Thursday, November 10, 2011

Poll: Gillard up 6%, Abbott and the Greens each down 3%

Julia Gillard's approval rating on the rise as the media comes under criticism for not scrutinising the policies and performance of the Greens and Tony Abbott.

In a recent poll , (2PP) the Gillard Government was on 47%  with the Abbott lead coalition in 53%

Gillard's increase in the polls comes after a relatively successful two weeks with the holding of the Commonwealth Head of Government meeting in Perth and the G20 meeting in France.

The Greens lost ground as the media began to hold them to account and shone the light on the fact that the Greens internal conferences were not open to the public or media. unlike the Liberal Party and the ALP who allow the media to attend and report on the parties deliberations.  For too long the Greens have been trading on the feel good environmental factor but have not been subjected to public review of its own internal going procedures.

Likewise Tony Abbot's negativity. oppose everything, is beginning to wear thin.  Gillard has managed to get through Parliament the government's "Price on Carbon" legislation, legislation that will see market forces shape a cleaner heather future for Australia and our environment as investment in new technology begins to come into focus.  The Government also managed to pass legislation that will tax the super profits of the mining boom and allow Australians to benefit from the profits in national resources in the form of tax cuts for low income earners and increase superannuation investments.  In spite the negativity, false and misleading statements designed to undermine Australia's economic interests Tony Abbott in the meantime is facing the prospect of having the wind taken out of his campaign as the ship sails on without him. The oppositions refusal to support changes to the migration act to overcome the restrictions placed on processing refugee applications offshore is another example of Abbott pursing a policy of opportunism and not acting not in Australia's best interest. Every time a new boat load of unlawful immigrants arrive on our shores Abbott will come under fire and the general public will be reminded of the his parties refusal to support legislation that should out an end to the  illegal people smuggling.  

Australia is very much mindful of events that is unfolding in Europe and the need for Australia to maintain stability in the Australian economy.,  Australia under Labor is the best performing economy in the World and yet Abbott's opportunistic negativity has the potential of putting  our economy at risk.

Gillard's strategy is clear.  get on with the job of governing and try and ignore Abbott's negatively and as time progresses between now and the next Federal election, which is due in 2013. the facts surrounding Abbott's negatively will be exposed to the daylight and seen for what it is. Nothing but cheap hollow political opportunism.  Abbott's only chance of winning government is to play on the public  mis-perception of Gillard and hope that an election will be called sooner rather then later and that the electorate will  grow tired of a minority government.

Contrary to the public's perception Gillard is a competent and intelligent leader who has proven herself this week on the international stage where Abbott on the pother hand is a liability and unknown risk.

Having known Gillard for over 25 years I can assure readers that Gillard is not a person to dismiss so easily, she is the best person to lead the Australian Government under the current economic and political circumstances. If there is any criticism of her it is her desire to over consult.  If we are to face a second wave of economic down turn Australia is better off with a Labor Government then the untied and unsecured Abbott leadership.

Sunday, October 9, 2011

If You Want Australian Taxpayer Dollars ...

Julia Gillard last week made a statement to industry.

If you want Australian taxpayers dollars you will have to give Australian Businesses a fair go.

I good sound local policy but  did anyone tell the NSW or Victorian Electoral Commission this advice?

Both the NSW and Victorian Electoral Commissions have contracted overseas software developers to develop Australia's computerised electoral  systems. Systems that have been duplicated by each electoral authority and that Australian governments /taxpayers have paid for and the government holds no propriety ownership over.   Hundreds of million of dollars spent offshore without any real oversight or benefit to Australia.

Wednesday, October 5, 2011

Hansard: Victorian State Parliament Electoral Matters Committee

Victorian State Parliament - Electoral Matters Committee
Extract from Hansard dated August 23, 2011

The CHAIR — Are you appearing in a private capacity or representing an organisation? If so, which organisation?

Mr van der CRAATS — I am a member of the Proportional Representation Society of Australia and of the Australian Labor Party, but the evidence that I give is of personal opinion.

The CHAIR — I ask you to begin your verbal submission, and we will take it from there.

Mr van der CRAATS — Thank you for the opportunity to speak to this Parliament. I do so with some reluctance, mainly because the last time I gave evidence to this committee I was subjected to what I consider to be harassment, intimidation and vilification by the chief electoral commissioner. It is a matter that I raised before with this committee, or the previous committee, and it failed to respond or to properly act. It is my belief that the actions taken by the chief electoral commissioner constitute contempt of Parliament, and I would like that this committee give further consideration to the complaints that I forwarded to the committee on previous occasions with the view of having the matter properly dealt with by an appropriate authority. I will raise this later in my submission, particularly with respect to item 4 and in relation to the role of the Ombudsman and the electoral commission as it is the Ombudsman that I believe is the appropriate body to review such complaints. However, this committee has a responsibility to ensure the integrity of the parliamentary process, that the committee process is intact and that witnesses are not subjected to some form of harassment or intimidation as a result of evidence given that may be detrimental to or critical of the conduct of the election’s process.

Wednesday, September 21, 2011

Swan Song: Finance Minister of the year 2011

Our award winning Treasurer Wayne Swan has been recognised for his achievements and stewardship of Australia's China Syndrome fed economy by one of Europe's leading financial news sites  Euromoney

He must be doing something right. In spite all the negativity and lies that Tony Abbott spews out.

Tuesday, August 23, 2011

Hansard: Victorian State Parliament Electoral Matters Committee

Victorian State Parliament - Electoral Matters Committee
Extract from Hansard dated August 23, 2011

The CHAIR — Are you appearing in a private capacity or representing an organisation? If so, which organisation?

Mr van der CRAATS — I am a member of the Proportional Representation Society of Australia and of the Australian Labor Party, but the evidence that I give is of personal opinion.

The CHAIR — I ask you to begin your verbal submission, and we will take it from there.

Mr van der CRAATS — Thank you for the opportunity to speak to this Parliament. I do so with some reluctance, mainly because the last time I gave evidence to this committee I was subjected to what I consider to be harassment, intimidation and vilification by the chief electoral commissioner. It is a matter that I raised before with this committee, or the previous committee, and it failed to respond or to properly act. It is my belief that the actions taken by the chief electoral commissioner constitute contempt of Parliament, and I would like that this committee give further consideration to the complaints that I forwarded to the committee on previous occasions with the view of having the matter properly dealt with by an appropriate authority. I will raise this later in my submission, particularly with respect to item 4 and in relation to the role of the Ombudsman and the electoral commission as it is the Ombudsman that I believe is the appropriate body to review such complaints. However, this committee has a responsibility to ensure the integrity of the parliamentary process, that the committee process is intact and that witnesses are not subjected to some form of harassment or intimidation as a result of evidence given that may be detrimental to or critical of the conduct of the election’s process.

