Q1: The count for elections and referendums is undertaken by over 100,000+ temporary election workers. Is it possible that political activists can work their way into responsible positions in the AEC to interfere with ballot box content? 

A1: This is true, however the degree by which this affects the result is likely to be small, if at all, for two reasons: 

(a) The ability to make a significant change in results is limited by AEC procedures. 

(b) Activist involvement is compensatory. This means one party may influence a booth in one location, whereas an opposing party will do the same elsewhere. This is not ideal but it renders such fraud pointless, which is why little actual proof exists of such things occurring. 

Q2: The AEC claims its processes are open and transparent. Surely this can only be true if all staff are honest, which in the present highly charged political environment is unlikely. Is election integrity being assessed on a staff basis? 

A2: The behaviour of the AEC over the three years my team has been scrutinising their operations is anything BUT open and transparent. It is because the AEC refuse to answer in a full and honest manner that there is a lack of confidence in their operation. 

In a booth of any significant size however, the AEC staff are most likely to keep each other honest because of those competing political sympathies.  

We do not believe the integrity issue is a staff-based one, rather the issue is in their systems and specifically the quality of the voter roll and security over ballots and electronic records during counting. 

Q3: AEC supervisors leave temporary election workers without direct monitoring despite claims by the AEC that this does not occur. Supervisors are seen chatting outside polling stations leaving temp staff unsupervised. Why is this not addressed? 

A3: It would be unlikely that the booth Supervisor was the only experienced person there, however any specific examples of this should be reported to the AEC here. If no suitable response is received, please let us know via contact us.

Q4: An AEC supervisor was seen with a bundle of ballot-box sealing zip-ties all with the same serial number and was seen taking ballot boxes home from the pre-poll. Why are they getting away with this? 

A4: Zip-tie numbers are logged and, we are told, reconciled. There should only be one number per box and numbers should only be used once. Anyone with specific information to prove otherwise are invited to contact our office via contact us

Transport of ballots in private vehicles is allowed by the legislation, but it is our view that it should not be happening. Secure transport should be used and this secure transport should include time logs and surveillance cameras on the cargo, with point-to-point transit. 

Q5: Auditing means the count is undertaken at least twice and is done by different counting teams. What if the ballots were swapped for different ballots on the kitchen table of an activist employee’s home when the pre-poll closed for the night? That is still a rigged election, isn’t it? 

A5: The initial count is compared back to the final count by the AEC and party scrutineers. There is no evidence of a major variance capable of affecting a House of Reps or Senate outcome. Indeed, the closer the electorate the more effective the scrutineer system becomes. 

One Nation has not received any proof such rigging is happening. If you have any information that proves otherwise, this can be provided to the AEC here. If no suitable response is received, please let us know via contact us,

As a general discussion though – can ballot boxes go astray and ballots be substituted? Theoretically this is possible given that ballot boxes are not securely transported and the quality of the seals is an issue. One Nation supports secure, point-to-point transport in a vehicle with video and GPS surveillance to remove any chance of ballot substitution. 

Q6: The AEC’s rigorous chain-of-custody mechanisms are open to abuse, as the last pre-poll supervisor out of the building can simply double back and load up his private car with sealed ballot boxes. 

A6: One Nation has not received any proof this is happening. If you have any information that proves otherwise, this can be provided to the AEC here. If no suitable response is received, please let us know via contact us.

We believe video surveillance and alarms with a check on “arm” and “disarm” times should be the absolute minimum requirement for a secure pre-poll or regional counting centre. We use the same venues election after election, so the cost of this is justified by the magnitude of the task these venues perform. 

Q7: Although all AEC staff are required to sign a declaration of political neutrality, this in reality means nothing. Activists don’t care about declarations, contracts, laws, fairness, justice, or the will of the people. Is there a way to ensure no activists are employed during the election? 

A7: It is not possible to find 100,000+ poll workers with no political allegiance. What matters is a multi-faceted secure system to ensure political loyalty does not affect their work.  

In my early days in the workforce I received some great advice about security – ‘opportunity creates its own temptation’. It is a basic responsibility of management to ensure staff are protected by removing temptation from them.  

We do not believe the AEC has done this to a sufficient degree. 

Q8: The AEC systems are incredibly easy for activist employees to defeat because the security is far too weak. How can this be improved? 

A8: The AEC provides many layers of security and integrity in their processes. Recent legislation, which was authored by One Nation and passed by the LNP Government, added auditing of the count and auditing of the computer system to eliminate computer fraud. These were important reforms. 

One Nation will pursue video and alarm surveillance of pre-polls and regional counting centres, an audit of the voter rolls and secure transport of ballot boxes. More detail on this can be found in this FAQ. 

Q9: Can procedural changes be made that ensure only Australian citizens vote and they vote only once, that ballots cannot be swapped once lodged and that the ballots are properly counted? 

