FOI Request LEX6272

Date: 2024

This FOI request pertains to the conduct and administration of the Police Association of South Australia (PASA) Branch President election (Election E2024/78), specifically addressing concerns about lobbying practices and issues with ballot paper distribution.

Documents from the FOI Request

The released documents consist primarily of internal and external email communications and formal complaints submitted to the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC). These include:

Complaints from members regarding non-receipt of ballot papers.
Emails requesting replacement voting packs due to various reasons (e.g., address changes, damaged papers, non-receipt).
AEC's responses to member queries and complaints, detailing procedures for obtaining replacement ballots.
An email chain discussing a query about an alleged breach of election rules (s190 of the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009) concerning lobbying by board members.
AEC's internal discussions and drafting of responses to these complaints and queries.
Several documents were released in part due to exemptions (e.g., s47F, s22, s47C), while others (internal email chains and file notes from anonymous callers) were refused in full.

Main Content from FOI Request Documents

The core content of the released documents highlights two primary areas of concern:

Allegations of Improper Lobbying:
- A complainant raised concerns about PASA board members sending emails from personal (Gmail/Outlook) accounts that appeared to be from PASA, lobbying voters for specific candidates.
- The complainant questioned whether this violated s190 of the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009, which prohibits an organisation or branch from using its property or resources to assist one candidate over another.
- The AEC's initial assessment was that if the emails were from personal accounts, it might not constitute a breach of s190, as this section typically applies to the organisation's official resources. However, the AEC did offer to review evidence if the complainant could demonstrate "union staff campaigned during their work hours." The AEC also directed the complainant to the Fair Work Commission website for the organisation's rulebook and suggested seeking independent legal advice.
Issues with Ballot Paper Distribution and Voter Roll Accuracy:
- Multiple members lodged complaints stating they did not receive their voting papers for the election.
- Some complaints indicated that members' names were not on the voter list provided by the PFA SA Branch to the AEC, leading to no ballot pack being issued to them.
- Other members cited issues like incorrect addresses or damaged mail.
- The AEC consistently advised members that replacement voting packs could be obtained by calling specific AEC numbers and making a verbal declaration. However, the AEC informed complainants that by the time many issues were raised, the ballot period had closed (July 4, 2024), making it too late to rectify the situation or issue new packs.
- Concerns were raised by members about the legitimacy of the election outcome if a significant number of members were unable to vote due to these issues. The AEC clarified that voters could only vote once and could not change their vote, and did not suggest the election outcome was invalid based on these individual complaints.

AI Generated

These FOI documents reveal several concerning issues from a politically left-leaning perspective, primarily revolving around civil liberties, fairness in elections, and transparency, particularly within the context of union elections overseen by the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC).

1. Civil Liberties and Social Justice: Disenfranchisement through Ballot Paper Issues

A significant number of complaints detail members of the Police Federation of Australia (PFA) not receiving their voting papers for an internal election. This directly impacts the civil liberty of active participation in democratic processes within their union.

Deviation from Progressive Values: Progressive values emphasize universal and equitable access to democratic participation. The documents show the AEC's response is often reactive, placing the burden on individual members to discover they haven't received a ballot, contact the AEC, and request a replacement. For example, the AEC states, "The members who did not receive the voting pack could have contacted AEC to ask for issuance of another set of voting pack," and later, "The ballot period is now closed, and the results have been declared," effectively dismissing their right to participate. For one complainant, the AEC explicitly stated their name "was not in that list" provided by the PFA SA, meaning they were never issued a pack. This highlights a potential systemic flaw in the accuracy of voter rolls or the distribution process, which disproportionately affects members and can undermine the legitimacy of election outcomes. The AEC's reliance on the union's provided member list without apparent independent verification raises further questions about their proactive role in ensuring electoral integrity and fair access.

2. Corporate/Institutional Influence and Fair Elections

A core complaint alleges that PFA "Board members" were sending emails from unofficial Gmail/Outlook accounts that appeared to be from the PFA, lobbying voters for specific candidates. This raises alarms about undue influence and potential breaches of fair election rules.