Having said those points of view, I wish to raise a number of issues, in particular in respect of the scrutiny of the ballot and the method of counting optional, preferential and other matters. My main concern at this stage is the scrutiny of the ballot and the way in which the Victorian Legislative Council election is counted. Scrutineers were denied access to the data entry data file as and when the data was being entered into the computer. This meant that the scrutineers had no means of properly validating the integrity of the data file. The information was only provided at the conclusion of the count and, as a result, it had to be taken at face value.

There is no justification or rationale as to why that information could not have been progressively published as the data was being recorded. In fact to have done so would have ensured that the process was open and transparent and that the scrutineers had a chance to monitor the data as it proceeded. It would have also ensured that the data had not been tampered with or altered as the election count progressed because people would have had copies and they could have gone back to see if any changes had occurred.

I think this is an important issue, and it is a fundamental one that the committee must address in respect of the drafting of regulations. It has become quite clear and apparent that the Victorian Electoral Commission is incapable, unwilling or does not desire to ensure that this process is open and transparent. This is a matter about which I have had some disagreement and conflict with the Victorian Electoral Commission going back nearly 20 years to when we first involved ourselves in the data entry computerised counting system. I think there is a trend towards computerised counting of elections, and I think that should be welcomed, but it should not be at the expense of openness and transparency. Obviously those candidates who win an election have no need to complain, but those candidates who feel that the system may not have properly fulfilled their requirements or that it was not as open and transparent as it should have been would be perceived as sore losers if they persisted in putting forward their complaints. I watched with great interest the conduct of the 2006 state election. I think many of the members of this Parliament are aware of the errors and the problems related to the way in which that was conducted and counted. There are still a number of unanswered questions in respect of the 2006 election which have not been properly addressed.

However, in reflecting on the 2010 election, there were some improvements. The data file that was eventually provided provided the information pertaining to the preliminary and secondary count. This was useful information and allowed some form of comparisons to the data quality of the data entry that was recorded. It was noted quite significantly that data quality in the 2010 election was significantly better than the data quality that occurred in the 2006 election. However, it was marred by the fact that the Victorian Electoral Commission failed to provide copies of that data file as it was progressively being built up. It was requested. A number of scrutineers I know from the Labor Party requested the Victorian Electoral Commission provide access to that data. They were refused this information. That, in my view, denied them the right to properly scrutinise the election.

It is probably incumbent on the Parliament to look closer at the roles and obligations of the scrutineer and what their role specifically is in terms of where and when they cannot interact with the counting process to oversee it. At the moment it is fairly well left open to the goodwill of the electoral commission to interpret what they consider to be fair or not fair. Unfortunately I do not believe the Victorian Electoral Commission has acted necessarily in good faith, and I do not believe that it has implemented procedures that ensure that the process is open and transparent. The publication of the data file progressively as the count progresses goes a long way to meeting that requirement and my concerns.

The next issue I wish to raise, which I have tried raising on previous occasions, is related to the method of counting that is under the legislation of the Electoral Act. There are a number of deficiencies and errors, in my view, in the way in which the election is counted. These deficiencies and errors came about as a result of a manual counting system. Under the manual counting system there were a number of shortcuts that were introduced into the way in which the count was made, and these were done to facilitate the speed, effort and manageability of a manual count. At the time they were considered to be a fair and reasonable compromise to make. However, with the advent and the use of computer technology we need to really review the methodology that we use to count the vote. There is no need to take these shortcuts. In fact the number of shortcuts that we have implemented really distort the outcome of the election process.

I think that is fairly evident when you analysed the Queensland 2007 Senate election. In that particular instance the segmentation of the vote, the way in which excluded candidates’ preferences were redistributed resulted in, in my view, the wrong candidate being elected to the last position on the Queensland Senate. In analysis of the vote that took place in 2007, if you took the last remaining seven candidates in the count and you redistributed the entire ballot paper according to only those seven candidates standing, the Greens candidate, Larissa Waters, should have been elected. This is an error of process due primarily to the shortcuts and segmentation that we implemented to try make it easy to do a manual count. They are no longer required under a data entry process.

I urge the committee to seriously consider the counting rules to make sure that they are a little more accurate and a little more representative of the voter’s intention. I have outlined those under the system which we have referred to as the ‘Wright’ system. Effectively it is a reiterative counting system that every time there is an exclusion you start the count again as though that candidate had never stood. It effectively mirrors the similar process that takes place in a single-member electorate, which I am sure you are all familiar with.

The other issue I wish to raise is optional preferential voting. The first time it was introduced was in 2010. In my view optional preferential voting is misleading in terms of the voter. The way in which the electoral commission sold and promoted optional preferential voting was that it in fact encouraged voters to put 1 to 5 only on the ballot paper. This disadvantaged and disenfranchised many voters. Those people who may have favoured a particular group or segment of the community stopped at the end of their 5 votes, and the result is that those who remained in the count had a greater say as to the outcome of that election.

I think optional preferential voting needs to be seriously looked at. Personally I do not agree with that. I think you are wasting your vote by exhausting your vote, particularly after no. 5. The aim, if your vote is not counted, is that you should have the opportunity to choose an alternative candidate. I think it is incumbent on the electoral commission to encourage voters to maximise their vote, not to cut it short, not to make it simpler for their data entry process. I think it would be more appropriate and more accurate if the Victorian Electoral Commission stated quite clearly that people should vote or indicate a preference for every candidate, and not just stop at 5. That is an issue I again urge the committee to look at.

In respect of the silent enrolment entitlement, I registered to vote on the day before the election day when I submitted my documentation at the polling place, which included a silent enrolment form. Unfortunately my documentation was lost and, as I understand it, my vote was not counted. I think this boils down to some concerns over the administrative processes that are embarked upon by the Victorian Electoral Commission. I believe that everybody has a right to nominate whether they wish to be on a silent enrolment or not. This would be best facilitated if there was just a tick-box on the application form. Anyone who wanted to enrolled to vote could decide whether or not they want their names listed. It is simpler, more straightforward, and it is certainly more cost effective.

