management and accountability€¦ · management framework, policy and risk assessment and...

MANAGEMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITY

AEC ANNUAL REPORT 2010–11102

Figure 13 Leadership and management framework

Australian Electoral Commission

Governing body as established by the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918

Electoral Commissioner

Chief Executive Officer under the Public Service Act 1999 and the FMA Act.

Executive Management Group Business Assurance Committee Investment and Strategies Committeea

Role and responsibilities

Supports the Electoral Commissioner in determining the AEC’s strategic directions and organisational priorities, by:½½ working together to ensure

that organisational objectives are achieved,

½½ contributing to the strategic leadership and operational management of the AEC,

½½ ensuring that the AEC follows good corporate governance practices, and

½½ managing risk appropriately.

Members are responsible for the leadership, management and sound governance of the AEC, and for shaping its future in line with the three strategic themes of modernisation, collaboration and investing in our people. Collectively, they are responsible for defining high-level priorities, while more detailed contributions are made at other planning levels.

MembersElectoral Commissioner (Chairperson)Deputy Electoral Commissioner (Deputy Chairperson)First assistant commissionersAssistant commissionersState and territory managersChief Legal OfficerChief Finance OfficerSpecial Adviser Electoral Reform and International ServicesDirector Operations RepresentativeMeetings held in 2010–11Six, held at two-monthly intervals.


Assists the Electoral Commissioner in meeting his statutory responsibilities under s.46 of the FMA Act, including by:½½ reviewing and monitoring the AEC’s

risk assurance, audit, fraud and internal controls function, and

½½ ensuring the objectivity and reliability of the AEC’s published financial information.

MembersDeputy Electoral Commissioner (Chairperson)First assistant commissioners Assistant Commissioner Education and Communications Assistant Commissioner People ServicesState Manager VictoriaState Manager QueenslandIndependent external member

Meetings held in 2010–11

Four.


Assists the Electoral Commissioner in:½½ articulating the AEC’s strategic

objectives, research and planning activities along with its innovation priorities, challenges and timeframes,

½½ assuring the overall integrity and coherence of the AEC portfolio, and ensuring that the portfolio delivers the AEC’s strategic objectives, contributes to the AEC’s bottom line and drives value in all programs and projects,

½½ allocating funding from the AEC’s investment pool to proposals that fit the AEC’s agreed strategic objectives, business priorities, budget, workforce capability, IT architecture and risk management framework, and

½½ monitoring programs and project performance against indicators, including budget, expenditure and performance against milestones and indicators.

MembersDeputy Electoral Commissioner (Chairperson)First assistant commissionersAssistant Commissioner Strategic Capability State Manager New South WalesState Manager Western AustraliaState Manager South Australia

Meetings held in 2010–11

Eight meetings, 14 proposals considered, 11 projects approved.

FMA Act = Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997.

a Formerly known as the Business Investment Committee.

ê

êêê

103MANAGEMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITY

Corporate governance

The AEC’s governance framework is based on clear lines of accountability, decision making and reporting, as well as well-defined planning and performance management. The AEC employs strategies that:½½ meet the objectives for which funding

is appropriated,½½ ensure accountability to the Parliament of

Australia and other stakeholders,½½ identify responsibility for the management of

resources, and½½ develop, maintain and use information

on the full accrual costs and values of producing deliverables.

LeadershipThe AEC’s leadership and management framework at 30 June 2011 is set out in Figure 13.

Commission

The AEC is an independent statutory agency governed by a commission comprising:½½ a part-time chairperson, who is a judge or

retired judge of the Federal Court of Australia,½½ the Electoral Commissioner, who is the full-

time head and Chief Executive Officer of the AEC under the Public Service Act 1999 and the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997 (the FMA Act), and

½½ a part-time, non-judicial member, who is an agency head as defined in the Public Service Act.

The members of the Commission are engaged under the Electoral Act and appointed by the Governor-General. The current members are named in the ‘AEC overview’ section of this report.