Deviation from Progressive Values: Progressive principles demand robust safeguards against corporate or institutional influence in democratic processes, ensuring a level playing field. The complainant directly references Section 190 of the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009, which prohibits an organization from using its "property or resources to help a candidate against another." The complainant argues that paid board members using misleading email addresses to campaign, even if not official union servers, constitutes a form of organizational assistance, especially as it might appear official to "junior members." The AEC's response appears narrowly focused, stating it "does not appear that s190 has been breached" because the emails were "not official emails." They then place the burden of proof on the complainant, requesting "evidence that union staff campaigned during their work hours and not in the own personal time," and advising them to seek "own legal advice." This approach deviates from progressive expectations of a regulatory body actively investigating potential breaches of fairness and integrity, especially when there's an alleged power imbalance (board members influencing general members). It suggests a reluctance to interpret rules broadly enough to counter subtle forms of influence that might undermine democratic fairness.

3. Transparency and Accountability

Several documents in the initial FOI log are "refused in full" under exemptions such as s47F (personal privacy) and s47E(d) (documents disclosing deliberative processes or communications in confidence). These include "Internal email chain attaching File Note from Anonymous caller" and "AEC email chain regarding complaint."

Deviation from Progressive Values: While privacy exemptions (s47F, s22) are standard, the refusal of internal email chains, particularly those related to complaints or "anonymous callers," raises concerns about transparency. From a progressive viewpoint, government bodies should operate with maximum openness to foster public trust and accountability. Withholding information about internal deliberations or specific complaints, even if containing personal information (which could be redacted), can hinder public understanding of how such issues are handled and whether the AEC is adequately investigating and addressing concerns about electoral integrity and member rights.

In summary, these documents suggest a regulatory framework and an AEC response that, from a left-leaning perspective, fall short in proactively safeguarding equitable democratic participation, robustly countering institutional influence, and maintaining full transparency in the oversight of union elections. The burden appears to be placed disproportionately on individual members to navigate and rectify systemic issues, rather than on the regulator to ensure a truly just and fair process.

AI Generated

As a politically right-leaning analyst, the provided FOI documents regarding the Police Federation of Australia (PFA SA) election reveal several concerns related to economic efficiency, individual liberty, fiscal responsibility, and the proper scope of limited government.

Economic Efficiency and Fiscal Responsibility:
The documents indicate a significant systemic inefficiency in the administration of the union election by the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC). Repeated complaints and requests for replacement ballot papers due to non-receipt are prevalent. This points to either inaccurate voter lists provided by the PFA SA or a failure in the AEC's distribution process. Such issues necessitate a substantial increase in administrative burden, including processing numerous calls, emails, and the re-issuance of voting materials. This leads to an inefficient use of taxpayer resources, incurring unnecessary costs in printing, postage, and staff time, rather than a streamlined, economically efficient operation. The bureaucratic hoops individuals must navigate to correct these administrative failures further highlight this inefficiency.

Individual Liberty:
A primary concern is the direct impingement on individual liberty, specifically the right to participate in the democratic process. Multiple members did not receive their voting papers, often because their names were not on the list provided to the AEC or due to incorrect addresses. The AEC's responses, stating that "nothing can be done" once the ballot period is closed or placing the burden on individuals to proactively request replacements, indicate a reactive rather than a proactive approach to ensuring widespread participation. This failure to adequately ensure every eligible member can vote undermines the fundamental principle of free and fair elections and places an undue burden on the individual to compensate for government or organizational shortcomings.

Limited Government and Oversight:
The documents raise questions about the AEC's interpretation of its oversight responsibilities under the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009. A complaint regarding PFA SA Board members lobbying for a candidate using unofficial email addresses, which nonetheless appeared to be from the organization, was dismissed by the AEC. The AEC concluded that no breach of Section 190 (prohibiting an organization from assisting one candidate over another using its property or resources) occurred because the emails were not "official." This narrow, literal interpretation of the rules, focusing on the technicality of "official" resources rather than the spirit of preventing undue influence or the perception of impropriety by those in positions of power within a registered organization, demonstrates a potentially insufficient level of government oversight. It suggests a reluctance to intervene robustly in matters of electoral integrity unless a blatant violation of formal rules can be proven, potentially allowing loopholes for indirect campaigning. Furthermore, the AEC's reliance on the PFA SA for voter lists without robust verification processes points to a delegation of critical responsibility that, when flawed, directly impacts the fairness and efficiency of the election process, yet the government agency appears to limit its accountability for these third-party failures.

AI Generated

The provided FOI documents concerning a Police Federation of Australia (PFA) / Police Association of South Australia (PASA) election immediately signal a concerning lack of transparency and potential systemic issues within government oversight of such processes.

