Losing the democracy sausage vibe
November 25, 2025
The last federal election saw a sharp rise in harassment and aggression at polling places, according to submissions from around the country. From death threats to deception, the once-peaceful ritual of casting a vote is under threat – and Australia needs to act.
Australian electoral management has an enviable global reputation as well as an unusual level of trust. The peaceful nature of Australian election days has been written up by many, including 19th-century novelist Anthony Trollope.
More recently this peaceful civic ritual has been epitomised as the democracy sausage vibe. But many of those participating as volunteers at polling booths in 2025 think we have lost this vibe.
The Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters (JSCEM) holds an inquiry into the conduct of each federal election and submissions have now closed for the 2025 inquiry. An astonishing number of the 144 submissions provided evidence of intimidation and harassment at polling places and described the experience as ‘traumatising’.
Also astonishing is the amount of redacted material thanks to a decision by JSCEM to redact names where there were adverse reflections on a party or individual candidate (but not a third party). Whereas groups such as Advance, Repeal the Teals, Keep the Sheep, Better Australia or the Plymouth Brethren could be identified, the party they were assisting was redacted.
However, JSCEM did not prohibit mention of the colour of T-shirts worn by volunteers so party identification was easy. Sometimes those in blue swarming at PrePoll Voting Centres appeared more aggressive than regular party volunteers and were identified as Plymouth Brethren from outside the electorate. Other colours did more to confuse than identify. A volunteer in Wentworth noted that Better Australia volunteers wore yellow vests with ‘Community Advisor’ printed on them, making them look like Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) supervisors (submission 138).
Many of the submissions came from those who had volunteered at polling places or in some cases collated the experiences of voters or volunteers for independent candidates, such as in the divisions of Goldstein, Kooyong and Wannon in Victoria, Fisher in Queensland or Forrest in Western Australia.
A common theme was that the vibe had changed between the 2022 and 2025 federal elections. Some identified the Voice referendum of 2023 as a turning point in the increase in uncivil behaviour. Reference was made to Article 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the right of citizens to vote in elections held by secret ballot, ‘guaranteeing the free expression of the will of the electors’. The kind of intimidation of voters and volunteers that took place in some polling places was seen as both violating free expression of voting intention and deterring democratic participation (‘never again’ some volunteers said).
The worst examples of intimidation came from Goldstein and Kooyong. In Goldstein third parties such as Repeal the Teal accused Independent Zoe Daniel and her volunteers of anti-semitism and being Hamas supporters. There were death threats to Daniel and intimidation of supporters who displayed signs at their houses ‘You and your family are no longer welcome here in our neighbourhood’. Those identified as Jewish volunteers were called out for being ‘self-hating Jews’ or traitors (for example, submissions 104, 107, 108, 122, 127).
In August, Mark Dreyfus discussed Goldstein in his Address-in-Reply speech. He spoke about Zoe Daniel needing police protection in the last week of the campaign and the ‘barrage of personal attacks’ on her staff and volunteers, whether in person or online. Dreyfus claimed that the successful Liberal candidate, Tim Wilson, had even attempted to justify one of the incidents by “suggesting his campaign volunteer had low blood sugar levels”. Like the volunteers responding to the JSCEM inquiry, Dreyfus argued that Goldstein showed how quickly abuse and intimidation can erode confidence in democracy and deter people from wanting to take part.
While Kooyong and Goldstein may have provided the worst experiences, they were not the only divisions where volunteers reported they would never do it again. Evidence collected from voters and volunteers in Forrest (WA, submissions 95, 96), described how voters had to ‘run the gauntlet’ of Plymouth Brethren volunteers from outside the electorate and hateful ‘Keep the Sheep’ signage.
The gendered nature of the aggression at polling places was a common theme of submissions, which noted that those engaging in aggressive behaviour were predominantly young men, often intimidating older female volunteers. Marilyn Beaumont, former federal secretary of the Australian Nursing Federation, volunteered for the first time at a pre-poll booth in Bateman’s Bay. She found she was targeted by young men, like one calling ‘make Gilmore great again’ who later kept whispering ‘do you think I’m a toxic male?’ (submission 43).
What did those writing of their experiences as volunteers and voters want for the future? Reflecting experience of crowding and obstruction (the ‘corridors of coercion’), the most common recommendation was to limit the number of volunteers working for a candidate at any given time. In reaction to the large number of non-local volunteers, some submissions also recommended that volunteers be registered in the same way as scrutineers, including their address and endorsement by a candidate or party.
Another common recommendation was for an increase in the exclusion zone for federal elections – the area where canvassing cannot place. Currently this covers six metres from the polling place entrance. Some referred to the larger exclusion zones in other jurisdictions and the need to prevent the badgering of voters once in the queue. A number suggested a good start would be enforcement of the existing six-metre rule, noting multiple violations (for example submission 44 from Bendigo).
Conflicts over signage and the positioning of A-frames, corflutes and bunting prompted recommendations that the number and size of signs be regulated, as with the Victorian limits for state elections, which apply within 100 metres of the entrance to a voting centre,
Submissions from ‘Voices’ groups referred to their own code of conduct and recommended a code applying to all volunteers be drawn up by the AEC and displayed at polling places (for example, submission 129). The Narooma Branch of the Labor Party (submission 41) also called for the AEC to be empowered and resourced to enforce such a code, covering signage and volunteer numbers. The Northern Territory Electoral Commission has already developed such a code, which covers intimidation and removal or defacing of posters, a common complaint.
Those responding to the JSCEM inquiry have described how verbal and physical standover tactics are now disrupting the civic ritual of polling days in Australia. This rich haul of experiential evidence deserves serious response – a challenge some State and Territory electoral commissions are already facing up to.
The views expressed in this article may or may not reflect those of Pearls and Irritations.
Please donate to Pearls and Irritations
Help us to continue to bridge the gap on the stories not covered in Australia’s mainstream media.
