FOI Request LS7888

Date: 2020

The following is a summary of the FOI request LS7888 and its associated released documents:

Main Purpose of the FOI Request

The Freedom of Information (FOI) request LS7888 sought documents from January 1, 2018, to December 31, 2019, concerning the Australian Electoral Commission's (AEC) new methodology for its Indigenous Electoral Participation Program (IEPP). Specifically, the request aimed to uncover:
* Planning documents and the catalyst for the new methodology.
* Progress reports and internal communications regarding its design, testing, and implementation.
* Details on how implementation was tracked, including comparisons with prior methodologies.
* Final summary reports on the outcomes.
* Information on the number of Indigenous people involved in the planning, design, and implementation.
* The final cost of the methodology's design, testing, and implementation, including AEC staffer numbers.

Documents from the FOI Request

The released documents comprise a schedule of 41 items (some subsuming others) and several redacted document excerpts. The types of documents include:
* Internal Emails: Correspondence between various AEC staff members (Assistant Directors, Directors, Senior Project Officers, Consultants, Data Analysts) discussing Indigenous data, enrolment rates, parliamentary reviews, and ministerial briefings.
* Papers/Reports: Documents titled "Indigenous Franchise KPIs using Centrelink data" and "Analysis of Indigenous Enrolment."
* Ministerial Submissions & Briefs: Formal documents prepared for Ministers and parliamentary estimates hearings (e.g., "Ministerial Submission re Publication of Indigenous enrolment rates," "Estimates Brief – Hot Issue re Indigenous," "Estimates Brief – Hot Issue – Supplementary Budget Estimates").
* Redaction Codes List: A list detailing the types of information redacted from the documents.

Main Content from the FOI Request Documents

The core content of the released documents focuses heavily on the AEC's shift to a new, more direct methodology for estimating Indigenous electoral enrolment rates, primarily leveraging self-identified Indigeneity data from Centrelink (Department of Human Services).

Key Insights from the Documents:

Catalyst for New Methodology: The availability of person-level Centrelink extracts that included an Indigenous indicator from 2017 onwards was the primary catalyst. Previously, the AEC used an indirect regression model, which yielded "alarmingly low" and less robust Indigenous enrolment rates.
New Methodology Details: The new approach involves:
- Calculating the proportion of Centrelink customers (with identified Indigenous or non-Indigenous status) who are on the electoral roll.
- Adjusting these raw Centrelink-based rates to align with overall AEC enrolment rates, applying this factor to Indigenous and non-Indigenous data.
- The methodology aims to provide more direct and robust estimates, though it still relies on assumptions (e.g., no bias in Centrelink client enrolment or matching for Indigenous/non-Indigenous individuals).
Improved Enrolment Rates: The new methodology revealed significantly higher estimated Indigenous enrolment rates:
- As at June 30, 2018, the national Indigenous enrolment rate was estimated at 76.4%. This was a substantial increase from the previous estimates of 58% (calculated in 2014 using the old methodology).
- As at June 30, 2019, the national rate remained steady at 76.6%, continuing an upward trend from 74.7% in 2017.
- The estimated unenrolled Indigenous population was around 118,581 in June 2018, increasing slightly to 120,486 by June 2019.
Implementation Tracking & Enrolment Stimulation:
- The Centrelink data identified 72,451 "potentially unenrolled Indigenous Australians" in July 2018.
- An enrolment stimulation event in February/March 2019 resulted in 2,646 Indigenous Australians enrolling, reducing the identified unenrolled cohort to 69,143.
- Internal discussions reveal efforts to refine the data analysis, particularly concerning older Indigenous Australians and potential matching errors.
- There were internal discussions (emails from Sept 2019) about state-level variations, such as a noted increase in the unenrolled Indigenous population in NSW, though it was deemed not statistically significant given the state's size.
Reporting and Transparency: The AEC prepared ministerial submissions and estimates briefs to communicate these updated enrolment figures to the government and parliament, emphasizing the improved methodology and increased rates. Discussions noted the importance of clearly stating the estimated nature of the data ("estimates on top of estimates") due to the lack of a direct Indigenous identifier on the federal roll.

