FOI Request LEX3715

Date: 2023

Summary of FOI Request Documents (LEX3715 by Cory Harding)

1. Main Purpose of the FOI Request

The FOI request, identified as LEX3715 by Cory Harding, sought access to the "finalised estimates briefing pack for the 2023 February Supplementary Budget Estimates." The request specifically targeted briefs from three key areas within the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC):

Deputy Electoral Commissioner (all subheadings)
Electoral Integrity and Operations (all subheadings)
Service Delivery - Delivery and Support subheading

2. Overview of Documents from the FOI Request

The "SCHEDULE OF RELEVANT DOCUMENTS" listed 36 documents, ranging from Document No. 21 to No. 69 (including sub-documents like 28.1/28.2). The access decisions varied:

Full Access Granted: Only one document was released in full:
- Document No. 50: "Cowper Count – 2022 Federal Election"
Edited Access Granted: The majority of documents (23 in total) were refused full access, but an edited copy was prepared and provided:
- Document No. 22: "Referendum: Funding arrangements for referendums"
- Document No. 24: "Financial matters"
- Document No. 25: "Vendors, Procurements and Major Tenders"
- Document No. 26: "Performance Statements"
- Document No. 27: "Travel"
- Document No. 28.2: "Indigenous voter services and engagement"
- Document No. 36.2: "Referendum Preparedness"
- Document No. 37.2: "COVID safety measures — 2022 FE"
- Document No. 38: "Early Voting"
- Document No. 39: "Postal Voting"
- Document No. 40: "Mobile Polling — 2022 Federal Election"
- Document No. 43.2: "Overseas voting — 2022 Federal Election"
- Document No. 44.2: "Senate counting and assurance"
- Document No. 45: "EasyCount — Senate"
- Document No. 46: "Polling place technology — ECLs"
- Document No. 47: "Voter verification"
- Document No. 48: "Candidate qualification checklist"
- Document No. 49: "Commonwealth Procurement Rules — environmental sustainability"
- Document No. 51: "Call Centre worker recordings"
- Document No. 61: "Referendums: YES/NO pamphlet and information campaigns" (Note: While listed as edited, the provided document contains no substantive content.)
- Document No. 62: "Election time public information campaign"
- Document No. 68: "Gilmore Count"
- Document No. 69: "2GB Discarded ballot papers found — Port Macquarie"
Access Refused: 12 documents were refused access entirely.

3. Main Content from Released FOI Request Documents

The released (edited or full) documents provide insights into various operational and financial aspects of the AEC, particularly concerning the 2022 Federal Election and preparedness for future electoral events, including a potential referendum:

