FOI Request LEX3047

Date: 2022

The following is a summary of the documents released under FOI Request No. LEX3047:

Main Purpose of the FOI Request

The main purpose of the FOI request (LEX3047, dated 20 June 2022) was to obtain specific documents from the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) related to complaints concerning electoral advertisements. Specifically, the requester sought:
* A copy of the original complaint.
* The final AEC correspondence to the relevant third-party regarding the matter.

The request focused on complaints made mostly in April and May 2019 concerning a lack of authorisation on electoral advertisements, or in one instance, misleading and deceptive content.

Documents from the FOI Request

The released documents comprise:
* A "Schedule of Released Documents" listing the specific complaints for which documents were provided.
* Copies of email complaints submitted by members of the public to the AEC's Legal Services Mailbox or specific AEC personnel.
* Copies of email correspondence from the AEC's Authorisation Section to the individuals or entities that were the subject of the complaints.

The released documents correspond to complaints made against various entities, including:
* "Our Vote Our Community" Facebook Page
* "Bass Deserves Better" Facebook Page
* "Outrage Institute" Facebook Page
* "RiteOn!" website and social media
* " for WILLS" Facebook page
* "Friends of the ABC" website
* "South Perth Progressive" Facebook page
* "Agents in their Community" Facebook page
* "Vote Tony Out" Facebook page and website
* Unspecified "Liberal Party" other media
* An "Independent candidate" (website and print media)

Main Content from the FOI Request Documents

The released documents primarily detail complaints about the lack of proper authorisation on political advertising and the AEC's subsequent responses, largely focusing on compliance with the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918.

Key Themes from Complaints:
* Lack of Authorisation: The vast majority of complaints allege that electoral matter, whether on Facebook pages, websites, or other media (online ads, newspaper ads, merchandise), lacked the required authorisation details (name and town/city of the authorising person/entity).
* Misleading Nature: Some complaints highlight that pages purporting to be "community groups" or "apolitical" were in fact engaged in partisan political campaigning without transparent authorisation, leading to concerns about misleading voters.
* Paid Advertising: Several complaints specifically note that paid advertisements were being run without authorisation.
* Disclosure Entities: Complaints occasionally touched upon whether the entity disseminating the information should be considered a "disclosure entity" under the Electoral Act, which would necessitate authorisation for all electoral communications.

Key Content from AEC Correspondence:
* Clarification of Requirements: The AEC's responses consistently explain the definition of 'electoral matter' and the requirements for authorisation under the Electoral Act, particularly for paid advertisements and communications by 'disclosure entities' (e.g., registered political parties, candidates, or entities exceeding electoral expenditure thresholds).
* Specific Observations and Requests: For each complaint deemed valid, the AEC identifies the specific issues (e.g., unauthorised stickers, unapproved Facebook ads, missing website authorisations). They formally request the subject of the complaint to add the necessary authorisation (e.g., in the "About" section of social media pages, website footers) and, where applicable, to cease the sale or distribution of unauthorised material.
* Consequences of Non-Compliance: The AEC often informs the recipients of potential penalties for non-compliance (e.g., up to $25,200) and the possibility of injunctions being sought by other nominated candidates if the non-compliance persists after an election is called.
* Guidance on Disclosure Entities: The AEC advises entities that if their electoral expenditure exceeds the disclosure threshold (e.g., $13,800), they would become a "disclosure entity" with further obligations, including providing disclosure returns and authorising all electoral communications.

AI Generated

These FOI documents from the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) paint a concerning picture of the pervasive lack of transparency in Australian political advertising, particularly in the digital sphere, raising significant questions about social justice, wealth distribution, corporate influence, and the integrity of civil liberties in a democratic society.