Other issues and concerns relate to the overall duplication that is involved in maintaining a state electoral authority. What we are seeing in across-borders Australia is something like $35 million being spent on duplication of resources. We are seeing vast amounts of money being spent on development of software. It is software which is being duplicated in each state, each territory and each jurisdiction. There should be a lot more coordination and liaison going on. I also believe it would be probably more efficient if we had a centralised Australian Electoral Commission where the states had some input through the form of a board of directors or something like that. A single electoral authority can act professionally, with integrity and certainly have the cost benefits that would come with having a single organisation. Vast amounts of money have been spent on the electoral process, and we could save hundreds of millions of dollars by restructuring and reorganising the way in which the states’ electoral processes are delivered.

Point 4 is an issue of great concern to me. Currently under the Ombudsman Act the Victorian Electoral Commission is excluded from the Ombudsman reviewing it. This has implications with respect to freedom of information. It has implications with respect to people who have complaints about the administrative processes that are embarked upon by the Victorian Electoral Commission. The position of Ombudsman is in place to allow various administrative complaints to be considered outside the political arena. It is difficult, I understand, and this is the problem I think the previous committee had, to address issues that may be perceived to be of a political nature, particularly when dealing with the umpire — that is, the Victorian Electoral Commission. Having reviewed and considered the role of the Ombudsman, particularly in view of the number of complaints I have had in respect to the Victorian electoral commissioner, I believe the Ombudsman is the appropriate person that people should have the right to go to to have these issues properly investigated. I do not see any justification for prohibiting the Ombudsman from reviewing the role of the Victorian electoral commissioner on administrative matters. The Ombudsman has the role of reviewing the Victorian police commissioner, and I think he should have the same role of reviewing the Victorian electoral commission.

My final point of concern is in respect to the 2008 municipal elections. Again this was a failure of the previous committee. It failed to review or provide an opportunity for people to have some input into a review of the municipal elections. There are a number of commonalities that exist between the state and municipal elections but many of them have not been properly addressed. The disclosure of the data entry file as an election progresses is one of them. Municipal elections also have another aspect to them that state elections do not have, and that is the countback system. In reviewing the countback system for the City of Melbourne election which recently occurred as a result of Peter Clarke’s resignation, I became aware of a number of deficiencies in the technicalities of the way in which the countback process has been undertaken. Rather than take that up in detail — because I have not canvassed that particular issue in my submission — I would urge this committee as a matter of urgency prior to the 2012 municipal elections to undertake a review of the 2008 elections and see what comes out of that review.

The CHAIR — Thank you very much. Any questions?

Ms RYALL — Anthony, you mentioned the difference between data quality between the two — —

Mr van der CRAATS — Count A and count B.

Ms RYALL — Yes. What indicated to you that there was a difference?

Mr van der CRAATS — You can do a comparison between the first data and the second data, a direct comparison, and you can get an idea of where the preferences may have changed as a result of data entry error.

In the 2006 election the Victorian Electoral Commission refused to provide copies of the preliminary data entry, therefore it was impossible to make a comparison with the final data entry, so I had no idea where the changes occurred.

Ms RYALL — So when you suggested that there were data quality differences, that was an assumption. Is that correct?

Mr van der CRAATS — No, the records differ. You can see a very clear difference in the record data set itself, the preferences that are written there. For example, in some cases a preference might have been recorded as a ‘050’, or it may have been a ‘50’, or it may have been a ‘5’. I do not know how the systems interpret it; we did not have access to that information. The number of areas that we did identify in the 2010 election were not significant, certainly not enough to warrant a change or closer scrutiny of the vote itself. The time that would be required, obviously, to do that would not be justified by any benefit it would produce.

In the 2006 election that was not necessarily the case, particularly in Western Metropolitan Region. Not having access to that preliminary data and the secondary data, I think, was a major deficiency. The Victorian Electoral Commission at the time claimed that the preliminary data had been destroyed or overwritten. I find that extraordinary and very difficult to believe. As a systems IT person I would certainly have backup processes in place. If I have got data files that are worth hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars to collate, I would certainly have backup copies of that information. Had we been able to do a cross-examination of the preliminary data and the secondary data, we would have realised where the changes occurred. All I can go off is what was published by the Victorian Electoral Commission, and in 2006 there was a discrepancy of 250 of the total number of votes recorded between count A and count B went missing. I can understand that mistakes occur, but I would like to know where those mistakes did occur, and the information published by the electoral commission did not make that clear. It concerns me greatly because in 2006 the change of the result between the first count and the second count was something like — you would remember this very clearly — 150 votes. I do not know where they went, and I am a very fastidious person when it comes to looking at data.

Ms RYALL — Thank you. Just one more question. You spoke of shortcuts. Can you give examples of those shortcuts?

Mr van der CRAATS — When you have got a group of ballot papers and you are excluding a candidate and some candidates are already elected, you skip past those candidates and you deliver the ballot paper to the next available candidate at a higher value. In a proper analysis of the way in which the count should be taken, those votes actually should be contributed to the candidate who was originally elected, or previously elected, to form part of their quota and therefore part of their surplus. That is a shortcut that we took. We said, ‘They’re already elected; we’ll skip them and we’ll dump the vote directly at a lower candidate on the preference pile’. This has the effect of upping the value of that vote — it is no longer equal to the other votes which have contributed to the previous person’s election. That is one shortcut.

Another shortcut occurs in the way in which we distribute surpluses. We do similar things, we skip candidates.

We end up delivering votes in that process. It gets down to the segmentation. If we are distributing the votes, we stop at the point when we have distributed one particular pile of votes. For example, if a candidate has been excluded, they may have six different segmented vote piles: primary votes, secondary primary votes and subsidiary surplus. We distribute them each separately, and that can have a dramatic impact in terms of calculating the transfer value that takes place. This is all related of course to the upper house. These are shortcuts that facilitate a manual count. In a computerised count we can take the time quite readily because we are talking about 3 hours as opposed to 20 minutes to count an election using a computerised algorithm. Do you understand?

Ms RYALL — Thank you.

The CHAIR — There being no further questions, thank you very much, Mr van der Craats, for your time today and your contribution. A copy of the transcript will be coming your way in about a fortnight. Any typos that you discover in that transcript may be corrected but not matters of substance.

Mr van der CRAATS — Thank you.