Executive

The Electoral Commissioner is assisted by a senior executive team comprising the Deputy Electoral Commissioner, two first assistant commissioners, six assistant commissioners, the Chief Finance Officer and the Chief Legal Officer. State managers, who hold the statutory appointment of Australian Electoral Officer for each state and the Northern Territory, assist the Electoral Commissioner to manage electoral activities in their respective jurisdictions.

The organisational structure is outlined in Figure 3 in the ‘AEC overview’ section.

Senior management committees

The AEC’s senior management committees are directly responsible to the Electoral Commissioner in his role as Chief Executive Officer. Figure 13 provides details of the committees and their activities in 2010–11.

Planning and accountabilityFigure 14 illustrates the framework of relationships between the AEC’s planning and accountability mechanisms.

Strategic and business plans

The strategic themes that drive the AEC’s performance are articulated in a five-year plan. The AEC Strategic Plan 2009–2014 focuses on:½½ modernisation½½ collaboration½½ investing in our people.

The strategic plan, which is published on the AEC’s website, underpins the business plans


that are developed each year at the national, branch, state and divisional levels.

In order to ensure that progress was being made and confirm the priorities for the third year of the AEC Strategic Plan 2009–2014, the AEC reviewed its performance against the second-year priorities and activities during 2010–11.

Operational plans

The strategic plan is complemented by a suite of plans that address specific business functions, as summarised in Table 33.

Internal auditAEC internal audit is an independent function reporting directly to the Deputy Electoral Commissioner, who in turn reports on the audit program to the AEC’s Business Assurance Committee.

As shown in Figure 13, the Business Assurance Committee includes an external independent member. The inclusion of an external member,

who has broad, relevant public sector experience, strengthens the independence of the committee and provides the opportunity for the Electoral Commissioner to receive advice and assurance from a perspective unencumbered by management responsibilities.

Representatives of the Australian National Audit Office and the internal auditors attend meetings of the Business Assurance Committee to report on the AEC’s external and internal audit programs and other relevant matters. The AEC’s internal audit program is conducted through an external services provider, KPMG. Further information on the external audit program is in the ‘External scrutiny’ section of this report.

The AEC carries out independent and objective audit activities in accordance with its Internal Audit and Assurance Strategy and its Internal Audit Plan. The current Internal Audit Plan is a planning document covering 2010–11, with suggestions for subsequent years. It sets out the scope of audit activity and the manner in which resources will be allocated. It was developed in consultation with senior management and addresses the core control systems of the AEC.

Performance outcomes

STRATEGIC PLAN (every five years)

National Business Plan (annual)

State, territory and branch business plans

(annual)

Work area plans (annual)

Individual performance plans (annual)

Enabling legislation

Other inputs (e.g. Corporate IT Plan)

Election Preparation Program

Risk Management Plan (every two years)

Portfolio Budget Statements (annual)

Portfolio Budget Additional Estimates

Statements

Annual report

Figure 14 Planning, operating and reporting framework


As 2010–11 was an election year, audit coverage was limited to allow for the high workload in business areas. Audits undertaken focused on completing a review of AEC’s methodology for building IT systems, satisfying mandatory requirements for FMA Act compliance, and ensuring the accuracy of payments made to temporary employees employed for the 2010 federal election.

Risk management and business continuityA culture of risk management is essential to the AEC’s success in achieving its outcomes.

During 2010–11, the AEC revised its risk management framework, policy and risk assessment and treatment workbook to reflect current principles, guidelines, practices and processes. The revised framework and policy are the foundation for effective risk management within the AEC. The workbook outlines the key elements for identifying and managing risks and requires risk analysis to be undertaken in relation to strategic objectives, major projects and contracts, business planning, and fraud control.