Information Not Explicitly Addressed in Released Content:

The documents do not explicitly outline the number of Indigenous people involved by the AEC in the planning, design, and implementation of the new methodology in terms of project personnel or consultants.
The documents also do not detail the final cost of the design, testing, and implementation of the new methodology, nor the specific number of AEC staffers assigned to the task. While staff names and roles appear in emails, a dedicated breakdown of staffing or costs for the project is not present in the provided snippets or document descriptions.

AI Generated

The provided FOI documents from the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) primarily detail efforts to enhance Indigenous electoral participation through a new methodology for estimating enrolment rates in 2018-2019. From a politically left-leaning perspective, these documents offer insights into social justice and civil liberties, with little to no direct information on environmental impact, wealth distribution, or corporate influence.

Social Justice:
The documents reveal the AEC's commitment to improving Indigenous electoral participation, a core social justice issue. The "Indigenous Electoral Participation Program (IEPP)" and the focus on "Closing the Gap purposes" directly align with progressive values of self-determination, equity, and reconciliation. Historical data, such as the 2014 estimate that 42% of Indigenous people were "not enrolled to vote" (Documents 16, 18), highlights a significant and concerning historical disenfranchisement. The new methodology, which leverages Centrelink's self-identified Indigeneity data, signifies a proactive step to better understand and address this disparity.

The reported increase in the national Indigenous enrolment rate from 74.7% in 2017 to 76.6% in 2019 (Documents 20, 32, 41) indicates some positive movement. Direct interventions, such as the "enrolment stimulation event" in early 2019 that resulted in 2,646 Indigenous enrolments (Documents 26, 29), demonstrate a practical effort to expand the franchise.

However, a significant "gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous enrolment rates is concerning" (Documents 20, 41), indicating persistent systemic barriers. The absence of a "personal Indigenous identifier" on the federal electoral roll (Documents 26, 29, 30, 6, 8) is a structural impediment. This necessitates reliance on indirect and acknowledged "indicative only" (Documents 26, 29, 30, 6, 8) methods like Centrelink data, which, despite being an improvement, may not fully capture the complexities of Indigenous enrolment. Concerns about "significant matching error" for older Indigenous Australians (Documents 26, 29) highlight challenges in reaching particularly vulnerable community members. Furthermore, the observed 10.9% increase in the estimated non-enrolled Indigenous population in New South Wales between 2018-2019 (Documents 32, 40) suggests that progress is not uniform across states and that specific regional challenges require more granular and responsive interventions.

Civil Liberties:
The AEC's efforts to increase Indigenous enrolment are a direct affirmation of the fundamental civil liberty of the right to vote. Ensuring all eligible citizens, especially those from historically marginalized groups, can exercise this right is central to progressive principles of democratic fairness and universal suffrage.

However, the reliance on Centrelink data, involving the sharing and use of personal information across government agencies for electoral purposes, raises potential civil liberties concerns regarding data privacy. While the intent is to improve electoral access, a progressive perspective would demand robust transparency and accountability frameworks to ensure such data-sharing initiatives do not inadvertently erode trust, privacy, or exacerbate surveillance concerns, particularly for vulnerable populations. The documents themselves note that the results are subject to "non-trivial assumptions" (Documents 26, 29, 30, 6, 8), which underscores the need for vigilant oversight. Additionally, the prevalence of redactions in the released documents, including "internal operations" and "deliberative material" (Redaction Codes 16, 18), could limit public scrutiny over the full decision-making processes and methodologies impacting Indigenous civil liberties.

Environmental Impact, Wealth Distribution, and Corporate Influence:
These documents do not contain direct information related to environmental impact, wealth distribution, or corporate influence. The scope of the FOI request and the content of the released documents are narrowly focused on electoral administration and the specific challenge of Indigenous electoral participation. While the use of Centrelink data implies engagement with segments of the population that may experience economic disadvantage, the documents do not offer an analysis of wealth distribution as a systemic issue.

AI Generated

The Freedom of Information documents detail the Australian Electoral Commission's (AEC) efforts in 2018-2019 to refine its Indigenous Electoral Participation Program (IEPP), primarily by adopting a new methodology for estimating Indigenous enrolment rates. This new approach heavily relies on data from the Department of Human Services (Centrelink) that includes self-identified Indigeneity.