Wednesday, August 10, 2011

Election: NSW Under Meek and Wright

Analysis of the NSW March 2011 State Legislative Council Ballot based on the detailed preference data published blatantly by the NSW Electoral Commission on August 3, 2011 indicated the following candidates are elected. (OpenSTV - Source Data)

| Count after transferring surplus votes. Keep factors of candidates who have exceeded the
| threshold: GALLACHER Mike, 0.081266; GAY Duncan, 0.088605; PEARCE Greg, 0.097127; CLARKE
| David, 0.107637; COLLESS Rick, 0.120694; MacDONALD Scot, 0.137060; CUSACK Catherine, 0.158742;
| MACLAREN-JONES Natasha, 0.188697; PHELPS Peter, 0.232255; BLAIR Niall, 0.302617; JOHNSTON
| Sarah, 0.432234; ROOZENDAAL Eric, 0.163670; DONNELLY Greg, 0.195524; SHARPE Penny, 0.242614;
| PRIMROSE Peter, 0.320513; KELLY Tony, 0.469467; FERGUSON Andrew, 0.870859; SHOEBRIDGE David,
| 0.335056; BARHAM Jan, 0.503748; and BROWN Robert, 0.919975. Candidate GREEN Paul has reached
| the threshold and is elected.

Winners are GALLACHER Mike, GAY Duncan, PEARCE Greg, CLARKE David, COLLESS Rick, MacDONALD Scot,

Likewise we under took analysis of the published data by excluding all but the last 22 candidates (Including Pauline Hanson) simulating the count  using the Wright System.  The results are the same - Detailed OpenSTV sheet sheet results.

To help you understand more how the system and method of counting the vote can and does distort the outcome of the election take a closer look at the 2007 Queensland Senate count.  

In 2007 Green's Candidate, Larissa Waters, was wrongfully denied representation.  The reason she was not elected was due solely to the distortion in the method of segmentation that is used in counting the Senate vote. A fact that Antony Green, ABC Electoral Analyst failed to understand or review. 

More information including count sheets using Meek and Wright methods of counting the vote.

Friday, August 5, 2011

Analysis: How easy is it to rig the outcome of an Electonic Election?

Question need to be asked "Just how easy is it to rig the NSW Legislative Council election?

The reality is its quite easy if you have access to the data file and no one else has copies of the data so a comparison cannot be made.

The NSW "Below-the-line" preference data fiels that habve just been released exclude preferences recorded as being informal. Votes where a preference has been omitted or duplicated. This could be as a result of a data-entry or voter error.

Without access to the missing data it is impossible to verify the quality of the data recorded.

What’s even more scary is that if a person had access to the original data file they could easily run a simple query against the data set, removing preferences for a given candidate where that candidate has a higher preference than another candidate. The number of primary votes would still be the same but the ballot paper would exhaust during the count if the preference order had been altered in any way.

Unless you are able to undertake a comprehensive audit or a random check it would be impossible to verify the correctness of the data recorded. The only means if validating the integrity of the election is to rely on the overall data network security and any log files that might provide a forensic trail to any wrong doing. Problem is this that access oog files are not available to scrutineers.

The risk of data being altered is increased if copies of the data files are denied or only made available after the conclusion of the count. All that would be distributed after the count is the altered data file with no means of checking that the data is infact correct

The preferred option and best means of protecting the integrity of the data file is to make copies of the file available, showing all preferences (Including informal and mismatched data-entry preference,) progressively throughout the data-entry process.

Publication of progressive compilation of the data limits the time and opportunity available to alter the data records, Scrutineers would have access to a copies and can monitor and perform random or structured data quality checks as the count progresses. Any close calls would signal warning and alert scruineers and analysts to pay closer attention in the review.

The fact that the data files have not been readily available during the count leaves the system wide open to potential misuse and abuse.

The Electoral Commissionm of course, prefers that no one has access to this information in which case there would be no means of challenge the accuracy and validity of the count. What they do not know can not be questioned.

One thing is clear, If we are to maintain confidence in the electronic counting of our votes the system needs to be designed as such that it is much more open and transparent. The current procedures and practices are far from open and transparent.

In the absence of Electoral Commission's implementing procedures that ensure that data is more readily available and subject to proper and fill scrutiny, Parliaments will have to review the detailed procedures and legislate to protect the system from possible corruption and abuse.

What’s needed is a comprehensive independent Parliamentary review of the processes and procedures in the conduct of electronic elections.

We certainly should not be complacent or lulled into a false sense of security thinking that the system is protected by itself, the fact is it is not.

They said the Titanic was unsinkable. History has proven otherwise. We only need to look at the mistakes made in the 2006 Victorian State Election to realise the extent of errors that can and do occur in an electonic counted election .

Thursday, August 4, 2011

NSW Electoral Commission recants original false and misleading advice.

In an extraordinary, yet not surprising move, the NSW Electoral Commission, having previously claimed that copies of NSW Legislative Council election preference data files were not available, has now recanted its previous advice and published the detailed results of the election.

This about face decision came some three months after the State election

At first the Commission claimed the data files did not exist, Then when we made a submission under the NSW Information Act the Commission refused to consider the application as the prescribed $30.00 application fee had not been paid.

A second application, which included the payment of the prescribed fee, was made along with a request for details on the software certification documentation. This second request was submitted on July 5, 2011 (Received on July 7, 2011).

The Commission under the provision of the NSW information Act had until July 26 to respond. Come July 27 no response was received. So we immediately lodged an application for review by the NSW Office of Information Commission expressing our ongoing concern at the Electoral Commissions misuse and abuse of process.

On August 1, 2011 (some five days late) the NSW Electoral Commission finally replied to our FOI application, stating that the information requested has been published by the Commission and was now available on the NSW Electoral Commission's Web site.

The location of this data is not easy to find as it is hidden away within the context of the Commission's summery  A direct link to the data can be found here.

Review of the data published indicates that this information was available late June but was not notified until August 2011.

In a further example of inefficientcy, and what we consider may be a further attempt to again avoid scrutiny and accountability, the information published was over 3Giga Bytes in size and excluded details of ballot papers that recorded duplicate preference numbers or had preferences missing. Why this information was excluded is anyone guess?

The Commission went to extraordinary steps to filter out and expand the data file so that the data file provided was excessively large, much larger then was required or necessary. Instead of one record per ballot paper, as requested, the commission demonstrated just how inefficient its data management is that it decided to produce a data file that included a single record per preference. Causing the data file to be some 100 times bigger than would otherwise be required.

It also turns out the Commission’s software had been modified after the2011 State election. Certification documentation provided, dated June 2011. indictates that amendments had been made to correct a number of errors in the original software.