Document No. 22: Referendum: Funding arrangements for referendums
- Funding for referendums and associated YES/NO campaigns is provided via government appropriation. The October 2022-23 Budget included $75.1 million over two years for preparatory work for a First Nations Voice to Parliament Referendum, with specific allocations for AEC preparations ($50.2 million) and increasing First Nations enrolment/participation ($16.1 million). An additional $160 million is provisioned in the Contingency Reserve.
Document No. 24: Financial matters
- Highlights ongoing challenges with the AEC's funding model, noting a $24.5 million loss in 2021-22 (compared to a $47.9 million surplus in 2020-21). The AEC's operating results can fluctuate significantly due to external factors impacting expenditure timing, posing risks for managing complex electoral events and electoral roll growth.
Document No. 25: Vendors, Procurements and Major Tenders
- The AEC undertakes extensive preparation and planning for procurements and tenders for federal electoral events, adhering to Commonwealth Procurement Rules (CPRs). A specific "Referendum Procurement Plan" is in place for a potential 2023 referendum, tracking critical procurements and contracts.
Document No. 26: Performance Statements
- The AEC's 2021-22 Annual Performance Statements indicate that 74% (14 of 19) of performance measures were met, 5% (1 of 19) were "on track to be met," and 21% (4 of 19) were "partly met" (e.g., voter turnout, staff training completion). No measures were rated "not met."
Document No. 27: Travel
- Total travel expenditure increased significantly to $5.393 million in 2021-22 (from $1.579 million in 2020-21 and $1.699 million in 2019-20), primarily due to the 2022 federal election. The AEC adheres to the Whole of Australian Government Travel Policy.
Document No. 28.2: Indigenous voter services and engagement
- The AEC is committed to increasing First Nations electoral participation. The estimated national Indigenous enrolment rate reached 84.5% as of December 2022, a consistent increase from 74.7% in June 2017. Efforts include successful direct enrolment trials (adding ~15,500 First Nations people), targeted advertising campaigns, and the Indigenous Electoral Participation Program (partnerships, remote enrolment, culturally appropriate services). The AEC is also expanding remote polling services.
Document No. 36.2: Referendum Preparedness
- The AEC, as an independent statutory authority, is responsible solely for the "machinery" of a referendum (not the campaigns). With appropriate lead time and funding, the AEC is ready to conduct a referendum, with costs estimated to be similar to a federal election (e.g., the 2022 federal election was budgeted at approximately $420 million).
Document No. 37.2: COVID safety measures – 2022 FE
- The AEC safely delivered the 2022 federal election with COVID-19 safety measures in place, adapting to the changing environment without a reported spike in cases attributable to the election. Planning adhered to existing legislation (which does not allow for 100% postal or electronic voting), with additional staff, vaccination requirements, and mask mandates for election workers.
Document No. 38: Early Voting
- Early voting continues to rise, with over 7.9 million early votes cast in the 2022 federal election (51.34% of total votes), up from 6.15 million (40.79%) in 2019. In-person early voting accounted for over 36% of all votes. Postal votes significantly increased to 2.39 million (from 1.29 million in 2019). Mobile polling services were reduced due to the pandemic.
Document No. 39: Postal Voting
- The AEC expresses confidence in the integrity of postal voting processes, which are governed by the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918. Legislative changes in 2021 modernized postal voting envelopes and allowed for the early extraction of ballot papers from declaration envelopes (from the Monday prior to election day) to speed up counting. In 2022, the AEC issued 2.73 million postal votes (an 87% return rate), with 79.2% of rejected postal votes due to missing elector or witness signatures.
Document No. 40: Mobile Polling – 2022 Federal Election
- Mobile polling services were provided to remote areas, homeless shelters, a limited number of residential aged care facilities (RACFs), and some prisons. The decision to limit services to RACFs was based on health advice and risk assessments, requiring explicit agreement from facilities and adherence to strict COVID-19 safety measures.
Document No. 43.2: Overseas voting – 2022 Federal Election
- COVID-19 and security concerns necessitated adjustments to overseas voting for the 2022 federal election. In-person voting was available at 19 overseas posts, while others relied on postal voting, supported by courier delivery to improve speed and reliability, and diplomatic mail for returns.
Document No. 44.2: Senate counting and assurance
- The AEC uses ballot paper scanning to capture Senate preferences for timely scrutiny. In the 2022 federal election, over 108 million preferences from more than 15.5 million ballot papers were scanned, data-entered, and verified in approximately four weeks. The process involves human verification, robust controls, and security assessments (including IRAP). An external company performs legislated on-site assurance (0.45% exception rate in 2022). Scrutineers can observe the process. The AEC confirmed it has not used Scytl software for any federal election.
Document No. 45: EasyCount – Senate
- "EasyCount – Senate" (ECS) is the AEC's software for distributing preferences in Senate elections. It is rigorously tested, secure, and enables reporting and auditing of results. New legislation will require an external assessor to verify ECS accuracy before the next federal election. The source code is not publicly released due to its commercial use for other elections.
Document No. 46: Polling Place Technology – ECLs
- Investment in polling place technology will increase the number of Electronic Certified Lists (ECLs) from 5,500 (used in 2022) to 10,000 for the next federal election. A new digital tool for polling place Officers in Charge is also being developed to enhance polling place management, integrate with the AEC Command Centre, and improve issue resolution, replacing current paper-based returns.
Document No. 47: Voter verification
- The AEC states that voter verification (requiring identification when casting a vote) is a matter for Parliament and would necessitate legislative change. The AEC warns of potential operational impacts, including increased queue times, higher costs for technology, materials, training, and staff, more time-consuming declaration votes, and the risk of disenfranchising eligible voters.
Document No. 48: Candidate qualification checklist
- The AEC is required to check that mandatory questions on the self-assessment qualification checklist are answered by candidates but does not determine the accuracy of the answers or candidates' eligibility, as this is a matter for the High Court. For the 2022 federal election, 1,624 checklists (totalling 17,117 pages) were published soon after nominations were declared.
Document No. 49: Commonwealth Procurement Rules – Environmental sustainability
- The AEC procures goods and services in line with Commonwealth Procurement Rules, which now explicitly require considering climate change impacts in value-for-money assessments. The AEC's practices include evaluating suppliers' environmental credentials, using recycled content, and recycling/donating end-of-life products. The document notes the challenge of measuring specific climate impacts for small items and balancing this with operational demands.
Document No. 50: Cowper Count – 2022 Federal Election
- An administrative error occurred in the Cowper counting centre during the 2022 federal election, where some House of Representatives ballot papers were inadvertently combined across different pre-poll voting centre counts. The AEC confirmed this error did not impact the overall election results for the division and that all ballot papers were accounted for.
Document No. 51: Call Centre worker recordings
- Addresses social media allegations that AEC call centre staff provided false voting information during the election. The AEC stated it could not verify the authenticity of such isolated claims without reviewing hundreds of thousands of enquiries and asserted that its 105,000 temporary staff are trained and provided with accurate scripts.
Document No. 61: Referendums: YES/NO pamphlet and information campaigns
- No substantive content was provided in the released pages for this document.
Document No. 62: Election time public information campaign
- The AEC conducted a large-scale, multi-channel communication campaign for the 2022 federal election (with a $19 million media placement spend). The campaign aimed to inform and encourage voter participation, covering enrolment deadlines, early voting options, and how to correctly complete ballot papers. It also included "Stop and Consider" messaging against disinformation and information on COVID-19 safety measures, with content translated into 52 languages.
Document No. 68: Gilmore Count
- The AEC denied requests for a recount in the division of Gilmore following the 2022 federal election, made by the Liberal Party candidate. The Divisional Returning Officer and the Electoral Commissioner concluded that the scrutiny process was properly conducted and the margin of 373 votes did not warrant a recount, consistent with AEC policy (automatic recounts occur for margins less than 100 votes). No request was made to the Court of Disputed Returns.
Document No. 69: 2GB Discarded ballot papers found – Port Macquarie
- The AEC is investigating reports of discarded completed ballot papers found in a bin in Port Macquarie. Initial findings suggest these were likely declaration ballot papers that were not returned correctly by voters. The small number of papers indicates no impact on the election result, and no evidence points to an operational issue by the AEC.