The core issue highlighted across numerous complaints is the widespread failure of various entities – from political parties and independent candidates to seemingly 'community' or 'advocacy' groups – to properly authorise their electoral communications on social media and websites. This directly undermines progressive values centered on an informed public and equitable democratic participation. Without clear authorisation, the public is denied the fundamental right to know who is attempting to influence their vote. This opacity disproportionately benefits well-resourced actors, allowing them to exert undue influence, often without disclosing their financial backing or vested interests. Examples include complaints about a "community group" for "South Perth Progressive" allegedly run by a Labor Party member without explicit party authorisation, or a "Bass Deserves Better" page run by a union member, both potentially appearing as grassroots movements while having partisan affiliations. Such 'astroturfing' obfuscates the true source of political messaging, distorting public discourse and eroding trust in the democratic process, which is a key social justice concern.

While the documents do not explicitly detail environmental advertising, the demonstrated prevalence of unauthored political content creates a significant vulnerability for environmental advocacy. Powerful corporate interests, particularly those with significant environmental impacts (e.g., fossil fuel industries), could exploit such loopholes to run undeclared campaigns influencing policy or public opinion without accountability, thereby undermining progressive environmental goals. The repeated nature of these complaints suggests that the current system allows for significant corporate or wealthy individual influence to operate under the radar, impacting wealth distribution by ensuring policy outcomes favour those with undisclosed financial power.

The documents reveal that the AEC is actively receiving and responding to these complaints, often requesting compliance with authorisation requirements and noting potential penalties. This indicates an alignment with the progressive value of upholding the letter of the law. However, the sheer volume of complaints and the explicit frustration voiced by some complainants – such as the statement "I expect sweet fuck all to occur. The complaint process is just to make people feel like the rules are being upheld" – point to a system that is, at best, reactive and, at worst, perceived as ineffective. This reactive enforcement, rather than proactive monitoring and robust penalties, represents a deviation from progressive ideals of strong regulatory oversight necessary to safeguard the democratic process from the distorting effects of wealth and hidden corporate influence. The current framework appears insufficient to ensure genuine transparency and accountability in political campaigning, leaving the door open for veiled persuasion that undermines the foundational principles of a just and equitable society and the civil liberty of informed democratic participation.

AI Generated

The provided FOI documents illustrate the Australian Electoral Commission's (AEC) pervasive role in regulating political communications, primarily through enforcing authorization requirements for electoral advertisements. From a right-leaning perspective, several issues related to core conservative principles emerge:

Individual Liberty and Free Speech: The documents reveal a broad application of regulations requiring authorization on political communications across a wide spectrum of entities, from established political parties and candidates to various grassroots and advocacy groups like "Our Vote Our Community," "Friends of the ABC," and "Vote Tony Out." While the stated aim is transparency ("voters know who is communicating electoral matter to them"), the extensive reach of these requirements into social media pages and informal communications raises concerns about the potential chilling effect on individual liberty and free speech. These regulations impose a burden on individuals and small groups to identify themselves, which could be seen as an undue government intrusion into the spontaneous expression of political opinion.

Limited Government and Bureaucratic Overreach: The sheer volume of complaints and the AEC's active correspondence to enforce authorization rules highlight a significant bureaucratic apparatus dedicated to policing political communication. This demonstrates an expansive role for government in an area traditionally considered within the realm of free association and speech. The complexity of determining what constitutes an "advertisement" or a "disclosure entity" (e.g., an entity spending over $13,800 on electoral communications) suggests an intricate regulatory framework. One complainant's cynical remark that the process exists "just to make people feel like the rules are being upheld" suggests a perception of bureaucratic inefficiency and potentially a process that is more about appearance than effective enforcement, hinting at overreach without proportionate impact.

Economic Efficiency and Fiscal Responsibility: The regulatory burden imposed by these authorization requirements creates economic inefficiencies. Individuals, independent candidates, and small advocacy groups face compliance costs in understanding and adhering to complex rules regarding content authorization and disclosure thresholds. This can disproportionately affect less-resourced political actors, potentially stifling their ability to participate effectively in public discourse and creating an uneven playing field that favors well-funded entities with dedicated legal support. Furthermore, the extensive process of fielding, investigating, and responding to numerous complaints represents an expenditure of taxpayer funds. From a fiscal responsibility standpoint, this raises questions about whether the significant resources dedicated to regulating individual and small-group political expression yield a proportionate benefit to electoral integrity.