A9: This is already a requirement of our law. The question is to what degree is the law being complied with? In practice, this would require an audit of the voter roll (which One Nation is calling for) to ensure accurate rolls.

Voter ID is essential to voting integrity.

Refer to answers 4 and 6 above around ballot security and transport.

One Nation believes the actual count itself is conducted as accurately as is possible, given the issues that arise around human error on the part of counting staff and voters. This is often made worse by the shocking state of some returned ballots.

Q10: Would it be better if voting was paper only, in person, with ID and on the day? 

A10: Yes. Yes. Yes. No. If pre-poll is conducted properly, it is not an issue for voting integrity. We have some concerns around current pre-poll systems – refer to answers above.

One Nation would like the AEC to take a serious look at blockchain-based online voting. There are some University Academics who propose a very good way for this to be done without the possibility of fraud. 

Q11: Could postal votes be restricted to those that are overseas, in hospital or care homes, with all ballots to be received by election day? 

A11: Postal voting needs to be replaced as soon as possible with secure online voting. There are ways to do that accurately and without opening the door to fraud. 

Q12: Current ballot boxes are not fit for purpose. What would it take to ensure ballot boxes are large, heavy and constructed of transparent material, kept under strong lights, continually videoed online, stored in the National Archive for any citizen to access in the future, and under constant observation by party scrutineers and members of the public? 

A12: The cardboard boxes you place your ballot in are not used to transport ballots. Once full, they are switched out to sealed, transparent plastic containers. This is safe to transport, however One Nation are still investigating issues around the accuracy and tamper-proof capacity of the seals, current use of private cars to transport ballots instead of secure transport, alarms and video monitoring of pre-poll and regional counting centres.  

Q13: How can we provide a system where the ballots must be counted with the same uninterrupted security and scrutiny, and continue until finalised? 

A13: This is just not workable. Many voting places are school buildings which need to be accessible for teaching staff and children on the Monday. The use of regional voting centres is necessary. Counting 24/7 is expensive and it may be very hard to find staff willing to do that. 

An accurate count relies on accurate systems with foolproof security, not continuous count. 

Q14: Wouldn’t it be better for elections if computers or scanners were not used in the counting, tallying, or reporting? What if counting was done by accountable individuals? What if there was always at least two different candidate scrutineers or members of the public per staff member. 

A14: This is actually the system now with the sole difference being that the Senate preference flow is provided by a scan of the voting paper. Thanks to One Nation legislation passed by the previous LNP Government, there is now an audit on that count and for some months now an audit has been underway into the AEC computer system to ensure integrity in the next election. 

The preference flow is also checked by a third-party group comprised of University Academics and they have not found errors that affected the result. Indeed, they show the preference flow is very accurate. 

Q15: The AEC “disinformation register” is an affront to the Australian public. A transparency system would be far more useful. When bureaucrats exceed their authority as public servants paid from the taxes of hard-working Australians, what mechanisms can we put in place to ensure these petty tyrants are removed from their positions? 

A15: The disinformation register is an area One Nation are investigating. The idea had some merit, but its implementation seems biased against minor parties.  

Q16: What has changed since these findings below? 

•  “the electoral system is open to manipulation is beyond question  … Fraudulent enrolment is almost impossible to prevent.”  (NSW Electoral Commissioners, Messrs R. Cundy and Ian Dickson, in the NSW Government Inquiry 1989.  
• “Electoral fraud, malpractice and errors are a common feature of the Australian electoral system,” Alex Howen, Metropolitan  Vice-Pres of the NSW Liberal Party 11/9/1999. 
• 78% of several thousand people voted “Yes” on www.publicdebate.com.au in year 2001 to the question “Should a Royal Commission be held into Electoral Fraud?”  
• The Shepherdson Inquiry in Queensland found that ALP members had done Vote Frauds in 1986, 1993 and 1996.  This was an evidential finding by a Judge 

A16: Historical cases are unlikely to inform current electoral process, although it does show that the ALP and LNP will cheat if an opportunity arises. One Nation is calling for further electoral reform.

Q17: Recent data showed that millions of dollars of corporate “donations” continue to fill the coffers of the major parties and that 40% of money received is not disclosed at all. I would like to see the following reforms legislated ASAP, including real-time disclosure of all donations over $2,500, banning big political donations altogether, and limiting electoral spending by parties and corporations. How will you ensure that these reforms are part of the recommendations made in the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters?  

A17: One Nation supports improving electoral disclosure laws and extending those to cover third party financing such as the Teals used in 2022. However, be aware that both the LNP and ALP vote together to maintain the status quo in this area. 

Q18: Should voters stop using a pencil when filling out a ballot paper? 

A18: There is no reason you can’t use your own black ball point pen (please ensure it writes clearly). Pencils are used simply because of cost and can be stored and used again without the ink running dry.