AI Generated

As a politically left-leaning analyst, the provided FOI documents from the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) offer a mixed picture regarding alignment with progressive values, particularly concerning transparency, social justice, and the integrity of democratic processes.

Key Issues and Progressive Alignment/Deviation:

Transparency and Civil Liberties (Freedom of Information):
- Deviation: A pervasive and significant concern is the extensive refusal of access or heavy redaction of numerous documents critical to public oversight. Documents concerning the "Australian Electoral Commission Budget," "Cost of the 2022 Federal Election," "First Nations Electoral Enrolment and engagement," "Referendum Preparedness," "COVID safety measures for electoral events," "Foreign interference and electoral integrity," "Electoral integrity and security," "Misinformation and disinformation at the 2022 federal election," "Physical security," "Response to recent data breaches," and "YES/NO pamphlet and information campaigns" were largely withheld or provided in edited form. This lack of transparency severely limits the public's ability to scrutinize the functioning and integrity of a fundamental democratic institution, which is a direct contradiction of civil liberties and open government principles.
- Deviation: Specifically, the refusal to make the source code for "EasyCount – Senate," the software used for Senate preference distribution, public is a significant transparency issue. While the AEC cites commercial reasons, a progressive stance advocates for open-source and verifiable election technology to prevent manipulation and build public trust in the electoral process.
Social Justice & Civil Liberties (Voter Access and Participation):
- Alignment: The documents reveal a strong commitment by the AEC to enhancing First Nations electoral participation. Significant funding (including $16.1 million specifically for First Nations enrolment and participation) has been allocated for preparatory work for the First Nations Voice to Parliament Referendum. The AEC actively works to address historically lower participation rates in remote communities, providing resources in First Nations languages, establishing community partnerships, employing Indigenous staff, and expanding remote polling services. The consistent increase in estimated Indigenous enrolment rates (from 74.7% in 2017 to 84.5% in December 2022) is a clear success story aligning with progressive values of equity and inclusion.
- Alignment: The AEC's current policy and documented position against mandatory voter identification at polling places (Document 47) strongly aligns with progressive values. The AEC highlights that introducing such measures would increase queue times, costs, and disproportionately risk disenfranchising "groups of eligible voters" – a direct acknowledgment of the regressive impact of voter ID laws, which often target marginalized communities, students, and low-income individuals.
- Mixed: Efforts to ensure accessibility through early voting, postal voting, and mobile polling for vulnerable groups (homeless shelters, prisons, aged care facilities) are positive. However, the reduced mobile polling and overseas in-person voting due to the pandemic (Document 38, 40, 43.2), while understandable in context, represents a temporary setback for universal accessibility. The high rate of rejected postal votes (140,124 in 2022, 79.2% due to missing signatures, Document 39) also highlights ongoing challenges in voter education or accessible completion methods that disproportionately impact certain demographics.
Environmental Impact:
- Alignment: The explicit amendment to the Commonwealth Procurement Rules (effective July 2022) requiring the inclusion of "climate change impacts" in "value for money assessment" for procurements (Document 49) is a direct alignment with progressive environmental values, integrating sustainability into government operations.
- Mixed: While the policy is a positive step, the AEC acknowledges the practical difficulties in implementing and measuring these impacts at a granular level, indicating that the policy's full transformative effect is still evolving.
Wealth Distribution & Corporate Influence:
- Mixed/Deviation (Potential): The documents reveal "ongoing challenges with the AEC’s funding model" (Document 24), leading to operating losses and posing "significant risk" to managing complex electoral events. Underfunding of a critical public service can lead to increased reliance on private contractors and outsourcing, potentially diverting public funds to private profits (Document 25, 39). While the documents state adherence to procurement rules, the lack of detailed transparency on specific contracts due to redactions and refusals makes it difficult to assess the extent of corporate influence.
- Deviation (Potential): Concerns are raised regarding political parties making "significant changes to the approved PVA artwork" for postal vote applications and "late engagement" from major parties on online applications (Document 39). These issues, even if addressed by the AEC, highlight potential for external political influence or inefficiencies within what should be a neutral, publicly administered process.

In summary, while the AEC demonstrates commendable dedication to social justice through its proactive Indigenous engagement and its stance against voter ID laws, the significant lack of transparency regarding its budget, operations, security measures, and the use of proprietary software presents a notable deviation from core progressive values of open government and public accountability. The commitment to environmental sustainability in procurement is a positive policy alignment, but its practical implementation is still developing.

AI Generated

The Freedom of Information (FOI) documents requested by Cory Harding reveal concerning aspects of the Australian Electoral Commission's (AEC) operations, particularly when viewed through the lens of conservative principles such as economic efficiency, individual liberty, national security (electoral integrity), fiscal responsibility, and limited government. A predominant theme throughout the documents is a significant lack of transparency, with numerous requests for access to key financial and operational data being refused or heavily redacted.

Fiscal Responsibility and Economic Efficiency:
The documents raise serious questions about the AEC's financial management and the efficient allocation of taxpayer funds. Document 24 reveals the AEC reported a $24.5 million loss in 2021-22 and faces "ongoing challenges" and "significant risk" with its funding model, indicating a lack of fiscal discipline and potential operational unsustainability.