Overall Assessment:
From a right-leaning perspective, the AEC's mandate to maintain an accurate electoral roll is a core function of limited government. However, the disclosed documents present a mixed bag, showing some efforts towards efficiency and data integrity, while raising concerns about fiscal transparency and the expanding scope of government intervention into individual lives.

Economic Efficiency:
The shift from older, "statistically based" but "alarmingly low" and poorly fitting regression models to a "more direct method" utilizing Centrelink data (e.g., Document 26, 29, 30, 6, 8) suggests an attempt to improve data accuracy and therefore the efficiency of targeted enrolment efforts. Leveraging existing government datasets like Centrelink's rather than investing in entirely new data collection mechanisms could be seen as a prudent use of taxpayer dollars, aiming for greater return on investment in improving electoral roll integrity. The stated goal of "Closing the Gap purposes" (Document 26, 29, 30) also implies an attempt to align the AEC's work with broader government objectives, potentially improving overall government program coherence. However, the documents acknowledge "considerable data cleansing and analysis" and "significant matching error" (Document 26, 29), indicating that the integration of these datasets is not without its own inefficiencies and resource demands. Furthermore, a specific request for "final cost" and "number of AEC staffers assigned" (FOI Request 6) was made, yet these details are conspicuously absent from the released documents, preventing a full assessment of economic efficiency and fiscal prudence.

Individual Liberty:
The program's aim to increase Indigenous enrolment supports the individual liberty of citizens to participate in democratic processes. By identifying "potentially unenrolled Indigenous Australians" (e.g., 72,451 initially, reduced to 69,143 after a "stimulation event" – Document 26, 29) and conducting "enrolment stimulation" (Document 26, 29), the AEC is proactively engaging individuals. However, this approach, relying on private self-identification data from Centrelink, raises questions about data privacy and the appropriate boundaries of government action. While the right to vote is fundamental, actively tracking and prompting individuals to enrol using inter-agency data sharing, particularly those who may have implicitly chosen not to, could be seen by some as a subtle form of government overreach, encroaching on individual autonomy and the principle of limited government intervention in personal choices. The documents do not detail the nature of this "stimulation," which could vary from benign reminders to more intrusive efforts.

National Security:
The provided documents do not contain any information or policies related to national security.

Fiscal Responsibility:
The inability to ascertain the "final cost" and staffing allocation for the design, testing, and implementation of this new methodology (as requested by the FOI and missing from the released documents) is a significant point of concern for fiscal responsibility. Without these figures, it is impossible to conduct a proper cost-benefit analysis of the program. While the "Estimates Brief" (Document 41) provides high-level enrolment figures and trends, it avoids direct budgetary disclosures related to this specific program's development. The redaction of "irrelevant material" (Code 19 in Document 41) could potentially obscure details relevant to fiscal scrutiny.

Limited Government:
The AEC's core function is to administer elections and maintain the electoral roll. The initiative to improve Indigenous enrolment rates aligns with this function by ensuring a more complete roll. However, the explicit mention of "Closing the Gap purposes" (Document 26, 29, 30) and the proactive "enrolment stimulation" raise questions about whether the AEC is expanding its remit beyond purely administrative electoral duties into broader social engineering or welfare policy domains. A conservative perspective would typically advocate for government agencies to adhere strictly to their defined, limited functions, avoiding mission creep into areas traditionally left to civil society or individual initiative. The effort to "better target" unenrolled Indigenous Australians (Document 26, 29) through extensive data analysis could be seen as exceeding simple roll maintenance, pushing towards an activist role for a government bureaucracy.

AI Generated

The released FOI documents concerning the Australian Electoral Commission's (AEC) new methodology for its Indigenous Electoral Participation Program (IEPP) in 2018-2019 reveal a pervasive lack of transparency, questionable data practices, and a clear attempt to manage public perception rather than fully disclose operational realities.