In summary, the documents reveal government actions and policies that, while ostensibly aimed at transparency in elections, lean towards increased regulation of political speech. This deviates from conservative principles advocating for individual liberty by burdening free expression, potentially expands the scope of government beyond limited core functions, and introduces economic inefficiencies through compliance costs and bureaucratic expenditure.

AI Generated

These FOI documents reveal a snapshot of the Australian Electoral Commission's (AEC) reactive approach to policing transparency in political advertising during an election period, primarily highlighting a significant volume of complaints regarding unauthorised electoral communications.

The documents list numerous complaints filed with the AEC in April and May 2019, detailing concerns across various platforms including Facebook pages, websites, and other media. These complaints frequently allege a lack of proper authorisation on electoral matter, but also raise deeper issues of potential deception, such as pages purporting to be apolitical community groups ("Bass Deserves Better," "South Perth Progressive," "Agents in their Community") while actively engaging in partisan campaigning, often linked to specific political actors or unions. One complainant explicitly criticises this, stating the page is "misleading as it being used to campaign against the Liberals and conservatives, on the premise that Labor is the only party to support."

The AEC's response, as evidenced by its correspondence, appears to be consistently one of advisory requests rather than immediate enforcement or penalties. For instance, entities are "requested" to add authorisations, or "advised" to cease selling unauthorised merchandise, with the AEC seeking an email confirmation of compliance. This reactive, "please comply" approach is explicitly called into question by one complainant who writes, "As per my last complaint, I expect sweet fuck all to occur. The complaint process is just to make people feel like the rules are being upheld." This sentiment directly challenges the effectiveness and integrity of the AEC's regulatory oversight.

The scope of complaints, ranging from major parties (Liberal, Labor candidate for Mitchell) to independent candidates and various activist or "community" pages, suggests a widespread issue of non-compliance with authorisation laws during elections. The AEC's reliance on complaints rather than proactive monitoring, combined with its seemingly lenient enforcement, raises questions about whether the current system adequately ensures transparency and prevents deliberate misinformation or "astroturfing" by political entities hiding behind ostensibly neutral fronts. The redaction of some organisation names and personal details in the released documents further impedes full public scrutiny of how these complaints are resolved and whether enforcement is applied consistently across the political spectrum.

AI Generated

The FOI documents highlight the Australian Electoral Commission's (AEC) robust and transparent commitment to upholding the integrity of the electoral process, particularly concerning the critical issue of authorisation of political communications. The initial Freedom of Information request itself underscores the government's dedication to openness, providing public access to records of how diligently the AEC manages its regulatory responsibilities.

The documents reveal a period in April-May 2019 where the AEC actively addressed numerous public complaints regarding the absence of proper authorisation on various electoral materials. These complaints, originating from diverse sources including concerns about Facebook pages (e.g., "Our Vote Our Community," "Bass Deserves Better," "Vote Tony Out," "Friends of the ABC"), websites, and other media associated with political parties, independent candidates, and community-oriented groups, demonstrate the breadth of the AEC's oversight.

In response to these challenges, the AEC acted swiftly and decisively, showcasing effective governance in action. Instead of punitive measures, the AEC primarily adopted an educative approach. Correspondence sent to the identified parties, such as "Friends of the ABC," "Vote Tony Out," and a former candidate operating "for WILLS" Facebook pages, meticulously outlined the legal requirements under the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918. These communications clarified complex definitions like "electoral matter" and "disclosure entity," demonstrating the AEC's proactive efforts to help entities comply with necessary regulations.

The core purpose of these regulations, consistently reinforced by the AEC, is to ensure that voters are fully informed about the source of electoral communications. This transparency is vital for public trust and informed democratic participation. By requesting the immediate addition of authorisation details—such as the name and city of the person responsible for the content—to websites, social media pages, and even merchandise like stickers, the AEC ensures a fair and accountable informational landscape for electors.