In addition, the AEC tracks and monitors election preparation and delivery activities, ensuring a state of continuing election

Table 33 Corporate and business planning documents

Type Purpose Reviewed

Business continuity Applies risk management techniques and principles to the planning, administration and delivery of projects and policies

Every three years

Corporate fraud control Identifies areas of corporate fraud risk and sets out strategies to prevent or minimise the incidence of corporate fraud

Every two years

Corporate IT Provides direction for IT development Every three years

Disability action Assists the AEC to meet its responsibilities under the National Disability Strategy

Every three years

Election preparation Sets out and monitors the program of activity required to achieve election readiness

Every election cycle

Electoral fraud control Sets out strategies to prevent or minimise electoral offences that may affect the result of elections

Every two years

Health and safety action Sets out the activities that underpin the AEC’s health and safety management arrangements

Every three years

Property Provides direction for the long-term management of leased property

Annually

Risk Identifies areas of business risk and specifies how risks will be managed

Annually

Security Sets out strategies to protect staff, visitors, information, equipment and premises against harm, loss, interference and compromise

Annually

Strategic internal audit Sets out the program of compliance and performance audits for the financial year

Annually

Workplace diversity Sets out a program of activities to enable recognition and valuing of individual differences in the workplace

Every four years


readiness and managing and monitoring areas of significant risk.

The AEC enhanced risk awareness within the agency by including a risk management module in its induction program. The module can be used by all staff to increase their awareness of risk within the AEC.

During the year, the AEC continued planning for business continuity. Business continuity plans are being reviewed and updated to ensure that they are current, reflect changes to business priorities and address potential risks. In addition, the IT Branch updated its business continuity plans to cover potential election events and has undertaken active testing of its failover between the AEC’s data centres.

In May 2010, the AEC participated in the annual Comcover Risk Management Benchmarking program and was awarded a 6 per cent discount (out of a possible 10 per cent) on the 2010–11 insurance premium.

Fraud controlThe AEC maintains two fraud control plans: the Electoral Fraud Control Plan, which focuses on election and enrolment fraud; and the Corporate Fraud Control Plan, which deals with all other forms of fraud.

The AEC’s Fraud Control Committee is a subcommittee of the Business Assurance Committee and is responsible for overseeing fraud prevention, detection and investigations. The Fraud Control Committee meets prior to each Business Assurance Committee meeting, and provides that committee with a report on matters considered and recommendations as required.

During 2010–11, the AEC reviewed its corporate fraud control framework and updated its Corporate Fraud Control Plan and assessments of fraud risks.

To maintain the integrity of the electoral roll, regular election-specific integrity checks

occurred prior to the close of rolls for the 2010 federal election.

The Electoral Commissioner’s certification of the AEC’s fraud control arrangements is in Appendix K.

Ethical standardsThe AEC has in place policies and guidelines on the standards of behaviour expected when working in the AEC, and the consequences if those standards are not maintained. The policies and guidelines are underpinned by the AEC’s values, articulated in its strategic plan and reinforced by the Australian Public Service Values and Code of Conduct.

To further strengthen the AEC’s commitment to maintaining high ethical standards within the organisation, a statement of shared objectives in the AEC’s Enterprise Agreement 2010–11 highlights a commitment to adhere to the values and behaviours expected of AEC employees.

The AEC uses the Australian Public Service Commission’s Ethics Advisory Service, which promotes and enhances ethical awareness in the Australian Public Service.

A new facilitator-led training program on ethical decision making was piloted during 2010–11. The course aims to establish a framework for decision making and provide an introduction to ethics. It has been designed to ensure that employees understand the Australian Public Service Values and Code of Conduct, recognise the impact and limitations of making decisions, know and use the APS REFLECT model, and familiarise themselves with resources that are available in the broader Australian Public Service, such as the Ethics Advisory Service. The pilot is being evaluated and will be rolled out to more AEC staff in 2011–12.

Details of the AEC’s performance management program are in the ‘Human resources’ section of this report.


Senior executive remunerationRemuneration for the Electoral Commissioner is determined by the Remuneration Tribunal under the Remuneration Tribunal Act 1973. Other statutory appointees are part of the Principal Executive Officer structure under that Act; remuneration and conditions for those appointees are determined by the Electoral Commissioner within parameters set by the Remuneration Tribunal.

Table 34 lists base salary bands for statutory appointees and senior executive staff of the AEC.

Service charterThe AEC Service Charter includes information about the AEC’s functions, values and commitment to electors. The charter may be accessed through the AEC website, and printed copies are available on request. Poster versions of the charter are displayed in AEC offices.

