Almanac Institutions: Who will hit out for the AEC?

 

 

 

 

 

By ANDREW FRASER

Australian Electoral Commissioner Tom Rogers simply shouldered arms to my rank long hop, with which I’d hoped to entice him to hit for six those who had sullied the AEC’s enviable name by association with the grossly misleading material in the recent referendum booklet.

No, Rogers, having just delivered the 25^th Geoffrey Sawer Lecture on October 26, politely advised that the commission had clearly stated, and repeated, that the material for each case had been printed as provided by the politicians who supported each side.

But is that enough?

Elsewhere in his lecture, Rogers wrestled with what he termed “the third epoch” of Australia’s electoral history, being the rise and rise of (anti-)social media since 2011-12. (The previous epochs were the wild colonial days, followed by the relative calm from the century and a half or so from the advent of the secret ballot to 2011-12).

Rogers, Commissioner since 2014, played a dead bat to my follow-up: would he be reporting to Parliament about the booklet issue. Yes.

I hope Rogers, perfect Test opener at the crease of a public lecture, has an inner T20 thumper in him and feels able at some point to cart all over the park those parliamentarians responsible for that infuriating booklet.

Notwithstanding the manifold caveats printed in the document itself, the AEC in my view has been tarnished by a booklet which I believe toyed with the Commonwealth Electoral Act.

At Section 7, the Act sets out that the Commission is to, among other things, consider and report to the Minister on election and ballot matters referred to it by the Minister and such other election and ballot matters as it thinks fit. It is to promote public awareness of election and ballot matters and provide information and advice on election and ballot matters to the Parliament, the Government, Departments and authorities of the Commonwealth and it is to promote research into election and ballot matters.

Section 4 fairly obviously defines “election and ballot matters” to include matters relating to elections, which would fairly obviously include the referendum booklet.

My initial question to Rogers sought his observations about how the booklet squared with another Section, s4AA, which defines “electoral matter” as matter communicated for the dominant purpose of influencing the way electors vote in an election or a referendum.

While it is not spelt out, the tone of the Act is that “election and ballot matters” are broadly educative, with the AEC to be heavily involved (see s7 above) while “electoral matters” are the pitches, the spin and the advertising, something the AEC should run (or be kept) a million miles from, except in its role as watchdog.

Rogers spoke in his lecture of the worthwhile work of the commission through its “slightly edgy” move to have a Disinformation Register, which the AEC boasts is operated “as part of the AEC’s responsibility to ensure voters have access to fact-based information about electoral processes. This is a relatively new tool used as part of the AEC’s Reputation Management Strategy to defend Australian elections from disinformation.”

The register includes examples of disabusing electors of such notions as:

• Postal votes being unsafe.
• Pencils being are used so that votes can be rubbed out and changed by AEC staff.
• The Constitution having been invalid since 1973.

That is pretty loopy stuff. But what about the craftily outrageous material in the referendum booklet, such as, from the top of the “No” case, that The Voice “would represent the biggest change to our democracy in our history”, which would “permanently divide Australians in law and spirit” by leading to a treaty, which should only be “between governments, not between one group of citizens and its government”?

Yes, the booklet clear set at Page 7: “The arguments for each case have been provided by the majority of federal Members of Parliament and Senators who voted for or against the proposed law to alter the Constitution, and who desired to forward such an argument.”

Yes, every page had a reverse block at the bottom, “Who Wrote This?” reinforcing it wasn’t the AEC.

But the official guide, in all 13 million copies, came to our letterboxes under the AEC logo or “brand”.

Rogers is probably right to tread softly, at least publicly, notwithstanding that the

Act says, “The Commission may do all things necessary or convenient to be done for or in connection with the performance of its functions.”

 

I reckon it was necessary for someone to have been on the front foot for the commission and kept the booklet to a dominant purpose of delivering the bare fundamentals of each case.

 

Where was a Special Minister of State like Fred Daly or Mick Young? Someone who could have not only ridiculed the “No” nonsense in the Parliament but might have acted to cut the rubbish from the booklet before it got started.

 

A good, honest booklet wouldn’t have changed the result. The absence of bipartisanship was always the big hurdle but a good, honest booklet might have saved the AEC a bit of bark.

 

It is a precious institution and, as Rogers took some time in his lecture to explain, is under threat enough already in this “third epoch”. It didn’t deserve the booklet it got lumbered with.

 

 

Read more from Andrew Fraser HERE.

 

 

To return to the www.footyalmanac.com.au  home page click HERE

Our writers are independent contributors. The opinions expressed in their articles are their own. They are not the views, nor do they reflect the views, of Malarkey Publications.

Do you enjoy the Almanac concept?
And want to ensure it continues in its current form, and better? To help keep things ticking over please consider making your own contribution.

Become an Almanac (annual) member – CLICK HERE