Lack of Transparency and Selective Reporting:

Withheld Information: Despite the FOI request explicitly asking for final costs, the number of staff assigned, and the number of Indigenous people involved in the program's design, none of this crucial information has been provided. This is a significant red flag, indicating a deliberate effort to shield the financial and human resource investment of the program from public scrutiny.
Controlled Narrative: While public-facing documents (like the "Estimates Briefs" for parliamentary review) highlight a "steady" national Indigenous enrolment rate (e.g., 76.6% in 2019) and frame it as an "increase on previous estimates," internal communications reveal a more problematic reality. The public narrative focuses on the rate, conveniently omitting that the absolute number of estimated unenrolled Indigenous Australians actually increased between 2018 and 2019 (from 118,581 to 123,601).
Downplaying Negative Results: Internal emails show AEC staff attempting to rationalize significant increases in unenrolled Indigenous populations in specific states (e.g., NSW's 10.9% increase in unenrolled individuals), dismissing them as "not statistically significant" or a function of "state size." This internal spin contrasts sharply with the positive external messaging.
Granular Data Withheld: Senior AEC officials explicitly state that detailed, divisional breakdowns of "potentially unenrolled Indigenous Australians" are not "comfortable sharing" externally due to a "greater risk of error." This suggests that the AEC prefers to present only high-level, generalized data, potentially concealing less flattering localized outcomes or the inherent imprecision of their new method.

Questionable Data Practices and Inefficiencies:

Methodological Limitations: The "new methodology" (which relies on matching electoral roll data with Centrelink's self-identified Indigeneity data) is internally acknowledged as based on "courageous assumptions" and "estimates on top of estimates." A Deputy Electoral Commissioner explicitly warned that the data "is not and cannot be considered 100% accurate," urging that these caveats "not be lost over time" in ministerial briefings. This internal admission of significant data unreliability stands in stark contrast to the public claim of "more robust data."
Historical Data Unreliability: Documents admit that previous 2014 estimates of Indigenous enrolment were "alarmingly low, and hopefully represented a worst case picture," and that "the models did not fit the data particularly well." This implies a long-standing issue with the AEC's ability to accurately measure Indigenous enrolment, raising questions about the efficacy of past programs and the true "improvement" claimed by the new methodology.
Ineffective Outreach: A "stimulation event" conducted in early 2019, targeting 72,451 "potentially unenrolled Indigenous Australians" identified through the new method, resulted in only 2,646 new Indigenous enrolments. This represents a dismal conversion rate of approximately 3.65%, highlighting a severe inefficiency in the program's ability to translate "improved" data into actual increased enrolment.
Ongoing Data Issues: Even during the 2019 reporting period, internal emails show staff "reviewing the numbers" and admitting that the "comparison between 2019 and 2018 looks strange and we just fixed this." This suggests that the methodology was still unstable and subject to last-minute corrections, undermining claims of its robustness.
Fundamental Systemic Flaw: The core problem, as admitted in multiple documents, is the absence of a "personal Indigenous identifier" on the federal electoral roll. The "new methodology" is merely a workaround, not a fundamental solution, perpetually relying on external, imperfect data sources.

In summary, the documents paint a picture of an AEC struggling to measure and improve Indigenous electoral participation, relying on a method fraught with internal caveats and data quality issues. Instead of full disclosure, the AEC appears to engage in selective reporting and internal spin to present a more favorable image to ministers and the public, while essential details about the program's cost and staffing remain shrouded in secrecy. This demonstrates a concerning pattern of opacity and a focus on managing public perception over transparent accountability for government programs.

AI Generated

The Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) has proactively enhanced its Indigenous Electoral Participation Program (IEPP) by implementing a robust new methodology during 2018-2019, reflecting the government's steadfast commitment to effective governance, data integrity, and ensuring full electoral participation for all Australians.

This new methodology was a testament to the AEC's continuous improvement efforts, moving beyond earlier, less precise statistical models (which, while innovative for their time, yielded "alarmingly low" estimates of Indigenous enrolment). The catalyst for this advancement was the invaluable availability of self-identified Indigenous data from the Department of Human Services (Centrelink) starting in 2017. This provided an "excellent opportunity" to directly and more accurately estimate Indigenous enrolment rates, aligning with broader "Closing the Gap" objectives.

