I'll be very brief.
First of all, I would suggest to you that a sworn declaration is a pretty good piece of identification compared to other pieces of identification that people can obtain that could potentially be listed by the Chief Electoral Officer. There is a criminal sanction if someone swears a false statutory declaration, so I'd suggest that you take that very seriously as a way for people to identify themselves.
Another aspect that the committee might want to look at would be the restrictions on the vouching process. For example, I refer to the fact that the person doing the vouching has to reside in the poll, which is a rather extreme restriction. The provision that the voucher can only vouch for one elector is a rather extreme restriction as well. For example, a welfare worker or someone of that nature might know a number of people. Someone who works in a community centre in an affected area might know and be perfectly, validly, able to vouch for a number of individuals, but really that resource is eliminated for all practical purposes. They can vouch for one elector, and that's it for that election.
If you're looking at ways to reduce the impact, I'd suggest those would be two ways of doing it: providing in the statute that a sworn declaration in a prescribed form would be acceptable identification, and have a mechanism perhaps for them to be sworn at the polling places; and doing something about the vouching process and what I suggest are unnecessary restrictions on the scope of that remedy.