Q19: The AEC says that “Staff are obligated to report any suspicious activity to their supervisor.” – but this doesn’t mean a group of activist employees would do so. How can we ensure the AEC is free from infiltration by activists? 

A19: The AEC certainly harbours activists, however it is impossible to hire 100,000 people and not get activists. There is no system in the world that can stop that. The “people” factor is the wrong way to look at it. If the systems are properly secure, remote monitored and alarmed, ballots transported securely (not by AEC staff), and the voter rolls audited with rolling audits, then the few “bad eggs” that creep in will not be able to do any harm. 

Q20: It seems obvious that the main parties won’t fix the mess the AEC has become even though the commission itself says, “The AEC runs elections and referendums in accordance with legislation, and I note that many of the suggestions that you have made would require legislative change. I suggest raising them with your local member of parliament and/or senators.”  How do we get this legislation changed? 

A20: One Nation was successful in authoring election integrity legislation that was passed by the Morrison LNP Government. As a result, Australia now has election auditing mandated by legislation. That auditing is currently underway. 

Other reforms require support from the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters (JSCEM) and One Nation is not a member. The review is underway into the 2022 Federal Election. Submissions have now closed. The next step is to see the recommendations and then prepare a further integrity bill to respond to the many issues raised.

Q21: Current AEC chief, Tom Rogers, is quoted saying “Citizens have the right to express views about democratic events that are a contest of ideas – the AEC does not restrict those freedoms.” Despite this, the AEC inappropriately took to social media in a ‘war’ against so-called ‘misinformation’ which amounted to suppression of free speech. How is this not illegal? 

A21: There was a lot of disinformation in the last election and I understand the AEC wanting to deal with that. Confidence in the result is essential for democracy. Having said that, the operation of the AEC around “disinformation” attracted a lot of criticism. One Nation is pursuing this matter to get a better balance into the process for the next election. 

Q22: Has the AEC got an opinion on the “Yes” campaign having a flood of taxpayer’s money to support it while the “No” campaign gets stuff-all? AEC states, “While we’ll be active in communicating about referendum processes, it’s up to voters to stop and consider information they see, hear or read from ‘yes’ and ‘no’ campaigns.” Isn’t that the sort of “mistruth” Mr Tom Rogers should be “prebunking”? What do we hear from the AEC about the Yes-biased campaign? Crickets. 

A22: The AEC has so far followed it’s enabling legislation. It is the Albanese Government that is immorally trying to influence the referendum outcome by funding the ‘yes’ vote and not the ‘no’ vote. Please direct any feedback on this to the Albanese Government. 

Q23: Electoral reform needs to happen and it appears that while we run with the 2-party preferred system, we will never get another party into a majority position for change or reform. Minor parties will fight over the scraps. Reform will be difficult and part of the issue is the AEC. The question is who regulates the regulators? 

A23: The Australian people regulate the regulators by way of elections and referendums. If any Australian is unhappy with the outcome, please get involved – sign up as a candidate or poll worker and exercise your democratic rights before we lose them. 

Q24: The NSW Electoral Commission confirmed that no ballot boxes were to be removed from polling stations until after they were counted. Why were NSW Electoral Commission vested staff removing ballot boxes from booths? This is alleged to have occurred at 8 booths. AEC-vested staff are said to have walked around hospitals with iPads asking if people would like to vote. Country polling stations were being closed and electors asked to submit mail-in ballots.  

A24: One Nation has examined every video that was provided to us, or viewed on social media. Each of the videos show ballot boxes being removed from pre-poll centres correctly sealed and in the custody of AEC staff. We believe that no staff of the AEC should be moving ballots and instead, secure couriers with video surveillance on the load and GPS tracking should be used.

Can the seals be defeated? We are looking into this following multiple reports that this is possible, however we have not seen a video or statutory declaration indicating it is actually possible. 

Voting in nursing homes on iPads is acceptable if there are scrutineers in place. Based on our information, there were scrutineers and the count was accepted by those scrutineers. 

Closed voting centres are probably due to staffing issues, but if you have information regarding specific centres, please let us know via contact us.

Q25: At the 2023 NSW election, ballots were being mishandled. As confirmed by the NSWEC, they are only responsible for what occurs to the ballots up to and including 6 metres from the polling booth.  

A25: The AEC does not run NSW elections. As this is a state matter, you will need to contact the NSW Electoral Commission: https://elections.nsw.gov.au/contact-us

Q26: Why were there blank boxes above the line in the Senate ballot? 

A26: The wording of this section of the Electoral Act is poor and can be read to allow a blank name, which is what the AEC have done.

This decision disadvantages grouped independents as people are reticent to vote for a blank box.

The videos and audio recordings of AEC staff advising voters to not vote or worse, that they cannot vote in that square, are real and call into question training of the AEC staff. 

One Nation supports amending that provision of the Electoral Act to require grouped independents to be labelled as “grouped independent” and not be left blank.