Significant expenditure is highlighted, such as $75.1 million over two years for preparatory work on the First Nations Voice to Parliament Referendum (Doc 22), with $50.2 million directly to the AEC for preparations and an additional $16.1 million specifically for "First Nations enrolment and participation." This pre-emptive and targeted spending for a single event, alongside $160 million already in the Contingency Reserve, suggests potential overspending and a lack of restraint in discretionary government expenditure.

Travel expenses (Doc 27) jumped from $1.5-1.6 million in non-election years to $5.393 million in 2021-22, and while some increase is expected, the justification includes "networking with international partners and supporting reform agendas in other countries," which may be seen as mission creep beyond core electoral functions and potentially inefficient use of funds. The $19 million spent on the 2022 federal election public information campaign (Doc 62), including "Stop and Consider (disinformation) messaging," also warrants scrutiny for its scale and scope, particularly given its exemption from standard government advertising review processes, which undermines accountability.

The documents also reveal the considerable cost of extensive COVID-19 safety measures, with an acknowledgment of "spent costs" if restrictions eased (Doc 37.2), raising concerns about proportionality and adaptability in spending during a dynamic environment.

Individual Liberty:
The AEC's stance on voter verification (ID) is a notable deviation from a common conservative tenet (Doc 47). The AEC explicitly states that voter ID "is not required" by law and warns it would lead to "increased costs," "longer queue times," and potentially "impact voter enfranchisement." This position prioritizes administrative ease over perceived security and integrity, which for conservatives, is a crucial element of safeguarding the individual's vote. The AEC's argument that voter ID "does not eliminate the possibility of administrative errors" is a weak justification against a measure widely seen as enhancing electoral integrity.

Conversely, the significant increase in early and postal voting (Doc 38), now comprising over 50% of votes, while presented as ensuring "fair and equitable access," can be viewed as potentially diluting the traditional civic act of voting on a single election day, and its higher administrative cost (Doc 39) impacts efficiency. The AEC's targeted "investments in partnerships and activities" and "targeted advertising campaigns" for "First Nations enrolment and participation" (Doc 28.2), while aiming to increase participation, could be interpreted as government intervention designed to influence specific demographics, potentially overstepping the bounds of merely facilitating access for all.

National Security (Electoral Integrity):
The documents reveal several areas of concern regarding the integrity of the electoral process, which is fundamental to national security. The heavy reliance on postal voting (Doc 39), which saw 2.7 million issued in 2022, comes with acknowledged "resource intensive" counting processes and vulnerabilities. The fact that political parties provided 61% of paper postal vote applications, some with "significant changes to the approved PVA artwork" or "incorrect return address[es]," raises red flags about external influence and potential for error. The rejection of 176,880 postal votes (79.2% for lacking elector or witness signatures) indicates substantial issues in the process or voter compliance.

Administrative errors were also noted, such as the combining of ballot papers across different pre-poll counts in Cowper (Doc 50), which, while claimed to have "no impact on the results," erodes public trust. The denial of a recount request in Gilmore despite a close margin (373 votes) and candidate concerns (Doc 68) can also fuel skepticism about the thoroughness of the counting process. The discovery of "discarded ballot papers" in Port Macquarie (Doc 69), even if initially attributed to voter error, highlights a lapse in ballot paper security and adds to integrity concerns.

The AEC's limited role in verifying candidate qualifications (Doc 48), treating the checklist as a "self-assessment tool" and deferring eligibility to the High Court, creates an "honour system" that can lead to costly post-election legal challenges and undermines the integrity of elected officials from the outset. Furthermore, allegations of call centre staff providing false voting information (Doc 51), while unverified by the AEC due to data limitations, underscore a critical integrity weakness in information dissemination.

The significant investment in polling place technology (ECLs) (Doc 46), costing $24.4 million, is aimed at preventing multiple voting, which aligns with integrity, but the cost-benefit of such technological solutions needs careful scrutiny. Similarly, the use of scanning and software (EasyCount – Senate) for Senate counting (Docs 44.2, 45), while efficient, relies on non-public source code for "commercial capacity" reasons, limiting full public scrutiny and potentially raising concerns about the transparency of the counting process itself.

Limited Government:
A core conservative principle is limited government intervention and high transparency. The overwhelming number of refused or heavily redacted documents in the initial FOI request (pages 1-10 of the FOI schedule), covering financial matters, procurements, and integrity, is a significant blow to transparency and accountability. This lack of openness impedes public oversight of government operations.

The AEC's involvement in a "Stop and Consider (disinformation) messaging" campaign (Doc 62) raises concerns about government overreach into influencing public discourse and potentially infringing on free speech, rather than strictly administering elections. The exemption of this campaign from standard government advertising review processes further exacerbates concerns about the lack of independent oversight. The explicit inclusion of "climate change impacts" into "value for money" assessments for procurements (Doc 49) signals an expansion of government policy into areas beyond its core electoral function, potentially leading to less efficient, politically driven spending rather than purely economic decisions.

In conclusion, these FOI documents, particularly through their extensive redactions and the details they do reveal, present a picture of an electoral commission grappling with significant financial challenges, making substantial and sometimes questionable expenditures, while exhibiting a concerning lack of transparency and a cautious stance on measures that could bolster electoral integrity like voter ID. This collectively points to deviations from core conservative principles of fiscal responsibility, economic efficiency, robust electoral integrity, and limited, transparent government.

AI Generated

The released FOI documents paint a concerning picture of the Australian Electoral Commission's (AEC) operations, characterised by a striking lack of transparency, questionable financial management, and potential integrity failings.