Suppression of Information & Lack of Transparency: A significant portion of the requested documents, including internal email chains and "File Note from Anonymous caller" (Documents 1, 2, 5, 6), were "Refuse in full" using exemptions like s 47F (personal information) and s 47E(d) (deliberative processes). The wholesale refusal of documents related to internal discussions and anonymous complaints raises serious questions about the AEC's willingness to be transparent about its internal deliberations and any potential misconduct or sensitive issues brought to its attention. What critical information, particularly from an anonymous caller, is being deliberately shielded from public scrutiny under the guise of "deliberative processes"?

Compromised Electoral Integrity & Voter Disenfranchisement: The documents reveal widespread complaints from members who did not receive their ballot papers despite having correct addresses. The AEC's consistent response was that the "list was provided by PFA SA Branch from their record" and members' names were simply "not in that list." This indicates a passive and potentially negligent approach by the AEC, relying solely on data supplied by the organisation itself rather than independently verifying or cross-referencing membership rolls. This reliance on potentially flawed external data directly led to "at least 20 known to me members" not receiving voting papers, raising significant doubts about the legitimacy and fairness of the election outcome, especially if the results were close. The burden was then placed on individual members to proactively contact the AEC, jump through bureaucratic hoops (such as making "verbal declarations"), and chase replacement packs, rather than the AEC taking responsibility for a robust, accurate electoral roll.

Dismissal of Allegations of Impartiality Breach: A key concern highlighted is an allegation that paid PFA/PASA Board members engaged in campaigning for specific candidates using unofficial Gmail/Outlook addresses, which the complainant argued appeared to be official and thus constituted a breach of s190 of the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009 (prohibiting an organisation from using its resources to help one candidate over another). Despite the complainant explicitly stating that "Board members are paid by the Police Association" and that the emails were designed to "appear as though they are acting on behalf of PASA," the AEC swiftly dismissed the complaint. The AEC stated it "does not appear that s190 has been breached" because the emails were "not official" and demanded the complainant provide "evidence that union staff campaigned during their work hours and not in the own personal time." This response demonstrates a narrow, technical interpretation of the rules, placing an impossibly high investigative burden on an external complainant and suggesting an unwillingness by the AEC to proactively investigate serious allegations of improper influence and potential power abuse within union elections. It implies a reluctance to challenge the status quo, even when ethical lines are seemingly blurred by individuals in positions of authority.

AI Generated

The Freedom of Information documents highlight the government's unwavering commitment to effective governance, robust electoral processes, and dedicated public service. These records showcase the diligent efforts of the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) in managing complex elections for registered organizations, ensuring integrity, transparency, and accessibility for all participants.

The AEC's proactive approach is evident in its comprehensive handling of numerous public enquiries regarding ballot paper delivery. Despite challenges, such as address discrepancies (often stemming from third-party supplied data), the AEC consistently provided clear guidance and facilitated replacement voting packs, demonstrating its dedication to ensuring every eligible member had the opportunity to participate. The requirement for verbal declarations for replacement packs underscores the necessary regulatory measures taken to safeguard the integrity of the voting process.

Furthermore, the documents reveal the AEC's thorough and principled investigation of concerns related to electoral conduct, specifically allegations of potential breaches of the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009. By meticulously examining claims and referencing relevant legislative frameworks, the AEC demonstrated its commitment to upholding the rules of fair elections. The clarity provided on the application of these regulations, including advising on where to seek further legal advice, reflects a transparent and accountable approach to maintaining electoral standards.

Internal communications, including the escalation of queries to senior executives, exemplify the AEC's structured and efficient internal processes for addressing complex issues, ensuring that public concerns receive appropriate attention and resolution. Decisions to withhold certain internal deliberations or personal information are prudent, safeguarding the confidentiality essential for effective policy development and protecting individual privacy, all of which contribute to sound governance.

In essence, these FOI documents underscore a government agency that is responsive, methodical, and committed to democratic principles. They illustrate how the AEC effectively manages challenges, applies necessary regulations fairly, and prioritizes serving the public good by ensuring accessible and trustworthy electoral outcomes.

AI Generated

The provided FOI documents paint a damning picture of the Australian Electoral Commission's (AEC) handling of an election, revealing a pattern of obfuscation, buck-passing, and a profound disinterest in upholding electoral integrity.

