Trevor Sargent (Dublin North, Green Party)

There will be no Braille and there is no proposal to make changes in that regard.

I would like to make some points about the technical issues. It has been mentioned that the Nedap-Powervote software is proprietary and that the source code is not available for public scrutiny. There is a possibility that there are flaws somewhere in the 200,000 lines of code, or that the code could be open to manipulation. These instances have occurred in the USA and came to light only when internal e-mails from within the software company were inadvertently made public.

A different approach has been taken in the Australian system, which was introduced in six months, rather than over four years. On a pro rata basis, it cost 10 million Australian dollars, rather than the €35 million we have spent here, a figure which increases to €40 million when one includes the cost of publicity contracts. The system designed in Australia two years ago addressed and eased most of the common concerns. Those running the Australian system chose to make their software completely open to public scrutiny. Although a private Australian company designed the system, it was based on specifications set by independent election officials, who posted the code on the Internet for all to see and evaluate. It was accomplished from concept to product in six months and it went through a trial run in a state election in 2001. The public was able to download the software and to proof it for problems, bugs or backdoors. A number of people found problems, including an academic at the Australian National University who found the most serious problem.

The Australian system is based on open source software, as opposed to the Nedap-Powervote system and the American system mentioned previously, both of which use Microsoft Access. I discussed this issue with an IT professional recently and I outlined the Nedap-Powervote system to him in layman's terms. When I told him that the system uses Microsoft Access he laughed and told me that I was wrong. He was adamant that nobody in their right mind would use Microsoft Access for such a critical application, but when I assured him that I was correct, his reply was unrepeatable. I understand that a number of people have made this point to the Department, although I expect that their point was more eloquently put. The IT professional told me that the EU is actively promoting the use of open source software for mission critical applications. It is the preferred development environment for governmental applications across the EU, primarily for reasons of cost, suitability and security. I suggest that we bear this in mind in Ireland if we have to go back to the drawing board on this project.

Like justice, the democratic and electoral processes must be conducted in public. Before the public can have confidence in the voting system, it is critical that the IT community has confidence in it. The Nedap-Powervote system relies on secret software, secret processes and a general lack of transparency. The history of such systems in other jurisdictions proves that it is not acceptable to proceed without a voter verifiable paper audit trail. We should learn from the experience of other people, by developing a state-of-the-art e-voting system. I would prefer if this could be done in Ireland, as we should try to keep jobs in Ireland. We should learn from the experience of other countries and thereby avoid the problems they had with their first generation systems. We should take the best-in-class systems from Australia and California and make our system the best in the world, based on their experience. We have spent a considerable sum of money on this project — many people would say that we have wasted it. We should ensure that we get it right first time.

The Minister for Finance will be familiar with the business magazine Fortune, which recently declared that paperless voting was the worst technology of 2003. It is important to stress that such a system is not used nationwide in any other European state, contrary to the claims of many people. When the Taoiseach offers an independent body, he is simply offering the equivalent of a cup of cocoa. When one compares his offer to the action taken in the US state of Maryland, where people were hired to see if they could break the e-voting system by hacking into it, it is by no means an assurance. People in this country need such reassurance, especially if the new system is to be spearheaded by Fianna Fáil. If the Government was convinced of the merits of its technology, there is no doubt that it would copy the Maryland example and provide for a voter verifiable audit trail, rather than trying to hide behind weak arguments that have no basis in science.

See this speech in context