Pervasive Secrecy and Information Withholding:
The overwhelming majority of requested documents – 35 out of 36 – were either completely refused or heavily redacted. This includes critical information regarding the AEC's overall budget, the true cost of the 2022 federal election, details on procurement and major tenders, travel expenses, referendum preparedness, COVID safety measures, secure telephone voting, and crucial aspects of electoral integrity, security, foreign interference, misinformation, and data breaches. This widespread withholding of information immediately suggests an agency intent on shielding its operations and decision-making from public scrutiny, fostering distrust rather than transparency.

Financial Imprudence and Potential Waste:
The AEC's financial health appears precarious, with "ongoing challenges" to its funding model and a significant swing from a $47.9 million surplus in 2020-21 to a $24.5 million loss in 2021-22. This volatile financial position is described as posing "significant risk" to managing future electoral events. Furthermore, substantial taxpayer funds are being allocated for a potential referendum even before it is confirmed or fully costed: $66.3 million for "preparatory work" and "participation" is additional to a vague $160 million already parked in the "Contingency Reserve," raising concerns about pre-emptive overspending and potential waste. The admission of "some spent costs" on COVID safety measures that became unnecessary further highlights a lack of agile financial management.

Operational Deficiencies and Reduced Voter Access:
The AEC's own performance statements reveal that nearly a quarter of its targets were only "partly met," including the critical "percentage of voters enrolled who turn out to vote." This points to fundamental inefficiencies in encouraging participation. There was a notable reduction in vital services for vulnerable populations during the 2022 election, with mobile polling not conducted at hospitals or independent living facilities, and overseas in-person voting severely curtailed, potentially disenfranchising segments of the electorate. The revelation that the AEC is only now investing $24.4 million to replace "paper OIC Returns" with digital tools underscores a long-standing reliance on inefficient, outdated processes.

Grave Concerns for Electoral Integrity and Accountability:
Several findings directly challenge the integrity and trustworthiness of the electoral process:
* Software Secrecy: The AEC's staunch refusal to release the source code for "EasyCount – Senate," the software used for counting Senate preferences, is a glaring transparency issue. Without independent scrutiny of this critical software, the integrity of vote tabulation remains unverified and susceptible to suspicion.
* Mass Voter Disenfranchisement: A staggering 176,880 postal votes were rejected in the 2022 election, with 79.2% of these rejections due to technicalities like missing elector or witness signatures. This represents a significant number of legitimate votes discarded due to procedural hurdles, undermining the democratic right to vote.
* Political Party Influence and Inefficiency: The heavy reliance on political parties to distribute postal vote applications (61% of paper applications came from parties) led to critical issues. Parties made "significant changes to the approved PVA artwork," failed to provide all artwork versions, and in some cases, delayed forwarding applications to the AEC for up to two weeks, causing "double handling and delays" and prompting "many queries and complaints" from voters. This blurs the line between party campaigning and official electoral processes, raising concerns about partisan interference and inefficiency.
* Non-Verification of Candidate Eligibility: The AEC explicitly states it "does not determine the accuracy" of information provided by candidates on their qualification checklists, merely checking if questions are answered. This effectively outsources the crucial task of verifying a candidate's eligibility to the candidates themselves, creating a clear loophole for unqualified individuals to run for office and potentially waste public resources on contested elections.
* Ballot Handling Failures: Despite the AEC's dismissive tone, the confirmed "administrative error" of mixing ballot papers across different counting centres in Cowper, and the alarming report of "completed ballot papers" being found discarded in a bin in Port Macquarie, highlight severe lapses in ballot security and chain-of-custody protocols. The AEC's attempts to deflect blame to voters or claim "no impact" are unconvincing given the seriousness of discarded votes.
* Dismissal of Allegations: Allegations of call centre staff providing "false voting information" were effectively dismissed by the AEC due to the sheer volume of calls, indicating an unwillingness or inability to properly investigate and ensure accurate information dissemination.
* Unscrutinised Advertising Spend: A $19 million public information campaign for the 2022 election operated under a "long-standing exemption from the review and approval processes of government advertising campaigns." This lack of oversight for a significant public expenditure raises questions about the campaign's true purpose and effectiveness, especially given the "partly met" turnout rate.
* Refusal of Recount: The AEC's refusal to grant a recount in the close Gilmore division (a margin of 373 votes), despite specific concerns from a candidate regarding scrutineer access and informal vote assessment, further erodes confidence in the declared results, particularly when considered alongside other ballot handling issues.

In conclusion, these FOI documents reveal an AEC that prioritises secrecy and procedural rigidity over full transparency and democratic access. The patterns of financial challenges, operational shortcomings, and a troubling number of incidents impacting electoral integrity, compounded by the agency's defensive responses and information suppression, demand far greater scrutiny and accountability from the government.

AI Generated

The government is steadfastly committed to ensuring effective governance, upholding necessary regulations, and delivering positive outcomes for the public through its robust electoral administration. A recent Freedom of Information (FOI) request highlights the meticulous planning and transparent processes employed by the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) in fulfilling its crucial mandate.

Robust and Transparent Electoral Operations:
The AEC's operations are consistently affirmed through an unmodified audit opinion, demonstrating sound financial management despite the fluctuating costs inherent in delivering major electoral events. The government proactively invests in strengthening the democratic process, as seen in the substantial allocation of funds for referendum preparedness, including significant investment in enhancing First Nations electoral participation. This commitment to inclusivity is yielding tangible results, with an encouraging and consistent increase in Indigenous enrolment rates, achieved through strategic partnerships, direct enrolment initiatives, and culturally appropriate services.