The software, costing taxpayers 10's of millions of dollars, was developed in India. (Why Australian Developers were not used uis another issue?) Software that is, effectively, a duplication of software that already exists and is used by the Australian Electoral Commission.

OK, It is recognised that the NSW electoral provisions do differ from the Senate electoral provision but the cost of modifying the AEC software would not have been anywhere near the amount of money spent by the NSW Electoral Commission in having India . There are still unanswered questions as to who owns the intellectual property rights and copy right of the software developed?

After a three month delay we still do not have a full set of data. Some of the issuing or duplicate preference data could have been a result of data-entry errors. Without access to the full data set we are prevented from undertaking a full and more comprehensive analysis or review.
On a more positive side, more like an admission of guilt then a jester of good will, the Commission refunded the $30 application fee.

The question still remains why was this data not made available during the data entry process? Why has it taken them so long to publish the data? . And why did they opt to publish only a subset of the data and it in such an inefficient format?

We hope the mistakes of the Commission will not be repeated in future public elections and that Parliament takes a long and serious hard look at the role of the NSW Electoral Commission and legislation pertaining to the method of counting our votes.

Name Size Last Modified
File:2011 LC FP First Preference Results by District-Grp-Candidate v1.xls 1013 KB 3/08/2011 19:26:00
File:Functional Requirements for Vote Count v3 2 - changes accepted.pdf 310 KB 19/07/2011 17:03:00
File:PRCC Fn Spec v3.1 Certificate of Legislative Compliance.pdf 23 KB 19/07/2011 17:37:00
File:PRCC Fn Spec v3.2 Certificate of Legislative Compliance - Final.pdf 164 KB 29/07/2011 13:09:00
File:PRCC LC Birlasoft Test Certificate v3.2.pdf 181 KB 20/07/2011 13:38:00
File:PRCC LG Birlasoft Test Certificate v3.2.pdf 177 KB 20/07/2011 13:38:00
File:Readme.doc 34 KB 13/07/2011 19:32:00
File:SGE 2011 LC 636988 KB 29/06/2011 16:44:00

Tuesday, July 19, 2011

Murdoch Press: Speculation of new leadership and new election

The Murdoch Press is actively campaigning against the Carbon Tax as a means of removing the ALP from office.

In an article published today in the Herald Sun and across the nation Murdoch is actively trying to undermine the government by suggesting that there could be a change in ALP leadership before the year is out. The Herald Sun has suggested that war horse Simon Crean, a minister in the Hawke-Keating Government, could take over from Gillard. This scenario is far from reality. Gillard would have to resign of her own accord before the ALP would seek a change in leadership at this time.

Gillard is the corner stone of the ALP minority government. Remove Gillard and the house collapses with key independents walking away from the agreement of support.

Should this happen the Liberal Party would seek a motion of no-confidence in the Government. If this was allowed to be successed then Abbott would assume control of the Parliament and immediately take action to force a double dissolution and fresh Parliamentary elections.

A double dissolution would not only see the Liberal party elected to office with a vast majority in the parliament, it would also oust the Greens from holding the balance of power in the Senate.

It is for this reason only that the ALP will not faultier in its resolve to keep Gillard in the top job. A forced early election would decimate the Labor Party and hand absolute power to an Abbott lead Liberal Government.

With growing speculation that the worlds economy is about to be hit by a second wave of economic turmoil the last thing Australia can afford is an Abbott Government. Should Abbott win an early election the economic situation will only get worst.

So concerned about our ecomomic future Victorians are no longer spending money which in itself is having a double impact on economic activity.

The message in the electorate is to brace yourself for harder times. work Choices will be back along with a cut un services and welfare support. Superannuation investments are also expected to take a dive along woth a collapse in housing prices with even more losses predicted in the near future.

We either ride out the storm or drown along with Murdoch.  The deadline for Murdochs plan to be put in action is before October and the agreemnt of Teslstra shareholders to support the Government's NBN.buyout

Monday, July 18, 2011

Nielson Poll: Gillard/Labour at all time low

Sky News, A subsidiary service of Murdoch's News Limited, has pushed the results of a Nielson Poll which shows the Labor Government with a primary vote of just 26% support.  Missing from the Sky publication is the number polled and the relevant details that back up the poll.  There is no doubt that the Gillard Government is languishing in the polls as Labor is under sustained attack by the Murdoch press. A campaign of misinformation and lies from the media itself.  The Government’s Carbon Tax is not the solution to global warming BUT it is heading in the right direction. It will shift the economic balance using market forces towards developing a more sustainable and technological  energy sector. Which in the long term will provide significant benefits to Australia and the environment.  We all suffer by pollution and anything that can shift the balance away from the polluters towards renewal of better technology will in the long term produced more benefits.  It is an investment into our future.

The Government cannot afford to lose this debate. It is the right course of action. Gillard must continue to stay the course and not pander to the media campaign to destabilise Australia's government.

Sunday, July 17, 2011

Danby to fight against Greens in Inner City Melbourne at next Federal Election

Buoyed on by internal ALP analysis that indicates the greens are incapable of directing preferences away from the ALP to the Liberal Party, Michael Danby has decided to challenge the Greens in Melbourne Ports at the next Federal Election.

The Internal Party review undertaken by Alan Grffin has shown that the Greens ability to influence the allocation of Green preferences is less then 0.11% and that as a minor party they will not determine the result of the outcome of the election.

Danby, who is on a 5% margin, believes that support for the Greens will cost him votes in his inner city seat, and that more conservative voters, in particularly the Jewish community, will not vote for any party that is seen to be close to the Greens.

Being squeezed by both ends Danby has resolved that he will not seek a deal with the Greens in a preference swap. Danby has decided that Green voters will back him when it comes to second preferences allocations.

This bold and courageous move may see an end to the Greens chances of winning inner city seats in Victoria.

Danby's actions received the backing of the main faction players with the ALP at a meeting held today, setting the scene for the next Federal election in inner Melbourne. What impact this will have on the seat of Melbourne is unknown at this stage.

Analysis of the 2010 State election. where the Liberal Party decided not to direct preferences to the Greens ahead of the ALP ,was a decisive factor in the outcome of the State election. A decision that boosted ten support for the Liberal Party in ten last weeks of the campaign.

Danby is of the view that the Liberal Party will once again not direct preferences and that in any event in Greens will not run second in marginal seats within 5% as such neither the ALP or the Liberal Party preferences will be distributed.

