One might say that under those principles a man is free to follow his individual trend so long as he does not detrimentally affect his neighbour and provided he carries out certain duties to the common society…I do not believe that compulsory voting, and particularly compulsory voting for a candidate that the elector does not desire to see elected, is among the duties an individual owes to the common society.
The remedy lies not in compulsion, which, after all, is essentially undemocratic, whatever the honourable member for Darling may say to the contrary. My attitude is truly democratic, while those who wish to force their views upon the unfortunate elector are undemocratic…The factor that will undoubtedly cause the electors to realise more fully, not only their privileges, but also their duties, is the gradual spread of education. In education our hope lies. The youth of this nation ought certainly to be made to understand more of their rights, as well as more of their responsibilities and duties to the nation.
[Representative David Jackson]:
This is not a bill that should be passed hurriedly, and I take this opportunity, in the few minutes at my disposal, to express my views about it. It is necessary, of course, that we should have compulsory enrolment, but I do not admit that compulsory voting is its natural corollary.
I have yet to be convinced that there is any advantage in compelling people to vote. If the bill is administered as certain honourable members desire, it will involve the issue of half a million summonses whenever we have an election, apart from the cost of postage and the work involved in the postal department. Instead of passing this hurried legislation, I suggest that members should take time to think a little more calmly over it.
Compulsory voting was introduced in New Zealand, and, after it had been tried, the old system was reverted to. I am sorry that I have not the full details of that attempt to enforce compulsory voting, but the bill was sprung on me this afternoon, and I had no knowledge of it until I saw it on the notice-paper. Had I known of it yesterday, I would have had an opportunity to look up the particulars. In the circumstances, and until I have an opportunity to obtain full information, I shall oppose the bill.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate.
(Parliament of Australia, House of Representatives Debates, 1924)
Sources and readings
AEC. Voter turnout (previous events). 2023. https://www.aec.gov.au/elections/federal_elections/voter-turnout.htm
AEC. Compulsory voting in Australia. 2023. https://www.aec.gov.au/about_aec/publications/voting/
AEC. First preferences by party, 2025 Federal Election. 2025.
AEC. Australian voting history in action. 2024. https://www.aec.gov.au/About_AEC/25/theme1-voting-history.htm
AEC. Non-voters. 2025. https://www.aec.gov.au/Elections/non-voters.htm
AEC. Compliance & Enforcement Activities. 2025. https://www.aec.gov.au/About_AEC/compliance.htm
AEC. Compulsory voting s. 245, Electoral Backgrounder - polling place and other offences. https://www.aec.gov.au/about_aec/Publications/Backgrounders/polling-places-offences.htm#s245
AEC. Electoral Backgrounder: Compulsory voting. 2025. https://www.aec.gov.au/about_aec/publications/backgrounders/compulsory-voting.htm
Australasian Legal Information Institute. Electoral Act 1985 - section 85 Compulsory voting (South Australia). Accessed 2025.
Brett, Judith. ABC. A history of compulsory voting in Australia (and why we are so good at elections). 2019. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-03-01/compulsory-voting-federal-election-the-good-bits-of-politics/10825482
Cameron, Sarah. Ian McAllister, Simon Jackman and Jill Sheppard. The 2022 Australian Federal Election: Results from the Australian Election Study (AES). Canberra: The Australian National University. 2022.
Civics Australia. Fact Sheet 21. Why do we have Compulsory Voting? https://civicsaustralia.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/Factsheet_21.pdf
Commonwealth of Australia 2025. Attorney General’s Department. 6.1 Strict liability. https://www.ag.gov.au/crime/publications/commonwealth-criminal-code-guide-practitioners-0/part-22-elements-offence/division-6-cases-where-fault-elements-are-not-required/61-strict-liability
Farrow, Ian. Not Calling the Tune: Australian Taxpayer Subsidies to Parties' Election Campaigns. 1997. https://www.jstor.org/stable/43198899
Hill, Lisa. Research Gate. Public acceptance of compulsory voting: Explaining the Australian case. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/232978517_Public_acceptance_of_compulsory_voting_Explaining_the_australian_case
International Idea. Countries with compulsory voting. Accessed 2025.
Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters (JSCEM). Report on the conduct of the 2016 federal election and matters related thereto, Section 3.105. 2018.
Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters (JSCEM). Report on the conduct of the 2016 federal election and matters related thereto, Section 3.109. 2018.
Kareem, Anhaar. ABC. The UK is lowering the voting age to 16 — what possible reason could Australia have for not following suit?