Adapting to Challenges and Ensuring Integrity:
The 2022 federal election successfully navigated the complexities of the global pandemic, with the government demonstrating agile and responsible governance. Proactive legislative changes and meticulous contingency planning ensured the safe and fair delivery of the election without compromising public health, while strictly adhering to health authority advice. The rise in early and postal voting reflects the government's commitment to providing flexible and equitable access to democratic participation. Reforms in postal voting, including modernized processes and early ballot paper extraction, have significantly enhanced efficiency and voter confidence, with robust multi-layered verification processes safeguarding integrity.

Leveraging Technology and Upholding Accountability:
The government is strategically investing in advanced polling place technology, such as the expanded use of Electronic Certified Lists (ECLs) and new digital tools for polling place management. This forward-thinking approach enhances efficiency, voter convenience, and electoral integrity, actively contributing to the prevention of multiple voting. The integrity of Senate vote counting is assured through rigorously tested and independently assessed software, combined with meticulous human oversight and transparent processes, with all data publicly available for scrutiny. While the AEC does not release the software's source code, its security and accuracy are independently verified, underscoring a commitment to a secure and unimpeachable electoral system.

Ensuring Fairness and Public Trust:
Any minor administrative variances, such as those identified in the Cowper count, are promptly investigated and confirmed to have no impact on overall election outcomes, reinforcing public confidence. Allegations of misinformation are addressed through extensive staff training, clear guidelines, and engagement with relevant authorities, ensuring that the public receives accurate information. The transparent process for candidate qualification, requiring self-assessment and public disclosure, empowers both candidates and the electorate.

Sustainable and Ethical Procurement:
The government is proactively embedding environmental sustainability into its procurement framework, with the AEC diligently applying updated Commonwealth Procurement Rules to ensure that climate change impacts are considered in value-for-money assessments. Practical efforts, such as the use of recycled materials and responsible end-of-life product management, demonstrate a dedication to sustainable operations while meeting the unique demands of electoral events.

The government's approach to electoral administration is characterized by continuous improvement, transparent accountability, and an unwavering dedication to serving the public interest, ensuring a robust, accessible, and secure democratic process for all Australians.

AI Generated

The provided FOI documents paint a damning picture of a deeply opaque, financially mismanaged, and operationally incompetent Australian Electoral Commission (AEC), seemingly more focused on self-preservation and narrative control than transparent electoral integrity. The pervasive pattern of outright refusals and heavy redactions across almost all requested documents suggests a systematic cover-up of failures, vulnerabilities, and potentially questionable dealings.

Systemic Opacity and Information Suppression:
* Wholesale Concealment: An astonishing number of documents – 20 out of 34 listed – were either entirely refused or provided only as heavily edited copies. Crucial details regarding "Australian Electoral Commission Budget" (Doc 21) and "Cost of the 2022 Federal Election" (Doc 23) were entirely withheld, creating a black hole around the AEC's financial stewardship and the taxpayer cost of elections.
* National Security and Integrity Cover-Up: The complete refusal to release documents on "Foreign interference and electoral integrity" (Doc 63), "Electoral integrity and security" (Doc 64), "Misinformation and disinformation at the 2022 federal election" (Doc 65), and "Response to recent data breaches" (Doc 67) is an unconscionable attack on democratic transparency. It suggests either catastrophic failures in safeguarding elections against critical threats or a deliberate effort to keep the public uninformed about the true state of electoral security and vulnerabilities. The redaction codes, particularly "Proper and efficient conduct of the operations of AEC" (Code 23) and "Tests, examinations or audits material" (Code 21), are used as convenient shields to hide internal shortcomings.
* Hiding Operational Failures: Documents related to critical services like "First Nations Electoral Enrolment and engagement" (Doc 28.1), "Referendum Preparedness" (Doc 36.1), "COVID safety measures" (Doc 37.1), "Secure Telephone voting" (Doc 41), "Residential aged care facilities" (Doc 42), "Overseas voting services" (Doc 43.1), and "Senate count and assurance" (Doc 44.1) were all entirely withheld or heavily redacted. This suggests a desire to obscure significant operational weaknesses, inadequate provision of services to vulnerable voters, or failures in core electoral processes.

Financial Instability and Questionable Spending:
* Admitted Financial Precarity (Doc 24): The AEC openly admits to "ongoing challenges with the AEC’s funding model" and "significant risk in managing increasingly complex electoral events." Reporting a staggering $24.5 million loss in 2021-22, following a surplus, highlights profound financial instability and a failure in basic fiscal forecasting, jeopardizing its ability to deliver fair elections. The "unmodified audit opinion" is a low bar, indicating only accurate record-keeping, not financial efficiency or responsibility.
* Wasteful Preparatory Spending (Doc 22): The allocation of "$75.1 million over two years" for "preparatory work" and "$50.2 million" directly to the AEC for a referendum that was not yet certain reveals a willingness to commit substantial public funds to speculative projects, potentially leading to significant wasted expenditure if the referendum does not proceed.
* Excessive Travel Costs (Doc 27): A 240% increase in travel expenses in an election year ($5.393M in 2021-22) compared to non-election years ($1.5-1.7M) suggests a severe lack of cost control and potentially lavish or unnecessary travel.