Wednesday, July 13, 2011

Poll: Voting System

Essential Research

Comment: 48% to 44% of voters favour a preferential voting system over a first past thial te post ballot.   Those favoriong an Optional Preferential ballot do not realise or undertand the impact of optional preferential voting on the counting of the results of the election.  In 2010 the Victorian Electoral Commission advocated that voters only number one to five below-the-line.  The commission should be advocting that voters allocate a preference for all candidates in order of the voters' preferred choice.  In advoctaing the minimum the Commision devalued the value of the vote and became an active particpant in the electiion outcome as oposed to being independent and unaligned.

Q. Which of the following voting systems would you prefer when voting for the Federal House of Representatives.
  • A preferential voting system where voters rank all candidates in order of preference.
  • An optional preferential system where voters can rank one, some, or all candidates in order of preference.
  • A “first past the post” system, where voters only vote for one candidate and the candidate with the most votes wins.
Total Vote Labor Vote Lib/Nat Vote Greens
Preferential 22% 31% 18% 30%
Optional preferential 26% 26% 24% 33%
First past the post 44% 40% 53% 31%
Don’t know 7% 4% 4% 6%
Of the three voting options given, 44% favoured “first past the post”, 26% optional preferential and 22% the current preferential system.
Optional preferential was most preferred by those aged under 35 (35%) while older groups strongly favoured first past the post (50% of aged 35-54 and 54% of aged 55+).

Poll: Voluntary Voting

Essential Research

Q. If voting at elections was voluntary (i.e. not compulsory) – how likely would you be to vote in the next Federal election?

Total Vote Labor Vote Lib/Nat Vote Greens
Total definitely/probably vote 82% 85% 89% 78%
Total definitely/probably not vote 14% 12% 9% 19%
Would definitely vote 59% 62% 65% 61%
Would probably vote 23% 23% 24% 17%
Probably wouldn’t vote 10% 8% 7% 18%
Definitely wouldn’t vote 4% 4% 2% 1%
Don’t know 4% 3% 1% 3%

82% said they would definitely or probably vote if voting was voluntary. 14% said they definitely or probably would not vote.
Coalition and Labor voters were more likely to vote and Greens voters somewhat less likely.
By age, 73% of those aged under 35 said they would vote compared to 82% of those aged 35-54 and 91% of those aged 55+.
The estimated vote excluding those who would probably or definitely not vote produces a first preference vote of 52% Liberal/National, 30% Labor, 11% Greens and 7% other. The two-party preferred estimate is 58% Liberal/National and 42% Labor (compared to the current estimate of 57%/43%) – suggesting that voluntary voting would only very slightly advantage the Coalition.

Tuesday, July 5, 2011

Essential Research: Latest Polling

Essential Research has published its latest polling.  It has the ALP trailing the Coalition primary vote 32% to 46% (44% to 56% TPP) respectively.

Equally alarming is the economic trend which shows Australia's strong economic performance backed up by the Mining sector and good economic management by the Federal Government is not being reflected in consumer confidence.  Much of this has to do with the Baby boomers entering retirement as the burden on taxation beocmes greater along with the ned to make ends meet on what is a igherning peronsal housld budget.  This is not helped by profit takers who are benefiting from the high dollar and massive increases in supermarket pricing over the last two months.  Our dollar is performing well yet the price of energy and petrol is increasing.

On the political front the change in the Senate with the Greens claining balance of power (Fact is the Greens olnly hold the blanace of power if the Coalition opposes Government inititives - which has more to do with political opportunism then what is the best policy for the Nation.)

Tuesday, June 14, 2011

Hanson a victim of fraud. Yet NSW EC continues to deny access to BTL vote data

Pauline Hanson vote challenge has been derailed with evidence lead in court that the allegation of missing votes was fraudulent.  (ABC News).  Mr. Sean Castle, the man behind the fraudulent allegations is likely to face court costs associated with Hanson challenge after he admitted to faking the allegations but will escape public prosecution in return for goving evidence..

"Mr Castle, a father of three, was granted protection from prosecution before being compelled to answer questions relating to the purported Electoral Commission email.

Under questioning, he said "he had never received any email from the commission and that he had created it himself". He also admitted he has never known anyone who has worked for the Electoral Commission."

Notwithstanding Hanson's case the NSW Electoral commission still has failed to publish details of the Below-the-line election results which continue to bring the NSW EC into disrepute

Julia Gillard preferred prime minister

Source:p Essential Report.

Better Prime Minister

Q. Who do you think would make the better Prime Minister out of Julia Gillard and Tony Abbott?
5 Jul 2010 17 Jan 2011 14 Feb 14 Mar 11 Apr 9 May 14 June
Julia Gillard 53% 47% 48% 44% 42% 43% 41%
Tony Abbott 26% 32% 31% 33% 33% 35% 36%
Don’t know 21% 21% 20% 23% 24% 22% 24%
41% believe Julia Gillard would make the better Prime Minister and 36% prefer Tony Abbott

Saturday, June 11, 2011

Pauline Hanson: Source of allegations of 'Dodgy vote counting' by NSW Electoral Commission confronts court

Not to be denied the thrills and spill, a man who claims he is the source of allegations made against NSW Electoral Commission has fronted court to give evidence. The man whose real name is Sean Castle used a pseudonym ‘Michael Rattner’. when he first contacted Pauline Hanson with revelations of a 1,200 vote discrepancy in the NSW election count. It was claimed that the staff had miscounted the votes that should have been allocated to Pauline Hanson instead they were discarded as informal.

The allegation of "dodgy vote counting" comes on the back of the NSW Electoral Commission's refusal to publish the detailed below-the-line preference computer data-files which were used to tabulate the results of the March election.  Without access to this data it is impossible to verify the correctness and validity of the election count.

Public elections MUST be open and transparent if public confidence is to be maintained in the electoral process.  The failure of the NSW election commission to publish this data has and continues to bring the Commission into disrepute and leave then open to allegations of corruption.

The NSW Court case has been adjourned until next week

Thursday, June 9, 2011

Missing witness, missing votes and missing data - Please explain?

Missing Witness

Pauline Hanson's court case has suffered a set back as her star witness to allegations of corruption and dodgy electoral practices against the NSW Electoral Commission failed to show up in court.

Missing Votes

Pauline Hanson is challenging the integrity and results of the 2011 NSW State election in which Ian Brightwell has been implicated in claims that he had sent out a eMail alleging that 1,200 votes for Ms Hanson had been miscounted..

