VIC AEC Corruption... How do I progress my issues?

Australia's #1 for Law
Join 150,000 Australians every month. Ask a question, respond to a question and better understand the law today!
FREE - Join Now

Mike Love

Well-Known Member
25 June 2014
64
3
199
Hi all,
I posted about a year ago when this issue just occurred. But I believe that the Australian Electoral Commission AEC have acted illegally.
Since there is no Federal corruption body, and I have already applied for documents through FOI, how can I take legal action against the AEC?
Here is a summary, which I submitted to a review committee, so this has made public:
I am the co-founder of the Federal political party called “Stop Selling Australia” party.

In 2019 we submitted a list of over 550 members with the expectation of getting the Federal Political party “Stop Selling Australia” party registered for the 2019 election.

The AEC validated that we did in fact have the minimum number of registered members of 500, and then set out to validate individual members.

They seemed to be delaying this process, and as the election was nearing, we mentioned that legal action might occur if they delayed the registration process any more.

The following weekend I received a tip-off that the AEC were planning to fail our registration “to avoid litigation.”

That Friday, we received notification from the AEC that our party had failed the registration process, as two of the 26 members they checked “denied” being members. The allowance was one “denial”.

We asked who they were, and the AEC refused to tell us due to “privacy” reasons.

We made an FOI request to obtain the email responses of the two “denials”, and they refused to provide them, even with personal information removed from the email.

We contacted the Information Commissioner and after a 7 month process, they directed the AEC to complete the FOI request.

The AEC then provided us with one email “denial” and refused to provide any further information.

They claimed that they have fulfilled the FOI request!

The Information Commissioner has referred the matter to their next level of investigations, which will take around 12 months to complete!

I have made an online complaint to the AEC directly on their website and clicked on the “I do want to be contacted” and I have heard nothing!

I want to know why the AEC is refusing to provide the second email “denial”.

I believe that this second denial does not exist. Therefore our party should have been registered before the last election. What is the AEC hiding?

So how can I even take the AEC to court when I cannot obtain the evidence that the second "denial email" does not exist?
THANKS!
 

Rod

Lawyer
LawConnect (LawTap) Verified
27 May 2014
7,726
1,056
2,894
www.hutchinsonlegal.com.au
Go to the AAT.
 

Tim W

Lawyer
LawConnect (LawTap) Verified
28 April 2014
4,913
820
2,894
Sydney
They seemed to be delaying this process, and as the election was nearing, we mentioned that legal action might occur if they delayed the registration process any more.
I am intrigued by the idea that you think you had grounds.
That Friday, we received notification from the AEC that our party had failed the registration process, as two of the 26 members they checked “denied” being members. The allowance was one “denial”.
Perhaps you're wondering how they got to one rather than the seven you may have thought you were entitled to.
The typical answer to that (note here that I am not referring to your specific case) is
that it can go on the number of validated members at the time the denial occurs.
This can happen when the applicant, part way through testing, still has enough validated members (say 503-511, instead of, say 551),
to be registerable, but actually be in the lower band for denials.
Refer to pages 25 and 26 of the Guide.
We asked who they were, and the AEC refused to tell us due to “privacy” reasons.
Prima facie correct.
The AEC then provided us with one email “denial” and refused to provide any further information.
Did the other denial perhaps occur by phone?
The Information Commissioner has referred the matter to their next level of investigations, which will take around 12 months to complete!
AAT won't hear you until this, and any subsequent internal reviews, are complete.
That will take you so close the next deadline for registration that you may as well just make a de novo application.
And no, that's not a conspiracy. It's just what happens when full spans of time to reply to things operate, and also when a numerically tiny agency has more work than it can handle.
I believe that this second denial does not exist. Therefore our party should have been registered before the last election.
You believe something, therefore something else must logically be true.
Sorry, no.
What you might believe doesn't prove anything.
So how can I even take the AEC to court when I cannot obtain the evidence that the second "denial email" does not exist?
Well first, you get yourself a lawyer to assist you with a pinpoint FOI application,
an application for an order that the material sought is not exempt, and perhaps, in due course, a Discovery order.
And you'll need deep pockets to pay your own lawyers, and in case you lose, to potentially pay (some of) the AEC's costs.

More generally....
The Commission is entitled to refuse to release the/ any name(s) of (disputed) member(s)
where to do so would place a person's personal safety at risk.

This includes safety from harassment by, say, the "officials" of a political party.
Truth be, you want to get in touch with these people, and ask them to explain themselves.
(Yes, you do. You have no other reason).
Or to put it another way, you want to harass them for perhaps changing their mind(s).
The AEC is not obliged to help you do that.

As to "court" - I agree with @Rod - this is about the AAT.
But the AAT won't hear you until the AEC's internal investigation process,
and any internal reviews thereof, have been completed.
 

Mike Love

Well-Known Member
25 June 2014
64
3
199
I am intrigued by the idea that you think you had grounds. Perhaps you're wondering how they got to one rather than the seven you may have thought you were entitled to.
The typical answer to that (note here that I am not referring to your specific case) is
that it can go on the number of validated members at the time the denial occurs.
This can happen when the applicant, part way through testing, still has enough validated members (say 503-511, instead of, say 551),
to be registerable, but actually be in the lower band for denials.
Refer to pages 25 and 26 of the Guide.
Prima facie correct.
Did the other denial perhaps occur by phone?
AAT won't hear you until this, and any subsequent internal reviews, are complete.
That will take you so close the next deadline for registration that you may as well just make a de novo application.
And no, that's not a conspiracy. It's just what happens when full spans of time to reply to things operate, and also when a numerically tiny agency has more work than it can handle.
You believe something, therefore something else must logically be true.
Sorry, no.
What you might believe doesn't prove anything.

Well first, you get yourself a lawyer to assist you with a pinpoint FOI application,
an application for an order that the material sought is not exempt, and perhaps, in due course, a Discovery order.
And you'll need deep pockets to pay your own lawyers, and in case you lose, to potentially pay (some of) the AEC's costs.

More generally....
The Commission is entitled to refuse to release the/ any name(s) of (disputed) member(s)
where to do so would place a person's personal safety at risk.

This includes safety from harassment by, say, the "officials" of a political party.
Truth be, you want to get in touch with these people, and ask them to explain themselves.
(Yes, you do. You have no other reason).
Or to put it another way, you want to harass them for perhaps changing their mind(s).
The AEC is not obliged to help you do that.

As to "court" - I agree with @Rod - this is about the AAT.
But the AAT won't hear you until the AEC's internal investigation process,
and any internal reviews thereof, have been completed.

Thanks for your input... I believe it was you that told me 6 month s ago "to trust the government department".

Just to explain, there were no phone call check with our members. The AEC have stated that they were all emails.
And I don't really care about finding out "who" denied being a member, I just want to validate that this did actually occur.

The fact remains that from their sample of members they tested, we were allowed one "denial".

They claim that we received two denials, but will only provide us with details of one!!!! How is that not DODGY?!!!

In terms of the AAT, it costs over $900 to make an application and they told me that they can do it now, before other investigations have finalised, but they also take around a year to complete their investigation.