Operational Incompetence and Disenfranchisement:
* Failure in Indigenous Enrolment (Doc 28.2): Despite self-congratulatory rhetoric of "increasing over time" and "considerable work," a stark 10%+ gap persists between general and Indigenous enrolment rates, leaving nearly 87,000 First Nations people unenrolled. This persistent disparity highlights a systemic failure to achieve equitable electoral participation for Indigenous Australians, with vague claims of "more resources" and "partnerships" failing to mask the ongoing issue.
* Postal Voting Fiasco (Doc 39): The AEC's "absolute confidence" in postal voting integrity is shattered by its own data: a staggering 176,880 postal votes were rejected in 2022, primarily due to missing signatures. This represents a colossal failure in voter education, form design, or process clarity, leading to widespread disenfranchisement. The admission of "late engagement" and altered artwork by major political parties, and voters' complaints about ballots sent to parties rather than the AEC, expose a dangerous lack of control over a critical voting pathway, opening doors for potential manipulation and voter frustration.
* Reduced Vulnerable Voter Access (Doc 40, 43.2): The "limited number" of residential aged care facilities offered mobile polling and the complete exclusion of hospitals and independent living facilities from these services represent a significant, indefensible reduction in access for vulnerable populations during a pandemic. Similarly, the reduced "overseas voting services" (only 19 in-person posts) is an admitted downgrade from 2019, forcing citizens into less reliable voting methods and undermining the principle of universal access.
* Questionable Senate Count Accuracy (Doc 44.2, 45): The claimed 0.45% "exception rate" in Senate preference capture, when applied to 108 million preferences, translates to 486,000 potential errors – a staggering figure that casts severe doubt on the "robust controls and validations" and the overall accuracy of the count. The AEC's continued refusal to release the source code for its "EasyCount – Senate" software is a fundamental breach of transparency, preventing independent scrutiny and fostering public distrust in the integrity of election outcomes. The cryptic disclosure of purchasing software from controversial vendor Scytl, only to claim it was "not used," is highly suspicious and raises questions about procurement waste or undisclosed issues.
* Slow Technology Adoption (Doc 46): A $24.4 million investment over four years to increase Electronic Certified Lists (ECLs) to only 10,000 by the next federal election, with a new digital tool for Officers in Charge limited to only 1,300 locations, demonstrates an incredibly slow and inefficient pace of modernization. This perpetuates reliance on outdated paper systems and implies that the AEC has been slow to address known vulnerabilities like multiple voting.
* Voter Verification Apathy (Doc 47): The AEC's passive, almost obstructionist stance on voter identification – deflecting responsibility to Parliament and highlighting only the "impacts" (increased costs, longer queues) while downplaying the benefits – signals a lack of commitment to bolstering public confidence in electoral integrity against issues like multiple voting.
* Candidate Eligibility Farce (Doc 48): The AEC explicitly abdicates responsibility for verifying candidate eligibility, treating the "qualification checklist" as a mere "self-assessment tool." This critical loophole places the burden on candidates and the High Court, undermining preventative measures for electoral integrity. The inability to provide a timeframe for publishing these "17,117 pages" due to "rigorous quality assurance" is an absurd admission of administrative incompetence, compounded by the eventual removal of these documents from public access, hindering accountability.
* Environmental Hypocrisy (Doc 49): The AEC's passive and resistant response to new environmental procurement rules, complaining about the "difficulty to identify the specific impact that supplying pencils" has on climate change, highlights a profound lack of commitment to environmental responsibility and a bureaucratic aversion to adapting to modern governance standards.

Conclusion:
The FOI response reveals an AEC that operates behind a veil of secrecy, selectively disclosing information while using vague justifications and bureaucratic platitudes to deflect from significant systemic issues. The extensive redactions, financial opacity, operational shortcomings leading to disenfranchisement, and a defensive stance against transparency measures combine to present an agency struggling with its core mandate, eroding public trust in Australia's electoral processes. This is not an agency inspiring confidence, but one seemingly in urgent need of radical reform and far greater independent oversight.

AI Generated

The provided FOI documents from the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) offer a glimpse into its operations and financial management, revealing a mixed bag of practices when viewed through an Objectivist lens. While some aspects demonstrate a commitment to procedural integrity, numerous elements reveal concerning departures from the principles of individual rights, rational self-interest, the virtue of productive achievement, and the dangers of collectivism and government overreach.

Content Summary:

The FOI request sought details on the AEC's budget and operational briefs. Many key documents, including the full AEC budget, the total cost of the 2022 Federal Election, and documents on foreign interference, electoral integrity, and data breaches, were entirely refused. The released documents detail:

Funding and Finance: Referendum funding includes specific appropriations for "First Nations enrolment and participation" and "YES/NO campaigns." The AEC reports financial challenges and an operating "loss." Procurement follows Commonwealth rules, now explicitly including "climate change impacts."
Operational Management: Performance statements indicate most targets met, but some related to voter turnout and staff training were "partly met." Travel expenses significantly increased due to the election, including funding for "supporting reform agendas in other countries."
Election Administration: The AEC adapted voting services for COVID-19 (e.g., expanded telephone voting), implemented staff vaccination mandates, and incurred "spent costs." Early voting continues to rise, and significant legislative changes were made to postal voting processes to increase efficiency, though a high number of votes were rejected due to voter error. Mobile polling was provided to specific vulnerable groups.
Integrity and Technology: The AEC utilizes scanning and proprietary software (EasyCount – Senate) for vote counting, asserting its security and accuracy through internal and external audits, but refusing to make the source code public. Plans are in place to expand electronic certified lists (ECLs) for efficiency and to prevent multiple voting. The AEC does not require voter ID at the polling place, deferring to Parliament, and only checks the completeness, not accuracy, of candidate qualification checklists.
Public Information and Incidents: The AEC conducts large-scale public information campaigns, including "disinformation" messaging, with significant media spend and an exemption from external government advertising review. Minor administrative errors in vote counting were acknowledged and deemed not to affect outcomes, and discarded ballot papers were attributed to voter error. Recount requests are assessed against specific criteria.