Furthermore, the AEC's communications gently reminded parties of potential penalties for non-compliance and the avenues for legal action by other nominated candidates, emphasizing the seriousness with which these regulations are enforced to maintain an equitable campaigning environment.

In summary, these documents portray a government agency, the AEC, effectively managing the dynamic environment of electoral communications. Through prompt investigation, clear guidance, and a steadfast commitment to transparency and compliance, the AEC consistently works to uphold the democratic standards and serve the public interest by ensuring a well-regulated and trustworthy electoral process.

AI Generated

The released FOI documents paint a damning picture of the Australian Electoral Commission's (AEC) systemic failures in regulating electoral communications, revealing a pattern of inaction, incompetence, and a seeming reluctance to enforce the very laws it is mandated to uphold. Far from being a robust guardian of electoral integrity, the AEC appears to operate as a passive, advisory service, exhibiting a profound abdication of its core responsibilities.

1. Systemic Failure to Act and Concealment of Inaction:
The most glaring indictment is the sheer volume of complaints for which the AEC has provided only the initial complaint, with no corresponding "final AEC correspondence" or evidence of action. Of the eleven distinct complaints for which documents were provided, a staggering eight lack any discernible AEC response or outcome. These include critical allegations:
* "South Perth Progressive" (7 May 2019): A highly detailed complaint outlining a deliberate attempt to mislead voters by a Facebook page "purporting to be a community group" running paid political advertising without proper authorisation, directly linked to a Labor Party member. The complete absence of an AEC response implies either deliberate inaction on a politically sensitive matter or a catastrophic failure in record-keeping.
* Liberal Party "Other media" (10 May 2019): A direct complaint against a major political party for unauthorised advertising. The lack of any AEC response strongly suggests preferential treatment or a calculated avoidance of challenging powerful entities.
* "Our Vote Our Community" (12 April 2019): Accusations of "no authorisation for misleading ads," left unaddressed.
* Independent Candidate (14 April 2019 - two complaints): Two distinct complaints regarding both a website and a print advertisement lacking authorisation. The AEC's silence suggests a wholesale disregard for compliance from an independent candidate.
* "Bass Deserves Better" (18 April 2019): A complaint explicitly detailing a Facebook page run by "a known senior union member" masquerading as an "apolitical group" to campaign against conservatives without authorisation. The AEC's failure to provide any response here points to a shocking lack of will to address sophisticated attempts at voter manipulation, particularly when connected to organised political interests.
* "RiteOn!" & "Outrage Institute" (18 April 2019): Allegations that these pages and websites, strongly linked to the Liberal Party, were operating without authorisation. The absence of an AEC response allows a damning inference of deliberate inaction when faced with politically inconvenient complaints.
* "Agents in their Community" (17 May 2019): This complaint is uniquely damning as the complainant explicitly states: "As per my last complaint, I expect sweet fuck all to occur. The complaint process is just to make people feel like the rules are being upheld." The AEC's subsequent failure to provide a response to this specific complaint serves as a self-fulfilling prophecy of their own ineffectiveness and validates the public's direct contempt for their complaint process.

The AEC's inability or refusal to provide "final correspondence" for the majority of requested complaints points to either a deep-seated incompetence in maintaining proper records of enforcement actions or a cynical, calculated decision to withhold evidence of pervasive inaction.