Legal Aid NSW. Go to court – Strict Liability. https://www.legalaid.nsw.gov.au/my-problem-is-about/fines/fines-go-to-court
Millington, Ben. ABC. Fines and court: What can happen if you don't vote.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-08-08/what-happens-when-you-dont-vote-in-a-federal-election/8786684
Minchin, Nick. Voluntary Voting. Upholding the Australian Constitution: The Samuel Griffith Society Proceedings. 2003. https://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/SGSocUphAUCon/2003/11.html
Museum of Australian Democracy. Commonwealth Electoral Act 1924 (Cth). https://www.foundingdocs.gov.au/item-sdid-89.html
National Archives of Australia. Fact Sheet 164. National Service, 1965–72. https://www.naa.gov.au/sites/default/files/2020-05/fs-164-national-service-1965-72.pdf
Nichanian, Daniel. Bolts. “An Egalitarian Pressure”: Australia Has Been Requiring People to Vote for 100 Years. 2025. https://boltsmag.org/compulsory-voting-australia-election/
Parliament of Australia. House of Representatives Debates. ORDER OF BUSINESS - House of Representatives Hansard - 3 September 1924. https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;adv=yes;orderBy=customrank;page=0;query=compulsory%20voting%20Date%3A01%2F01%2F1923%20%3E%3E%2001%2F01%2F1925%20Dataset%3Ahansardr,hansardr80,hansardrIndex;rec=5;resCount=Default
Parliament of Australia. House of Representatives Debates. ELECTORAL (COMPULSORY VOTING) BILL - Second Reading - House of Representatives Hansard - 24 July 1924.
Parliament of Australia. House of Representatives Debates. ELECTORAL (COMPULSORY VOTING) BILL - Second Reading - House of Representatives Hansard - 24 July 1924.
Predavec, Skye. The Australia Institute. The 2025 federal election is the first where a major party received fewer votes than independents and minor parties. 2025.
Scates, Bob. The Commons Library. Accessed 2025. https://commonslibrary.org/draftmen-go-free-a-history-of-the-anti-conscription-movement-in-australia/
Sydney Morning Herald. Howard rejects calls to end compulsory voting. 2005. https://www.smh.com.au/national/howard-rejects-calls-to-end-compulsory-voting-20051005-gdm6tl.html
The Week. Pros and cons of compulsory voting. 2025.
United Nations. Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Accessed 2025. https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights
Varnham O'Regan, Sylvia. SBS. Why does Australia have compulsory voting? 2019.
Voting age. House of Commons Library. 2025. https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn01747/
Worldometer. Countries in the World. Accessed 2025.
[1] According to the International Idea website, 20 countries mandate and enforce voting in 2025 (though four allow exceptions for the elderly). According to worldometer.com, there are presently 195 countries in the world. Therefore, 10% of countries mandate and enforce voting.
[2] Voting in both state and federal elections is compulsory.
[3] “It could be argued that Australia is out of step with the world, or at least the industrialised world.” (AEC, Compulsory voting in Australia, 2023)
[4] Parliament of Australia, House of Representatives Debates, Order or Business - House of Representatives Hansard - 3 September 1924.
[5] From 71% in 1919. Voter turnout in the four elections prior to 1922 had been over 70%.
[6] Nick Minchin, an advocate for voluntary voting, writes:
The Parliament’s decision to deny us the legal right to choose whether or not to vote happened in remarkable circumstances. A backbench National Party Senator by the name of Payne introduced a private members Bill to amend the Commonwealth Electoral Act to make voting compulsory…Only five Senators and three Members of the House of Representatives spoke in the Parliamentary consideration of the Bill. Not one Party leader contributed to the debate. One of our most eminent constitutional lawyers, Professor Geoffrey Sawer, has written that: “No major departure in the Federal political system has ever been made in so casual a fashion”...“It took only 52 minutes in the House of Representatives and 86 minutes in the Senate for compulsory voting to become law...in what sort of nation can compulsory voting be introduced without discussion or debate?” (Minchin, 2003)
[7] A criticism that could be directed against the preferential voting system that, in 2025, allowed a national government to be formed with 35% of the primary vote, and an argument in favour of adopting a system of proportional representation in the House, in which no government has secured a majority of the popular vote since the Liberal-National coalition in 1975.
[8] AEC, 2025
[9] 34% x 60% = 20%. A 2011 UK referendum was held on the issue of changing their ‘first-past-the-post’ voting system to one resembling that used to elect Australia’s Senate, though many preferred a proportional voting system, under which seats won might more closely align with votes cast.
[10] The surveys are ‘national, post-election self-completion surveys’ with an average valid sample response of 2,277 people across all election years between 1987 and 2022.
[11] Argument provided by Australian academic Judith Brett (Nichanian, 2025).
[12] Judith Brett, ABC, 2019
[13] AES, 2022
[14] Argument provided by Nick Minchin, 2003
[15] The penalty was originally two pounds in 1924.