Missing Data

Could Ian Brightwell, please explain why the NSW EC has refused to publish details of the below-the-line preference data files that were used to determine the results of the NSW State upper house election?  This information should have been publicly available and subject to scrutiny?  The detailed preference file for the NSW Senate election have been published why not the State?  Without access to this data it is impossible to verify the integrity of the computer count.

The conduct of public elections must be open and transparent. The results of the NSW Election most certainly is not open or transparent. Why has the Commission refused to published the data file and subject it to public scrutiny? What does the NSW Electoral Commission have to hide?

Tuesday, May 31, 2011

Corruption Allegations Against NSW Electoral Commission

Pauline Hanson, Former leader of One Nation, has alleged that she was denied election at the 2011 NSW State election as a result of corruption in the way the count has been counted.  This raises serious concern about the conduct of the election itself and the ability of its Chief Commissioner Colin Barry.  The NSW Commission has also come under criticism for failing to publish the detailed results of the election.  It is crucial that elections are open and transparent in order to maintain public confidence.  Colin Barry's has failed in both accounts.  Elections in Australia are no longer open or transparent. The commission's refusal to release detailed elections results only undermines public confidence even further.  Colin Barry';s approach is to deny access to crucial evidence and information.  This is not the way to proceed.  The NSW State government must insist in a full independent audit of the commissions management and practices.  If Colin Barry is unable or unwilling to ensure that elections are open and transparent then he should resign or be dismissed.

Monday, May 30, 2011

Commission seeks to deny public access to detailed results: More questions raised about NSW Electoral Software

The NSW Electoral Commission has once again gone to extraordinary steps to try and avoid disclosure of detailed election results racing ongoing concerns as to the design, structure and certification of the NSW Electoral Commission's software

In what is seen a further example of misuse and abuse of process the Commission falsely claims that copies of the below the line preference data files used to tabulate and calculate the results of the State election can not be made available.  The Commission claims that in order to do so they would need to write a program to extract the data.

This has raised a number of questions as to the design structure and security of the software deployed by the commission.  Presumably the information is stored in a commonly used database storage format such as Microsoft access, SQL, MSSQL or similar.  Any computer person who is familiar with the data structure should be able to write SQL query to extract the data within 5-10 mins.  Bare in mind that the NSW Electoral Commission has an "qualified" IT team, one finds it extremely difficult to believe that the Commission is unable or unwilling to responded to the formal FOI request in good faith.

The request made to the Commission had requested that the FOI application fee be waived as the information sought is in the public interest.

Given the extraordinary effort made by the commission to avoid disclosure we wonder exactly what is it they are seeking to hide and prevent being made public?  Perhaps this is an issue that the NSW Corruption Commission or the Auditor General should investigate.

Public elections MUST be open and transparent, the information sought is readily available from all other Australian electoral commissions that data-entry preference data.  Why not NSW?

Thursday, May 19, 2011

Collin Barry's Secret Ballot: Blackjack with the cards faced down

NSW Election Commissioner, Colin Barry's refusal to publish the detailed results of the NSW state election upper house ballot is akin to a blackjack dealer dealing a deck of cards face down and then declaring the results without showing the cards.

What is it he has to hide.  Why has he refused to published the ballot election data files?

Colin Barry's actions continue to bring the conduct of the 2011 NSW State election into disrepute and open to allegations of fraud and corruption.

Elections conducted by computers counts are no longer open and transparent,  Publication of the data file should be undertaken progressively during the count as was the case during the 2008 Melbourne City Council Election.

Tuesday, May 17, 2011

Colin Barry Denies Dodgy Poll allegations

Colin Barry, NSW Chief Electoral Commissioner, has denied Pauline Hanson's allegations of electoral fraud.  Courier Mail by Kate Sikora.

"A day after the matter was in the Court of Dispute Returns, Electoral Commissioner Colin Barry issued a statement refuting the claims, made by Ms Hanson.

The claims surrounded two staff members, Ian Brightwell and Richard Carroll, who are alleged to have exchanged emails regarding errors in the count of votes for Ms Hanson, who lost a seat in NSW Parliament’s Upper House by 1300 votes.

"Nothing has been shown to me that suggests the allegation concerning the staff members has any substance,’’ Mr Barry said."

Meanwhile Colin Barry has failed to respond to an FOI request for copies of the computerised below-the-line preference data-files.  The Commissioner's refusal to publish this data continued to bring t6eh conduit of the Commission and Marches State Election into disrepute. 

NSWEC information Manager, Ian Brightwell, was quick to act in order to prevent the publication of the preference data files? The question remains unanswered is why? .

Copies of the Below-the-line data files are published by all other Electoral Commissions, Including the AEC NSW Senate count,  

Ian Brightwell raises questions as to integrity of NSW poll

Ian Brightwell, Information manager for the NSW Electoral Commission, has been implicated as a source of information in allegations of dodgy staff (Australian Newspaper)

When contacted by The Australian for comment, Mr Brightwell hung up the phone.

Ian Brightwell is the same person we spoke to in seeking to gain access to the recorded "Below-the-line" preference data-files  Mr Brightwell was very evasive and refused to publish the data files.  Data that is normally published by other Electoral Commissions as a mater of course.

Why the secrecy and coverup?  Could there be some truth and fact behind the allegation of dodgy staff involved in a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice and the validity of the election?

Why is crucial information such as the BTL data-files not being made available? Why is the NSW Electoral Commision engaged in a act of avoidance?

The Australian news article  says the Electoral Commission is investigating the allegations.  This is akin to the fox being put in charge of the investigation of the raid on the hen house.

The NSW Electoral Commission must be subjected to a full independent inquiry with the allegations of corruption investigated independently from the Commission itself.  The investigation needs to also look into the question as to why the Commission is refusing to publishers details of the election results.

If, as suggested, there is wrong doing in the way the NSW election has been conducted then Colin Barry, Chief Electoral Commissioner should be removed from office.

It is fundamental that the public have full confidence in the Electoral process and that public elections are open and transparent.

Monday, May 16, 2011

Pauline Hanson wins rights of discovery motion on conduct of election.

Pauline Hanson, candidate in the 2011 NSW Legislative Council election, has been granted under a "notice of discovery" the right to obtain information pertaining to the conduct of the NSW Upper House election. Pauline Hanson failed to win a position in the NSW Legislative Council by less then 1,300 votes. 

"This is not just about Pauline Hanson, We should have a fair and just system in Australia and ensure all elections are above board.'' Pauline Hanson  told reporters.