The design, testing, and implementation phases were meticulously managed through extensive internal collaboration across AEC branches, involving dedicated staff from Roll Management, Community Engagement, Operations, and Business Intelligence. Detailed planning and progress were tracked through internal reports and communications, ensuring thorough analysis of the new Centrelink-based data. This involved rigorous data cleansing, sophisticated matching with the electoral roll, and careful statistical analysis to derive highly reliable enrolment figures. Crucially, the AEC demonstrated a commitment to transparency by acknowledging that these figures are "indicative only" due to the inherent complexities of population estimates, thereby ensuring responsible reporting.

The positive outcomes of this updated approach are clear and underscore the government's successful efforts. Comparisons with prior methodologies reveal a significant and encouraging increase in estimated Indigenous enrolment rates. The national Indigenous enrolment rate, previously estimated at 58% under the older methodology, rose to 74.7% in 2017, then to 76.4% as at 30 June 2018, and further to 76.6% by 30 June 2019. This demonstrates a consistent upward trend and a growth rate for Indigenous enrolment that outpaces the general electoral roll. Any minor fluctuations, such as a slight estimated increase in unenrolled Indigenous Australians in NSW in 2019, were thoroughly reviewed and deemed not statistically significant, falling within expected estimation error, highlighting the rigour of the AEC's analysis.

Beyond statistical improvements, the new methodology enabled targeted engagement initiatives. A notable "enrolment stimulation event" in early 2019, leveraging the precise Centrelink data, successfully resulted in the enrolment of 2,646 Indigenous Australians. This proactive outreach exemplifies the government's dedication to fostering electoral participation among Indigenous communities.

The considerable internal resources allocated to this project, including dedicated staff across multiple teams, signify the government's resolve to achieve accurate and comprehensive electoral data. This continuous investment ensures that the AEC, as a pillar of democratic process, remains responsive and effective in its mission to serve the public and uphold the integrity of the electoral roll.

AI Generated

The provided FOI documents paint a damning picture of the Australian Electoral Commission's (AEC) approach to its Indigenous Electoral Participation Program (IEPP), revealing a disturbing emphasis on statistical optics over genuine achievement, persistent incompetence in data management, and a shocking lack of transparency.

1. A Catalyst of Crisis and Political Pressure, Not Proactive Design:
The "new methodology" was not a proactive innovation but a reactive scramble. Previous Indigenous enrolment rates were "alarmingly low" (Doc 26, 29, 6, 8) – a long-standing failure that the AEC seemingly tolerated for years. The sudden urgency in early 2019, epitomised by the Deputy Electoral Commissioner's demand for data within "2-3 business days" for the "Finance Minister’s Office" (Doc 28), indicates a methodology driven by political expediency and a need to present more favourable numbers to ministers, rather than a commitment to robust, ground-up program improvement. The "Estimates Brief – Hot Issue" (Doc 20) explicitly frames the new methodology around showing an "overall increase on previous estimates," highlighting a focus on PR rather than effective enrolment.

2. Progress Reports: A Litany of Delays, Errors, and Excuses:
The "progress" documented is less about systemic improvement and more about internal struggles with data. Emails reveal a messy, reactive process:
* Data Quality Calamity: From the outset, in March 2018, the AEC grappled with "Indigenous data" from Centrelink, needing to "do something additional/special with the BDM data to establish eligibility" and "rerunning the data against the deceased persons file" (Doc 4). This suggests foundational data was inherently flawed, casting doubt on any subsequent "improvements."
* "Courageous Assumptions" and Shaky Foundations: Despite being touted as "improved," the new methodology is openly admitted to be "subject to quite courageous assumptions" and its "figures should nevertheless still be regarded as indicative only" (Doc 26, 29, 6, 8). This is an astonishing confession of unreliability, demonstrating a willingness to present highly qualified and potentially inaccurate data as "progress." The shift from "regression models" that "did not fit the data particularly well" and yielded "alarmingly low" rates (Doc 26, 29, 6, 8) to Centrelink data appears less like a methodological advance and more like a desperate search for data that would produce politically palatable figures.
* Last-Minute Corrections and Downplaying Failure: In September 2019, just before a report was due, a "problem!" was discovered in the numbers, requiring a last-minute fix (Doc 37). This indicates a rushed, error-prone analytical process. Furthermore, when an 11% increase in the unenrolled Indigenous population in NSW was flagged, AEC staff immediately moved to dismiss it as "not statistically significant" and within "estimation error" (Doc 40). This reveals a culture of deflecting responsibility and downplaying negative outcomes when faced with inconvenient truths.