The charter encourages members of the public to provide feedback about their experiences with the AEC. The AEC listens carefully and responds to suggestions to improve its services.

Customer satisfaction

The AEC takes many opportunities to engage with customers and seek their input on the delivery of the AEC’s services and their level of

satisfaction with the services. Examples are included in the reports on the performance of the AEC’s programs.

Customer enquiries, issues and complaints

While most enquiries, issues and complaints can be handled promptly and satisfactorily in the first instance by AEC call centre operators, some issues and complaints need to be escalated for consideration by a team in the National Office.

The AEC protocol for the handling of certain enquiries, issues and complaints by the National Office covers complaints of alleged electoral offences, complex phone and email enquiries escalated by AEC call centre operators, and some referrals from state and territory offices raising complex issues. A central register is used to track the nature of the matters being raised, completions of responses, and any emerging systemic issues.

A summary of escalated enquiries, issues and complaints handled by the National Office in each of the past four reporting periods is shown in Table 35.

Issues handled by the National Office in 2010–11 included enrolment, party material with postal vote applications, the voting system, and electoral/political advertising. The enquiries were answered quickly, and electors were directed to or provided with relevant AEC information. For 45 per cent (140) of the

Table 34 Base salary bands for statutory appointees and senior executive staff, 30 June 2011

Staff (no.) Remuneration band ($)

5 180 000 – 299 999

8 140 000 – 179 999

6 100 000 – 139 999

0 0 – 99 999

Note: These bands do not represent total remuneration; that is, they include superannuable salary but do not include other components of salary packaging such as cars and superannuation. This data includes staff acting in positions at 30 June 2010.


escalated matters, AEC staff researched and provided text to AEC call centre operators for responses to the relevant clients. AEC staff replied directly to 42 per cent (133) of the escalated matters by email or letter. The remaining 13 per cent (40) either required no further action or were referred to other areas of the AEC for appropriate action.

Most enquiries or complaints received by the National Office were responded to within five working days. Thirty-eight per cent of the general escalated matters handled by the National Office in the lead-up to and on election day were finalised within 24 hours, and a further 38 per cent were resolved within two to five days.

Of the alleged electoral offences, approximately 25 per cent concerned possible breaches of the authorisation requirements in s.328 and s.328A of the Electoral Act. Another 25 per cent concerned possible breaches of s.329 of the Act, relating to misleading and deceptive publications. The remaining enquiries or complaints raised matters concerning other provisions of the Act, matters to do with s.44 of the Australian Constitution (relating to the disqualification of persons seeking to be candidates), or matters which the Act does not regulate.

For most complaints alleging an electoral offence, the AEC considered that there was no breach of the Act and informed the complainant

of that assessment, and no further action was taken. In approximately 13 per cent of complaints, a breach was substantiated. Most of the substantiated breaches were ‘technical breaches’ of s.328 of the Act, which occur when the author of a document is known but the authorisation details are not all provided. In such circumstances, the AEC asks the relevant person, in writing or by telephone, to cease the action and remedy the advertising to ensure compliance. The AEC generally received good cooperation from political parties and candidates during 2010–11.

One complaint was referred to the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions, who advised that it was not possible to establish, from the material provided, whether any offence had been disclosed.

Social inclusion for electorsThe AEC embraces the challenge of ensuring that all eligible Australians are equally able to exercise their key democratic entitlement: the right to vote. This fits well with the principles of the Australian Government’s social inclusion agenda, which include:½½ reducing disadvantage,½½ increasing social, civic and economic

participation, and½½ developing a greater voice, combined with

greater responsibility.

Table 35 Escalated enquiries, issues and complaints received by the National Office, 2007–08 to 2010–11

Subject 2007–08 2008–09 2009–10 2010–11

General enquiries 628 43 20 313

Alleged electoral offences 283 32 72 160

Total 911 75 92 473

Note: The totals for 2007–08 and 2010–11 reflect the increase in customer contacts that usually occurs in a federal election year.


One of the priorities of the social inclusion agenda is to bridge the gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians. The Indigenous Electoral Participation Program is a comprehensive strategy to improve the electoral enrolment and participation levels of Indigenous Australians in remote, rural and urban areas, based on education, consultation and cooperation with Indigenous communities, and is part of a cross-agency initiative to bridge the gap.