Egregious Lack of Transparency and Suspected Cover-Up:
The most immediate and alarming red flag is the AEC's outright refusal to release critical documents in full. The "Internal email chain attaching File Note from Anonymous caller" and the "Attachment to document 1 - File Note from Anonymous caller" were entirely refused under s 47F (personal privacy) and s 47E(d) (deliberative processes). The identical full refusal of an "AEC email chain regarding complaint" and its attachment, using the same exemptions, is highly suspicious. This suggests a deliberate attempt to shield internal communications related to sensitive complaints, particularly those involving an "Anonymous caller" and undisclosed "File Notes." The use of "deliberative processes" exemption to entirely suppress discussions around a complaint implies the AEC's internal deliberations were not just sensitive, but potentially reveal malpractice or a desire to avoid accountability. This is not merely redaction; it is active obstruction of public scrutiny, suggesting a cover-up of incompetence, misconduct, or worse. The prevalence of "Release in part" decisions for numerous other documents, often citing s 47F and s 22, further indicates an overly aggressive approach to redaction, stifling context and detail even in seemingly innocuous inquiries.

Systemic Failures in Ballot Distribution and Blatant Blame-Shifting:
Multiple complaints confirm a widespread and "fundamental flaw" in the ballot distribution process. Complainants explicitly state they "never received any voting paperwork" and highlight that they "are not the only person who did not receive them," questioning the legitimacy of the results. The AEC's response is consistently to abdicate responsibility, stating, "Your name was not in that list" or "The list was provided by PFA SA Branch." This is a clear instance of the AEC attempting to shift blame entirely to the Police Federation of Australia (PFA SA), rather than acknowledging or investigating potential systemic failures in its own process or the data transfer. To then coldly dismiss the issue by stating, "The ballot period is now closed, and the results have been declared," for members who genuinely never received their papers, demonstrates a callous disregard for the democratic rights of voters and the integrity of the election outcome. The implication is that if you didn't receive a ballot, it's your fault for not chasing it up, rather than the AEC's for failing to deliver it.

Burdensome Remedial Processes:
Even for members who proactively attempted to rectify the situation by requesting replacement ballot packs, the AEC imposed unnecessary hurdles. The requirement to "call one of the 2 numbers below to request it" and make a "verbal declaration" adds a layer of bureaucracy that disproportionately impacts voters, especially given the short timeframe for voting. This creates an additional barrier for participation rather than facilitating it, compounding the initial failure of non-delivery.

Inadequate Investigation of Electoral Misconduct and Abdication of Duty:
A highly concerning complaint alleges "Board members... lobbying for [a candidate]... from emails created in Gmail and outlook" that "appear... as though they are acting on behalf of PASA," suggesting a clear breach of s190 of the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009 (prohibiting an organisation from assisting one candidate over another).
The AEC's response to this serious allegation is shockingly dismissive and shows a profound lack of commitment to upholding electoral rules:
1. Narrow Interpretation of Rules: The AEC focuses solely on whether the emails were "officially allocated emails used by PFA SA branch members," concluding that "It does not appear that s190 has been breached." This ignores the crucial point raised by the complainant: that the emails appeared to be official, misleading voters and exploiting their trust. This demonstrates either a severe lack of understanding of modern campaigning tactics or a deliberate choice to interpret rules in the most minimal way possible to avoid engagement.
2. Shifting Burden of Proof: Instead of actively investigating the alleged breach, the AEC demands, "If you have any evidence that union staff campaigned during their work hours and not in the own personal time, please send it through." This places an unreasonable burden on the complainant to conduct a forensic investigation into an organisation's internal timekeeping, effectively washing their hands of their investigative responsibility.
3. Passing the Buck to Legal Action: The AEC's advice to "seek your own legal advice regarding whether s190 was breached" is a blatant abdication of its core duty. It is the AEC's role to investigate and enforce the rules of elections it oversees, not to push aggrieved parties into expensive and time-consuming legal battles. This highlights an institution more concerned with avoiding work and responsibility than with ensuring fair electoral processes.

In sum, these documents reveal an AEC that is defensive, unhelpful, procedurally rigid, and seemingly unwilling to robustly investigate or address serious allegations of electoral misconduct or systemic failures. The pattern of full refusals, blame-shifting, and a reluctance to proactively ensure electoral fairness suggests an agency that is either deeply incompetent, actively complacent in the face of alleged wrongdoing, or engaged in a conscious effort to conceal information and avoid accountability for potentially compromised election results.