2. A Regulator Without Teeth: Passive Advisories and Burden Shifting:
For the few complaints where AEC correspondence is provided ("Friends of the ABC," "Vote Tony Out," "* - for WILLS"), the AEC's approach is revealed to be astonishingly weak and non-committal. Instead of issuing directives or initiating punitive measures, the AEC adopts a passive, advisory tone:
* In the "Friends of the ABC" case, the AEC merely "received a further complaint," implying previous inaction, then proceeds to "request" the alleged offender to "please consider" and "advise by reply email" on their own* compliance. This is a ludicrous abdication of investigative responsibility, forcing the alleged offender to self-assess their lawfulness.
* For "Vote Tony Out" and " - for WILLS," the AEC's letters, while more detailed, still amount to polite requests for self-correction by a specified deadline. They "recommend" actions and vaguely mention potential penalties or the ability for other candidates (not the AEC itself) to seek injunctions. There is no evidence of the AEC issuing fines, mandating content removal, or pursuing legal action themselves. This portrays the AEC as a toothless tiger, a body that merely issues warnings rather than genuinely enforcing the law.
* The AEC's lengthy explanations of legal definitions and disclosure thresholds to alleged offenders effectively serve as a guide for avoiding compliance or a warning to rectify issues before any real AEC-initiated enforcement occurs, rather than a genuine investigation into past breaches.

3. The Illusion of Oversight:
The cumulative effect of these documents is a strong impression that the AEC's complaint process is less about robust regulation and more about creating a performative "theatre" of oversight. Complainants expend effort to identify breaches, but the AEC consistently fails to demonstrate meaningful follow-through. This undermines the democratic process by allowing a climate where electoral rules, particularly regarding transparency of funding and authorship, can be flouted with apparent impunity.

In conclusion, these FOI documents expose an Australian Electoral Commission that is critically flawed. Its systematic failure to provide evidence of action on the majority of complaints, coupled with its demonstrably weak, advisory-only approach when it does respond, points to an institution either woefully incompetent in its duties or deliberately complicit in allowing electoral deception to flourish unchecked. The cynical assessment of the process by a frustrated complainant resonates powerfully, confirming that the AEC is widely perceived as a regulator that exists merely to maintain the illusion of electoral integrity.

AI Generated

The provided FOI documents reveal a disturbing manifestation of government overreach and bureaucratic interference by the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) into the fundamental individual right of free expression, particularly political speech. These documents detail complaints and AEC actions concerning the "authorisation" of electoral advertisements and communications across various online platforms and traditional media. From an Objectivist perspective, this entire regulatory framework represents a profound violation of reason, individual liberty, and the principles of a laissez-faire society.

The core issue is the AEC's enforcement of "authorisation requirements" for "electoral matter"—defined broadly as anything communicated for the "dominant purpose of influencing the way electors vote." This mandate forces individuals and groups to disclose their identities (name and city) when engaging in political advocacy, especially if the communication is paid for or if the entity meets the arbitrary criteria of a "disclosure entity" (e.g., incurring electoral expenditure above a low threshold of $13,800).

This system flagrantly violates the primacy of individual rights. The right to free speech, including political speech, is an inalienable right of every individual. It is the right to express one's thoughts, opinions, and arguments without prior restraint or forced disclosure by the state. Whether one chooses to voice an opinion anonymously, pseudonymously, or under one's own name is a matter of individual judgment and liberty, not a privilege granted or regulated by government. The state's insistence on "voters knowing who is communicating electoral matter to them" is a collectivist premise that subordinates the individual's right to anonymity and free expression to a supposed collective "right to know" dictated by the bureaucracy.

The regulations burden rational self-interest and productive achievement. Individuals and groups who create and disseminate political content—whether advocating for a candidate, criticizing a policy, or promoting a community cause—are engaging in a productive act of intellectual persuasion, driven by their rational self-interest in shaping the political landscape. The AEC's system transforms this virtuous act into a bureaucratic minefield. It imposes arbitrary rules, demands compliance, and threatens severe penalties (up to $25,200 fines and injunctions) for non-adherence. This is not about preventing fraud (a legitimate function of government in protecting rights), but about controlling the flow of ideas and compelling disclosure, thus chilling free political discourse and stifling personal initiative. The complaint regarding "misleading and deceptive content" is an even more alarming expansion of this overreach, suggesting the state may presume to judge the subjective truthfulness of political claims, a direct assault on the marketplace of ideas.