Colin Barry, NSW Electoral Commissioner, has refused to make available or publish copies of the below the line preference data files used to calculate and determine the outcome of the election.

There is nothing in law that prevents details of the election results or the preference data file being published. It is a public document.

So why is Colin Barry refusing to make this information publicly available?

Copies of the preference data-files are published by other Electoral Commissions, including the NSW Senate vote conducted by the Australian Electoral Commission. 

It is essential that our election process is open and transparent
Without access to the data it is impossible to verify the correctness of validity of a computerised election count.  The content of the data file has not been subject to public scrutiny or review.There is no guarantees that it is a true and accurate record of the voters intentions.

Colin Barry's refusal to make this information available has and continues to bring the NSW election into disrepute.

Thursday, May 5, 2011

Pauline Hanson challenges NSW election result

Pauline hanson has challenged the results of the NSW upper-house election. Whilst I do not support Pauline Hanson's polices or politics I do support the challenge.  This is an issue that Pauline Hanson should take to the High Court if need be.

The NSW Commissioner, in refusing to publish the detailed below the line preference data files, has cast doubt over the electoral process. If public confidence is to be restored the preference data files must be published and readily available for independent public review.

Australian should be very concerned about the lack of transparency in the NSW election.  Was there unfair manipulation of the election results?

The system of counting the upper house vote in NSW is seriously flawed with a random selection of ballot papers determining the result.  This system should have been abolished long ago as it does not accurately represent the voters intention.

There is little wonder why Colin Barry, NSW chief Electoral Commission refuses to publish the below the line preference data files as it would highlight the flaws in the system,  Flaws that he and the NSW parliament should have addressed.

Colin Barry's refusal to publish the data is now the subject of an FOI request and a complaint to the Information Ombudsman. The Commissioner's failure to ensure that the electoral system is open and transparent has raised questions as to the property of the election count itself.  One ask what is it that he has to hide  and why has he refused to make the data files public?

The Australian Electoral Commission and the Victorian Electoral Commission have all published the below the line preference data files.  Why not NSW?

The NSW Electoral Commission's web site has little to desire.  Colin Barry clearly has done little to  improve NSW procedures.  One has to again question the value and need for State ElectoralCcommissions,  They clearly lack expertise and professionalism.

A quick read of schedule 6 of the NSW Election Act shows just how distorted and seriously flawed the NSW election system is. This would have to be one of the worst electoral codes in Australia.

Thursday, April 21, 2011

Conduct of NSW election brought into disrepute

The conduct of the NSW State election has been brought into disrepute with the State Electoral Authority refusing to publish copies of the detailed preference data file.

Without access to this data it is impossible to verify the accuracy and integrity of the NSW State election. Copies of the preference data files are published (belatedly) by the Australian Electoral Commission and other state jurisdictions.

Electronic records are subject to modification and possible corruption. Publication of the data files limits opportunity for the data files being altered and changed.

The fact that the NSW electoral commission has refused to make this information available raises the obvious question why?


The detailed data file is a public document and as such is subject to an FOI application. The requirement for an FOPI application and the payment of $30.00 fee is an abuse of process. This information should be freely available and on the public record. It is not an onerous task. The information can and should be accessible visa a download from the NSWEC web site.

The NSWEC information policy states

In addition to the “open access information” the NSWEC also proactively releases other information.

Make an informal request

If the information you are after has not already been published, but is information which raises no particular concerns in terms of possible public interest reasons why it should be kept confidential, then the NSWEC may be able to release it to you on request without the formalities of having to make a formal application.
If you think this applies to the information you are after you can contact us to make an informal request.
Generally, we try to release information we hold without the need for you to make a formal access application, unless there are good reasons to require one.

We had made an informal request and also contacted Ian Bright, Manager of Information Technology, and was told in no uncertain words that this information is not available. 

We are left with no other option but to make an application and pay the fee to obtain information that should be readily and freely available.

Friday, April 15, 2011

Steve Tully's Information revolution under fire

The Victorian Electoral Commission has come under criticism for its management of the electoral role with many citizens complaining that the VEC has made false allegations against citizens in relation to voting irregularities to which the Commission is now seeking to take legal action.

Under Steve Tully, Chief Electoral Commissioner, the Victorian Electoral Commission has become the new stasi of State Government departments. The VEC is renowned for its half baked poor data administration. Crucial data records pertaining to the 2006 State election were deleted and destroyed with no copies or backups recorded.

The VEC administration is in disarray and there is a serious need for a open parliamentary review.

In the lead up to the 2010 State election the VEC, who had been granted access to private and confidential information from a range of government databases, had sent out notices to non-citizens telling them they had to enrol vote.

Steve Tully recently came under fire by Victorian Senator Scott Ryan who described the heavy handed approach taken by the Chief Commissioner in collecting data as the slippery slope for individuals loss of privacy.

Unknown to most and without any oversight the VEC has been compiling a massive database of names and private contact details.

Steve Tully, in what has been described as a fascist lust and zeal for power, has access to vast amounts of confidential private information from the Residential Tenancies bond authority, Vic Roads, Local Council rate notices, Library memberships, Educational Department student records and other sources. the VEC maintain this information on its database where there are little security to protect this information from misuse and abuse. Even private "Silent Enrollment listings are accessed for purposes that are not related to the conduct of the election. There is no record or monitoring who access the data records stored and for what purposes.

Steve Tulley has been given unfettered access to confidential information Information that should not be readily available. The VEC has then processed this information in a rather haphazard manner. there are numerous examples of mismanagement, misuse and abuse of information collected and held by the VEC including allegations that VEC staff have accessed the confidential information held for purposes not related to the issuing and casting of votes.

The recent stuff ups in administration are just the tip of the iceberg

The Attorney General needs to initiate a major audit and review of information technology and the information collected by the VEC.

Steve Tully should resign following the recent outrage

The problem that Steve Tully and the VEC data boffins have not realised is that the address used for electoral purposes does not need to be the same address used for Motor Registration or rental agreements, rate notices etc.

There is only one sources of information that can and should be relied on when determining who should be entitled to vote.

Birth Deaths and Citizenship records.

The only other requirements that the VEC needs to verify is the residential address in order to determine which electorate a person is entitled to be registered.

Questions need to be asked how confidential are you electoral details and why does the VEC need access to the detailed electoral role in the first place.

The Australian Electoral Commission has overall responsibility for the maintenance of the electoral rile. Why has the VEC been granted unfettered access to the rile data including Silent enrolment entitlements.