3. Tracking Implementation: Obscurity and Lack of Meaningful Comparison:
The documents offer no clear, consistent tracking of the implementation of the IEPP itself, only the measurement of enrolment rates using the new (flawed) methodology. There is no evidence of a rigorous comparison of the effectiveness of the new IEPP strategy against prior programs, only a comparison of measurement methodologies designed to produce higher enrolment estimates. The "enrolment stimulation event" in Feb/Mar 2019 resulted in a paltry 2,646 Indigenous enrolments from an identified 72,451 "potentially unenrolled" individuals (Doc 26, 29) – a woefully inadequate 3.6% conversion rate, indicating program failure.

4. Final Summary Reports: Spin Over Substance:
The final summary reports are characterised by vague positive language that masks minimal impact and concerning trends. While the national Indigenous enrolment rate "increased" from 76.4% to 76.6% (Doc 41) – a statistically insignificant 0.2% rise – the estimated unenrolled Indigenous population grew nationally by 1.6% (Doc 40). The claimed "upward trend" (Doc 40) is based on a marginal improvement, and in key states like NSW, the unenrolled Indigenous population surged by a worrying 10.9% (Doc 40). The reports highlight generic "strategies" and "targeted activities" (Doc 41) but provide no concrete evidence of their efficacy under the "new methodology."

5. Indigenous Involvement: A Void of Accountability:
Despite the FOI request explicitly asking for "the number of Indigenous people involved by the AEC in the planning, design and implementation," no documentation whatsoever on this critical aspect was provided. This egregious omission suggests either a complete failure to genuinely involve Indigenous communities in a program ostensibly for their benefit, or a deliberate cover-up of minimal or tokenistic engagement, revealing a profound lack of respect and accountability.

6. Cost and Staffing: Complete Stonewalling:
Similarly, the request for "final cost of the design, testing and implementation" and "details of the number of AEC staffers assigned to the task" was met with absolute silence. The absence of any financial or staffing data is a clear sign of systemic transparency failure, preventing any assessment of cost-effectiveness or resource allocation. It raises immediate suspicions of mismanagement or a deliberate attempt to hide inflated costs or insufficient resourcing for a program that has demonstrably failed to make a significant impact.

In conclusion, these documents reveal an AEC that prioritised the cosmetic improvement of statistics over tangible results, employed methodologically unsound processes to achieve those figures, and actively suppressed critical information regarding Indigenous involvement, costs, and staffing. It is a portrait of an agency marked by incompetence, a lack of transparency, and a disinterest in genuine, measurable progress for Indigenous electoral participation.

AI Generated

The Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) documents detail the development and implementation of a new methodology for its Indigenous Electoral Participation Program (IEPP) during 2018 and 2019. The core content reveals the AEC's shift from an older, less reliable regression model (which estimated Indigenous enrolment as low as 58% in 2014) to a new system leveraging person-level matching with Centrelink data, which includes a self-identified Indigenous indicator. This new methodology aimed to provide more accurate "Indigenous enrolment rate estimates," cited as 76.4% in 2018 and 76.6% in 2019.

The documents indicate that the AEC actively pursued "enrolment stimulation events," such as one in February/March 2019 that resulted in 2,646 Indigenous Australians enrolling out of 72,451 identified as "potentially unenrolled" via Centrelink data. Internal discussions emphasize that these figures are "estimates on top of estimates" and "cannot be considered 100% accurate," requiring significant caveats when shared externally. The stated purpose of tracking these "key franchise KPIs for the Indigenous population" is "for Closing the Gap purposes" and to inform strategies to "further increase electoral participation by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people," including "investing in partnerships and targeted activities that extend its reach into remote communities." Concerns are expressed internally about any "gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous enrolment rates," which stands around 97% for the general population.