Other ways the AEC promotes social inclusion are by delivering services and products to help Australians understand their rights and responsibilities as electors. For example:½½ The AEC’s National Electoral Education

Centre and School and Community Visits Program provide electoral education and information in ways that cater for a wide range of Australians, including people from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds, people of all ages, people in rural and remote areas, homeless people and people with disabilities.

½½ The AEC delivers its information products in a variety of formats, including online, audio, large print and braille, and in a wide range of languages. The AEC also provides a free telephone enquiry service and access to a telephone interpreter service.

The AEC also aims to remove practical barriers to participation in federal elections:½½ In electoral divisions with significant numbers

of Indigenous voters or voters who speak a language other than English at home, the AEC aims to recruit staff with relevant language skills to provide assistance on election day.

½½ Informed by the advice of a reference group of service providers and representatives of voters who are blind or have low vision, the AEC developed a telephone-based voting option for those voters to use in the 2010 federal election, and is investigating electronic voting options that may be possible in future.

Changes to disability reporting in annual reports Since 1994, Australian Government departments and agencies have reported on their performance as policy adviser, purchaser, employer, regulator and provider under the Commonwealth Disability Strategy. In 2007–08, reporting on the employer role was transferred to the Australian Public Service Commission’s State of the service report and the Australian Public Service Statistical Bulletin. Those reports are available at www.apsc.gov.au. From 2010–11, departments and agencies are no longer required to report on these functions in their annual reports.


Support services

Parliamentary and ministerial supportIn 2010–11, the AEC continued to provide support services to the parliament and the Special Minister of State in relation to the administration of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 and the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act 1984.

During the year, the minister referred 72 letters on electoral matters to the AEC for input or the preparation of draft responses. The major themes of the correspondence related to the conduct of the 2010 federal election, proposed electoral reform measures, and voting by people who are blind or have low vision. There were also significant briefings on matters relating to allegations of breaching the electoral advertising requirements and how-to-vote cards. The feedback provided to the AEC indicates that the briefings and proposed correspondence consistently met the minister’s requirements for timeliness and quality.

Legal servicesThe Legal Services Section is part of the Legal and Compliance Branch and provides a full range of legal services to the AEC.

The section’s activities in 2010–11 focused on:½½ providing advice in relation to procurement

exercises and contracts, particularly in relation to procurements relating to the federal election,

½½ providing advice and updating training material and publications in readiness for the federal election,

½½ responding to requests for input to Cabinet submissions, particularly those that affect electoral matters,

½½ assisting in the task force reviewing responses to the two green papers on electoral reform issued by the government,

½½ responding to requests from, and preparing submissions to, the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters (JSCEM),

½½ providing advice in relation to the AEC’s administrative and other responsibilities under the Electoral Act, the Public Service Act 1999, the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997, the Fair Work Act 2009 and the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009,

½½ instructing external solicitors and counsel in relation to a wide range of matters involving electoral laws and the conduct of industrial elections,

½½ responding to subpoenas, notices to produce and other requirements for the release of information and documents,

½½ instructing the Office of Parliamentary Counsel and preparing a wide range of supporting material for the various pieces of electoral and referendum legislation that were placed before the parliament in 2010–11,

½½ instructing the Office of Legislative Drafting and Publication on the preparation of regulations to amend the Electoral and Referendum Regulations 1940,

½½ investigating alleged breaches of electoral laws and, where appropriate, referring matters to the Australian Federal Police and the Director of Public Prosecutions,

½½ dealing with requests for access to the Commonwealth electoral roll from a wide range of people and organisations, including


the police, medical researchers and the courts,

½½ providing advice and training to assist the AEC to meet its obligations under the Privacy Act 1988, the Freedom of Information Act 1982, the Ombudsman Act 1986 and the Archives Act 1983, and

½½ providing advice on a wide range of other legal matters that affect the operations of the AEC.