Objectivist Critique:

1. Primacy of Individual Rights and Individual Liberty:
* Violations:
* Forced Altruism and Collectivism: The explicit allocation of taxpayer funds (Document 22: $16.1 million) and targeted campaigns (Document 28.2) to "increase First Nations enrolment and participation" is a profound violation. While ensuring equal access to voting is legitimate, singling out and privileging specific racial groups with state resources constitutes forced altruism, compelling individuals (taxpayers) to fund initiatives for others based on collective identity rather than universal individual rights. This undermines the principle of equal treatment under the law.
* Government-Funded Political Advocacy: Using taxpayer money to fund "YES/NO campaigns" for referendums (Document 22) is an unacceptable infringement on individual liberty. It forces individuals to subsidize political advocacy, regardless of their personal convictions, distorting the marketplace of ideas and violating property rights.
* Coercive Health Mandates: The mandatory vaccination and mask-wearing requirements for AEC staff (Document 37.2) represent an overreach into individual bodily autonomy and personal choice, even under the guise of public health. A rights-respecting government protects freedom, it does not compel health decisions.
* Suppression of Transparency: The refusal to disclose the source code for the vote-counting software (Documents 44.2, 45) is a severe impediment to rational oversight and undermines individual liberty by demanding blind trust in a government monopoly over the electoral process. The extensive redaction of key documents, particularly those related to financial details and integrity (initial FOI summary, Document 61), further obstructs the public's ability to assess government actions and accountability.
* Alignment: Providing diverse voting options (early, postal, mobile, overseas – Documents 38, 39, 40, 43.2) generally supports individual liberty by enhancing accessibility for eligible citizens. Transparently publishing candidate qualification checklists (Document 48) empowers individuals with information.

2. Rational Self-Interest and The Virtue of Productive Achievement:
* Violations:
* Bureaucratic Inefficiency and Waste: The AEC's reported "loss" (Document 24) and "ongoing challenges" with its funding model indicate a lack of rational self-interest in optimizing taxpayer funds. "Spent costs" due to pandemic preparedness (Document 37.2) suggest a failure to adapt efficiently.
* Ideological Procurement: The mandate to include "climate change impacts" in procurement rules (Document 49) is a clear departure from rational decision-making based purely on efficiency and value. It injects an external, political ideology into a core administrative function, inevitably leading to higher costs and less efficient outcomes, thus mismanaging taxpayer resources. This punishes productive achievement by prioritizing a political agenda over economic value.
* Misallocation of Resources: Spending taxpayer money on "supporting reform agendas in other countries" (Document 27) is an irrational diversion of resources from the AEC's legitimate function of administering Australian elections, diverting wealth from its rightful owners for irrelevant purposes.
* Lack of Accountability: The AEC's dismissal of unverified allegations of call centre misinformation (Document 51) without a thorough investigation indicates a bureaucratic reluctance to prioritize rational inquiry and accountability to uphold its own standards.
* Alignment: The investment in digitalization through ECLs (Document 46) to improve efficiency and prevent multiple voting aligns with productive achievement and rational self-interest in securing the integrity of the vote. Transparently acknowledging minor administrative errors (Document 50, 69) and outlining recount policies (Document 68) demonstrates a rational commitment to accountability.

3. Dangers of Collectivism and Government Overreach:
* Pervasive Dangers:
* Social Engineering: The most egregious example is the systematic funding and implementation of programs for "First Nations enrolment and participation." This is a direct act of government overreach, using coercive power to engage in social engineering based on racial identity, rather than upholding the principle of individual liberty where all citizens are treated equally under the law.
* Control of Information and Thought: The AEC's "long-standing exemption from the review and approval processes of government advertising campaigns" and its "Stop and Consider (disinformation) messaging" (Document 62) are alarming. This grants the government unchecked power to influence public perception and potentially police "truth" in political discourse, a slippery slope to suppressing free speech and personal initiative in the realm of ideas, undermining a free and open society.
* Unjustified Secrecy: The extensive refusal of access to documents detailing election costs, budget specifics, and electoral integrity measures (initial FOI summary) exemplifies dangerous bureaucratic overreach. Such secrecy prevents informed public oversight, fostering distrust and allowing potential inefficiencies or improper activities to remain hidden from those whose wealth is being coercively managed.

Conclusion:

While the AEC demonstrates some adherence to procedural integrity and efforts towards technological efficiency in election administration, the overall tenor of these documents, especially considering the extensive redactions and outright refusals, points to a substantial deviation from Objectivist principles. The active promotion of collectivist programs, the intrusion of ideological mandates into procurement, the lack of transparency regarding critical systems, and the government's role in influencing public thought all represent significant violations of individual liberty, rational self-interest, and the virtue of productive achievement. These practices are hallmarks of bureaucratic interference and government overreach that run contrary to the foundations of a laissez-faire capitalist society and a truly free citizenry.

AI Generated