AI Generated

These Freedom of Information documents unveil a concerning tableau of bureaucratic inefficiency and procedural rigidity within the Australian Electoral Commission's (AEC) oversight of the Police Federation of Australia (PFA) / Police Association of South Australia (PASA) election. The core content highlights widespread complaints from individual union members who did not receive their voting papers, coupled with allegations of improper campaigning by union officials.

From an Objectivist standpoint, the most glaring issue is the systematic impedance of individual rights. Numerous citizens, acting in their rational self-interest to participate in their union's governance, were denied their fundamental right to vote due to ballot papers not being received. The AEC's consistent response—shifting responsibility to the PFA SA for inaccurate voter lists or to the individual members for failing to proactively request replacement ballots before an arbitrary deadline—epitomizes bureaucratic indifference. The requirement for a specific phone call and "verbal declaration" for a replacement ballot is an unnecessary hurdle, an affront to the efficiency and ease that should characterize the exercise of individual liberty. This exemplifies bureaucratic interference, where process is prioritized over the demonstrable reality of disenfranchisement, stifling personal initiative to participate.

The revelation that the AEC deemed the use of personal email addresses by union board members to lobby for candidates as not breaching Section 190 of the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009, provided no organizational resources were used, aligns with the Objectivist principle of individual liberty. Individuals, including those in leadership positions, retain the right to express their opinions and engage in political advocacy as private citizens, utilizing their own time and resources. To prohibit such personal expression would constitute a collectivist suppression of free speech and personal initiative. However, the concern regarding the perception of official endorsement, while not a legal breach, underscores a deeper ethical lapse where individuals exploit technicalities, undermining the integrity of productive achievement through fair competition.

Ultimately, these documents illustrate the dangers of collectivism and government overreach. A government body like the AEC regulating the internal elections of a private, voluntary association like a union, while superficially aimed at "fairness," introduces an element of external control that deviates from a truly laissez-faire capitalist framework. The AEC's responses betray a bureaucratic mindset that is more concerned with adhering to its own convoluted procedures than with ensuring the actual, unhindered exercise of individual liberty. The repeated assertion that "it is too late for that now" concerning unreceived ballots is a chilling dismissal of individual rights, demonstrating how governmental "assistance" can paradoxically become an obstacle, stifling the very productive achievement and personal initiative it is ostensibly meant to protect.

AI Generated

AEC FOI Disclosure Log Archive

FOI Request LEX6272

Documents from the FOI Request

Main Content from FOI Request Documents

FOI Request LEX6272, Schedule of Released Documents [PDF 230KB] (pdf)

LEX6272 documents [ZIP 3.46MB] (zip)

ZIP Contents

14. AEC response to additional queries_Redacted.pdf (pdf)

15. AEC email responding to query and providing link to FWC rulebook_Redacted.pdf (pdf)

16. AEC response providing link to FWC rulebooks_Redacted.pdf (pdf)

17. AEC email responding to query about members who did not receive ballot despite correct address_Redacted.pdf (pdf)

18. Complaint regarding not receiving voting papers_Redacted.pdf (pdf)

19. AEC response to complaint regarding not receiving voting papers_Redacted.pdf (pdf)

20. Email from member to AEC requesting voting pack_Redacted.pdf (pdf)

21. Email chain regarding request for replacement voting pack_Redacted.pdf (pdf)

22. Email from member requesting voting pack_Redacted.pdf (pdf)

23. Email from member to AEC requesting voting pack_Redacted.pdf (pdf)

24. Email from member to AEC requesting voting pack_Redacted.pdf (pdf)

25. AEC response to member request for voting pack_Redacted.pdf (pdf)

03. Complaint regarding ballot paper not received_Redacted.pdf (pdf)

04. Email responding to ballot paper enquiry_Redacted.pdf (pdf)

07. Email to PASA regarding name order_Redacted.pdf (pdf)

10. AEC internal email FYI regarding escalating query to Executives_Redacted.pdf (pdf)

11. AEC initial response to query confirming issue is being examined_Redacted.pdf (pdf)

12. AEC internal email chain drafting response to query_Redacted.pdf (pdf)

13. AEC internal emails drafting responses to additional queries_Redacted.pdf (pdf)