The AEC was involved with the carriage of a large legislation program in 2010–11 to respond to matters raised by the JSCEM of the 42nd parliament and to address government initiatives arising from the two green papers on electoral reform.

The Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Political Donations and Other Measures) Bill 2009 lapsed at the dissolution of the parliament prior to the 21 August 2010 federal election. On 20 October 2010, the government introduced those measures into the parliament as the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Political Donations and Other Measures) Bill 2010, with some minor amendments relating to the commencement date. That Bill passed the House of Representatives on 17 November 2010 and was introduced into the Senate on the same date.

The AEC worked on two other Bills introduced into the parliament during 2010–11: the Electoral and Referendum Amendment (Enrolment and Prisoner Voting) Bill 2010 and the Electoral and Referendum Amendment (Provisional Voting) Bill 2011. Both Bills passed through the parliament on 11 May 2011; they received royal assent on 25 and 26 May 2011, respectively.

The primary purpose of the Electoral and Referendum Amendment (Enrolment and Prisoner Voting) Act 2011 was to amend the Referendum Act to give effect to two decisions of the High Court of Australia:½½ Rowe v Electoral Commissioner [2010] HCA

46 (Rowe), decided on 6 August 2010 with

reasons published on 15 December 2010, which concerned the process following the calling of an election through the formal issue of a writ, and the period of time allowed for relevant voters to either ensure that they are on the electoral roll or update their enrolment details (close of rolls), and

½½ Roach v Electoral Commissioner [2007] HCA 43 (Roach), decided on 30 August 2007 with reasons published on 26 September 2007, which concerned the franchise for relevant people who may be serving a sentence of imprisonment.

Consequential amendments were made to the Referendum Act to ensure consistency between the two acts.

The Electoral and Referendum Amendment (Enrolment and Prisoner Voting) Act 2011:½½ implemented the government’s response

to Recommendation 47 of the JSCEM’s Report on the conduct of the 2007 federal election and matters related thereto – the amendments ensured that, while prisoners serving a sentence of imprisonment of three years or longer will be disqualified from voting, they may remain on the electoral roll or be added to it;

½½ included an interpretative provision to ensure that certain references in the Electoral Act to ‘an election for a Division’, or similar expressions, can operate in the event of a half-Senate election held independently from an election of the House of Representatives – this addressed an anomaly in the Electoral Act;

½½ restored the close of rolls period to seven days after the date of the issuing of the writ for an election, and

½½ reinstated the previous disqualification, for prisoners serving a sentence of imprisonment for three years or longer, from voting at a federal election.

The primary purpose of the Electoral and Referendum Amendment (Provisional Voting) Act 2011 was to amend the Electoral Act and the


Referendum Act by repealing the requirement for provisional voters to provide evidence of identity before their votes are admitted to preliminary scrutiny. Provisional votes are a type of declaration vote that can be cast by an elector on polling day. A provisional vote (like all declaration votes) is a vote that is sealed inside an envelope. Written on the outside of the envelope are the voter’s details, including name, address, date of birth and signature.

The Electoral Act previously specified that an elector who casts a provisional vote at a polling place on polling day must provide a polling official with evidence of identity at the time of voting or provide it to an AEC officer by the first Friday following polling day. Failure to do so results in the envelope containing the ballot papers being excluded from preliminary scrutiny.

Under the Electoral Act as amended, if an AEC official has reason to doubt that the signature on a provisional vote envelope is that of the elector claiming to vote, the official is required to check the signature against the most recent record of the elector’s signature (which would usually be the enrolment claim form). If the official is still not satisfied after making that check, they are required to make all reasonable attempts to contact the elector within three days of the polling day to require the elector to produce evidence of identity. If the official remains unsatisfied that the signature on the provisional vote envelope is that of the elector, the vote must be excluded from further scrutiny and not included in the count.

The AEC expended $497 823 on external legal services in 2010–11. This included fees to firms on the panel of legal service providers, counsels’ fees, court costs and miscellaneous charges. This was an increase from the $205 266 expended in 2009–10. The increase was mainly due to legal proceedings relating to the 2010 federal election and other election activities under the Electoral Act and under the Fair Work Act 2009 and the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009.

