Protected Bureaucracy

  1. Too much independence harms accountability. 
  2. Australia’s public-service watchdog, the Australian National Audit Office (ANAO), monitors performance of Australia’s bureaucracy
  3. Australia’s Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) conducted investigations into the “Integrity of the Electoral Roll” in 2002, 2004, 2010 and 2014 and found many problems in the Electoral Roll. 
  4. On 4/11/2015, the ANAO wrote that the AEC has “not adequately and effectively addressed the matters that led to recommendations being made.” (ANAO Report 6, November 2015)  
  5. The AEC claims it needs more money to improve technology and processes.

 

The AEC recognises that problems exist with roll accuracy.  It blames Commonwealth Electoral Act for preventing overdue improvements.  The following is from Ed Killesteyn, AEC Commissioner

  • ‘In 2012 the Australian government passed legislation to allow the AEC to directly enrol and update the details of electors based on data from other government agencies….’
  • ‘Due to the requirements of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 (the Electoral Act), the AEC has been unable to add electors who have been directly enrolled in New South Wales and Victoria to the federal roll without having received a signed enrolment form from the elector…’
  • ‘Despite the AEC sending these enrolment forms to these people encouraging them to enrol, many have not been returned. This has led to a divergence between the state and federal rolls in Australia's two largest states, with the potential to cause considerable confusion for those affected in regard to their enrolment status for forthcoming electoral events …’
  • The Electoral Act requires the AEC to take action to remove the names of electors from the roll if the AEC has reasonable grounds for believing that those electors are no longer living at their enrolled address.’ (source)

 

How do we fix this?

  • If Australians want fair elections, then the elections bureaucracy should have more scrutiny from the public through parliament.
  • Australians need to tell Canberra to change the legislation to make the AEC directly answerable to Australians through the minister and parliament and not through a parliamentary committee.

 

If you agree and want to help, volunteer or donate today.

JOIN THE FIGHT

Add your name and let’s keep Australian elections free and fair.

  • signed up on Subscribe 2024-04-18 16:11:18 +1000
  • commented on Unwanted influences on the voting system 2023-11-23 12:15:44 +1100
    Please I need your vote
  • signed Mark Off Voters Electronically 2023-10-04 12:37:02 +1100
    This must be done to ensure that a voter casts only one vote, besides proposed changes in this petition there should be way for voter to cross check their voting status (voted/yet to vote) for every election event
  • commented on Compulsory voting 2023-09-14 22:49:29 +1000
    John de Wit, less empty negative comments please.

    I’m happy to answer real questions if you’re not yet clear how DCAP works to guarantee fair results. I sympathise – it took me ages to fully understand why current voting systems fail voters and then years to work out how to correct it and then to twig to the simple maths behind it and finally to be able to give simple examples that demonstrate it.

    E.g. it is not obvious that my DCAP system is correct when it will declare that Party D, of 4 parties standing, and with 45% first preferences is the winner despite Party A having 51% first preferences. But that is correct IF, repeat IF, in the election Party A had 49% of 4th (or LAST) preferences and party D had 55% of 2nd preferences. I have proved that particular case, no matter what preferences parties B and C get within the values I specified. Can anyone prove me mathematically &/or logically wrong there? No way! The correct Proportional results in a 100 seat electorate is NOT A=51 seats and D=45 Seats. The correct results is A=27 Seats and D=41 seats with B&C sharing the remaining 33 seats.

    So, it will not be a majority Government for A in its own right. Rather, it will be a minority government, of probably D in coalition with B or C; or, a slim chance of A running a minority government. Apart from the speculation of who will arrange a coalition; who can logically prove I’m wrong and that that voters preferences showed that they collectively wanted A as a majority government? It can’t be done unless you ignore voters’ clear collective preferences. The fact is that a marginal “absolute majorities” may be a real win; or, a travesty of electoral justice simply because Distribution of Preferences (AKA Instant Run Off) and First-Past-The-Post systems are inherently incapable of guaranteeing a fair result.

    I have proved that. I challenge anyone to prove me wrong.