From an Objectivist perspective, this program and its underlying rationale raise significant concerns, violating fundamental principles of reason, individual liberty, and laissez-faire capitalism:

Primacy of Individual Rights vs. Collectivism: The very existence of an "Indigenous Electoral Participation Program" is a glaring violation of individual rights. Rights belong to individuals by virtue of their human nature, not to groups based on race or any other arbitrary collective characteristic. Government programs that differentiate citizens based on their racial identity, even with purportedly benevolent intentions, inevitably lead to collectivism. The stated concern for "Closing the Gap" explicitly frames political participation as a collective outcome to be managed, rather than a matter of individual choice and responsibility. This undermines the concept of a nation of equal, unhyphenated citizens.
Rational Self-Interest and Productive Achievement: Productive achievement stems from rational self-interest and individual initiative. Voting, while a civic right, is an exercise of personal choice. The government's role is to ensure a free and accessible electoral system for all eligible individuals, impartially and universally applied. It is not to actively "stimulate" or "target" specific racial groups for enrolment. If an individual, in their rational self-interest, chooses to enroll and vote, they will. If they do not, it is their prerogative. Using taxpayer funds and bureaucratic effort to cajole or "stimulate" participation based on racial identity represents a misdirection of resources and an implicit critique of individuals' capacity for rational decision-making regarding their own civic engagement.
Dangers of Government Overreach and Bureaucratic Interference: The AEC's actions, as detailed in these documents, constitute a clear case of government overreach.
- Intrusive Data Collection: The use of Centrelink data, which includes a self-identified Indigenous indicator, for electoral purposes is an alarming expansion of state power. This cross-referencing of sensitive personal data across departments for the purpose of identifying and "stimulating" specific demographic groups is intrusive and sets a dangerous precedent for future state monitoring and control over citizens based on their identity.
- Bureaucratic Paternalism: The government adopting a role of "partnering" with specific communities and conducting "targeted activities" to increase participation for one group implies a paternalistic view, treating certain citizens as subjects to be managed rather than sovereign individuals capable of autonomous action. This inevitably leads to bureaucratic interference in areas that should remain within the sphere of individual choice and private initiative.
- Forced Altruism: The allocation of resources (staff time, program funding, etc.) to this racially-based program, rather than ensuring universal accessibility and general roll integrity for all citizens, implicitly demands forced altruism. Taxpayers, regardless of their own racial identity or beliefs, are compelled to fund a program that prioritizes collective racial outcomes over universal individual liberty and equal treatment under the law.

In conclusion, while the AEC's stated aim might be to ensure "full electoral participation," its methodology, rooted in racial categorization and targeted intervention, directly conflicts with the Objectivist principles of individual liberty, rational self-interest, and limited government. It exemplifies the dangers of collectivism and bureaucratic interference, where abstract collective "gaps" are deemed more important than the non-coercive treatment of every individual citizen.

AI Generated

FOI Request LS7888

Main Purpose of the FOI Request

Documents from the FOI Request

Main Content from the FOI Request Documents

FOI Request LS7888, Schedule of Released Documents [PDF 777kb] (pdf)

LS7888 documents [ZIP 35.12mb] (zip)

ZIP Contents

7888-012.pdf (pdf)

7888-016.pdf (pdf)

7888-018.pdf (pdf)

Document Summary

Relevance to FOI Request LS7888

7888-019.pdf (pdf)

Summary of Document LS7888 Released Document No. 19/19444/1945

Relevance to FOI Request LS7888

7888-020.pdf (pdf)

Summary of Document

Relevance to FOI Request LS7888

7888-026.pdf (pdf)

7888-028.pdf (pdf)

Document Summary

Relevance to FOI Request LS7888

7888-029.pdf (pdf)

7888-030.pdf (pdf)

7888-032.pdf (pdf)

Document Summary

Relevance to FOI Request LS7888

7888-037.pdf (pdf)

Summary of Document LS7888 Released Document No. 377

Relevance to FOI Request LS7888

7888-04.pdf (pdf)

7888-040.pdf (pdf)

Document Summary: AEC Indigenous Enrolment Rates (September 2019)

Key Points:

Relevance to FOI Request LS7888:

7888-041.pdf (pdf)

Document Summary

Relevance to FOI Request LS7888

7888-05.pdf (pdf)

7888-06.pdf (pdf)

Document Summary and Relevance to FOI Request LS7888

7888-08.pdf (pdf)