Library servicesThe AEC Library, which is located in the National Office, offers a wide range of information services to all AEC staff. It seeks to be a proactive library service that supports the operational, informational and research needs and activities of all staff, and to optimise access to information resources for its decentralised client base.

The library policy, including the collection development policy, was reviewed and updated during 2010–11 and is available on the intranet.

Over the past year, in response to growing demand for reference services, the library extended research support services by providing a personalised service for literature and subject-based searches for research in AEC core subjects. Supporting improvements to services are collections of print and online resources that are relevant and of high quality. Electronic journals and electronic resources have changed book usage patterns, so extending accessibility to electronic resources to assist staff with their research is a continuing focus.

The library continues to provide a limited range of hard copy reference materials, including books, historical publications, reports, a wide range of journals, and links to services which provide relevant and reliable information. Interlibrary loan and document delivery services also provide a necessary resource for the AEC; demand for those services increased during 2010–11.

The library software was upgraded this year to improve access to information through the OPAC library catalogue. This includes information on all resources that the library holds, including the print collection, the historical collection, web content, loose-leaf materials, books, journals and articles. User accounts allow staff to request resources, track loan history and renew loans. The OPAC


interface is also a platform to promote new purchases and library news.

Records management staff and library staff collaborate to ensure that appropriate resources are preserved, and have worked together to preserve items of historical interest.

Performance analysisThe AEC’s Balanced Scorecard reporting method, which was introduced in July 2009, continues to provide performance information on a monthly basis, across a range of business activities. The reports assist the Executive Management Group to identify and analyse trends, and highlight any areas of concern. The monthly reports also facilitate the monitoring of agency risks and allow timely remedial actions to be implemented across key service delivery areas. The Balanced Scorecard is continually being refined to reflect the evolving information needs of the executive.

Information and communications technologyThe AEC’s information and communications technology services are delivered through a hybrid sourcing model that leverages a combination of in-house and external resources.

During 2010–11, IT activities focused on providing a stable and robust environment for the 2010 federal election. In particular, the AEC:½½ implemented a new, externally provided

infrastructure platform to deliver election results in real time through the AEC’s Virtual Tally Room system,

½½ delivered the information and communications technology infrastructure for the National Tally Room,

½½ implemented½½ RollMap, a mapping service used in

processing enrolment transactions,

½½ eReturns, which allows clients to prepare and lodge their financial disclosure returns online, and

½½ AEC Employment, an online tool to support the recruitment and management of temporary staff for federal elections,

½½ refined its information and communications technology sourcing strategy to align with various whole-of-government policies and panel arrangements, and

½½ collaborated with the New South Wales Electoral Commission to host the Virtual Tally Room for the 2011 New South Wales state election on the AEC’s IT infrastructure.

In addition, the AEC implemented video-conferencing facilities to support the dispersed network of offices. Facilities are currently available in the national, state and some divisional offices, and further equipment is to be rolled out to provide access for all divisions. These facilities are an important tool to encourage communication and collaboration between the AEC’s various offices.

Internal communicationsIn 2010, the AEC developed and implemented an internal communication strategy for the federal election. The aim was to ensure nationally consistent, coordinated and timely communication to all staff during the federal election period.

The strategy included three primary communication tools:½½ the election diary – a workbook containing

day-by-day instructions for divisional offices, with provision for staff to include their own planning notes and comments;

½½ the election bulletin – an intranet-based daily bulletin to provide notification of procedural changes not covered by the election diary, highlight key activities and events, and convey urgent instructions and messages; and


½½ a ‘help’ tool – an intranet page to answer frequently asked questions arising during the course of the election.

A revised and improved strategy has been developed for the next election, taking account of post-election evaluation, staff feedback and IT developments.

Other key internal communications activities during 2010–11 included the implementation of changes to electoral legislation and election reform initiatives, and reinforcement of the Investing in Our People program for AEC employees.