This entire framework is a stark demonstration of the dangers of collectivism and government overreach. The AEC, as a governmental body, assumes the illegitimate power to police the content and origin of political communication. By defining who is a "disclosure entity" and imposing complex compliance burdens, it creates a labyrinthine system that favors established political machines with legal resources, while actively suppressing the personal initiative of independent citizens and grassroots movements. Such bureaucratic interference stifles spontaneous, authentic political expression and creates an environment of fear where individuals must weigh the potential costs of exercising their fundamental rights.

The system is antithetical to laissez-faire capitalism, which demands minimal government interference not only in economic transactions but also in the free exchange of ideas. By introducing artificial regulatory barriers and punitive measures, the AEC distorts the natural intellectual market where ideas compete on their own merit, judged by rational individuals, not by government-mandated disclosures. There is no legitimate governmental interest in forcing individuals to identify themselves when expressing a political opinion, unless a direct threat of force or fraud is involved, which is distinct from mere advocacy.

In conclusion, these documents reveal the AEC acting as an unwarranted censor and controller of political thought, imposing a form of forced altruism by demanding that individuals sacrifice their liberty and resources to conform to state-imposed transparency requirements. This is not the function of a government dedicated to protecting individual rights. A truly free society would empower individuals to express their political views unmolested, allowing the truth to emerge from the unhindered competition of ideas, rather than through bureaucratic diktat and the threat of state-sanctioned punishment.

AI Generated

FOI Request LEX3047

Main Purpose of the FOI Request

Documents from the FOI Request

Main Content from the FOI Request Documents

FOI Request LEX3047, Schedule of Released Documents [PDF 167KB] (pdf)

LEX3047 documents [ZIP 19.55MB] (zip)

ZIP Contents

05052019 Labor Candidate for Mitchell Facebook page and any request to authorise - DOC 1.pdf (pdf)

05052019 Friends of the ABC website regards no authorisation - DOC 1.pdf (pdf)

Document Summary

Relevance to FOI Request LEX3047

05052019 Friends of the ABC website regards no authorisation - DOC 2.pdf (pdf)

Summary of Document:

Relevance to FOI Request LEX3047:

07052019 South Perth Progressive Facebook page Social media and any request to authorise - DOC 1.pdf (pdf)

10042019 Liberal Party Other media, regarding no authorisation - DOC 1.pdf (pdf)

Document Summary: Complaint Regarding Unauthorised Online Advertisement

Relevance to FOI Request LEX3047:

10042019 Liberal Party Other media, regarding no authorisation - DOC 2.pdf (pdf)

12042019 Our Vote Our Community Facebook Page - DOC 1.pdf (pdf)

Document Summary

Relevance to FOI Request LEX3047

14042019 Independent candidate Other media; regards no authorisation DOC 2.pdf (pdf)

Document Summary & Relevance

14042019 Independent candidate Other media; regards no authorisation - DOC 1.pdf (pdf)

Document Summary

Relevance to FOI Request LEX3047

17052019 Campaigners for regional equality Facebook and request to authorise + Women of Murray - DOC 1.pdf (pdf)

18042019 Bass Deserves Better Facebook Page - DOC 1.pdf (pdf)

18042019 Bass Deserves Better Facebook Page - DOC 2.pdf (pdf)

18042019 RiteOn! complaint relating to website and social media & 18042019 Outrage Institute Facebook page - DOC 1.pdf (pdf)

22042019 Vote Tony Out Facebook page regards request to authorise - DOC 1.pdf (pdf)

Document Summary

Relevance to FOI Request

22042019 Vote Tony Out Facebook page regards request to authorise - DOC 2.pdf (pdf)

Agents in their Community - DOC 1.pdf (pdf)

Summary of Document

Relevance to FOI Request

for WILLS Facebook page complaint regards no authorisation - DOC 1.pdf (pdf)

for WILLS Facebook page complaint regards no authorisation - DOC 2.pdf (pdf)

Document Summary: Complaint Regarding "for WILLS" Facebook Page

Relevance to FOI Request LEX3047