Project ManagementThe Project Management Office, established in July 2009 within the Strategic Capability Branch, has three primary functions:½½ portfolio management – provide advice to

the Investment and Strategies Committee on the AEC investment portfolio and on any conflicting priorities, including business as usual, risks and issues;

½½ delivery – support the delivery of programs and projects from implementation through to closure; and

½½ centre of excellence – in the context of project management, refine standards and promote the benefits of project management within the AEC, provide skills and training, manage knowledge and provide independent assurance.

The AEC benefits from the operations of the office in the following ways:½½ The portfolio of projects is more focused,

balanced and aligned to the AEC’s strategy.½½ Progress on projects is more visible.½½ The costs and timelines of projects are

more predictable. ½½ The time needed to start projects is reduced.

½½ Resources are better utilised and outcomes are clearer across a portfolio of projects.

During 2010–11, the Project Management Office: ½½ managed the 2010 Election Evaluation

project, Stage 1 of which was completed in February 2011,

½½ coordinated the work of the 2009 JSCEM Program Board and the Business Review project,

½½ provided the secretariat service for the Investment and Strategies Committee (previously known as the Business Investment Committee),

½½ provided the Online Postal Vote Application and Electronic Certified Lists projects with project managers,

½½ established the Prince2 Foundation and Practitioner courses for AEC staff (many AEC staff have obtained formal project management qualifications as a result),

½½ developed a project management framework, guidelines and templates for effective project management at the AEC, released the Managing a project handbook and revised the Project Mandates, Highlight and Project Brief templates, and

½½ completed the Capability Improvement Plan and associated Portfolio Programme Project Management Maturity Model (P3M3TM) assessment and provided them to the Australian Government Information Management Office in June 2011.


External scrutiny

Parliamentary scrutinyThe Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters (JSCEM) was dissolved when parliament was prorogued for the 2010 federal election, and reappointed when the Forty-third Parliament commenced in September 2010.

On 23 November 2010, the Special Minister of State, the Hon Gary Gray AO, MP, asked the JSCEM to inquire into and report on all aspects of the 2010 federal election and matters related to the election.

On 11 May 2011, the parliament agreed (as stated in the House of Representatives Hansard of that date):

(1) That the following matter be referred to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters for inquiry and report by 30 September 2011:

Options to improve the system for the funding of political parties and election campaigns, with particular reference to:

(a) issues raised in the Government’s Electoral Reform Green Paper – Donations, Funding and Expenditure, released in December 2008;

(b) the role of third parties in the electoral process;

(c) the transparency and accountability of the funding regime;

(d) limiting the escalating cost of elections;

(e) any relevant measures at the state and territory level and implications for the Commonwealth; and

(f) the international practices for the funding of political parties and election campaigns, including in Canada, the United Kingdom, New Zealand and the United States of America.

The AEC has lodged several submissions and appeared at a number of public hearings in relation to the first referral, and expects to make a submission in relation to the second referral.

Administrative scrutinyCertain administrative decisions made by the AEC under the Electoral Act are subject to merits review under the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975.

Complaints about ‘a matter of administration’ relating to the functions of the AEC can be made to the Commonwealth Ombudsman under the Ombudsman Act 1976. Complaints about breaches of privacy rights may be lodged with the Federal Privacy Commissioner under the Privacy Act 1988. Complaints that the AEC has unlawfully discriminated against a person may be made to the Australian Human Rights Commission under the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986.

Administrative Appeals Tribunal

Several matters that were mentioned in the AEC’s 2009–10 annual report were considered by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) in 2010–11.

The application made by Jared Hyams seeking the review of a decision by the Australian Electoral Officer for Victoria to


reject his claim for enrolment under s.101 of the Electoral Act involved the issue of what constitutes a signature. With the enactment of the amendments contained in the Electoral and Referendum (Modernisation and Other Measures) Act 2010, a transfer of enrolment could be acted on by the AEC without a signature provided that the claim included the date of birth of the elector and the elector’s driver’s licence number. As Mr Hyams’s transfer of enrolment claim form included both his date of birth and his driver’s licence number, the claim form was not required to be signed. The AAT decided on 5 October 2010 to dismiss Mr Hyams’s application under s.42B of the AAT Act as being frivolous and vexatious.

Two applications involving decisions relating to party registration remain unresolved. The first application (AAT reference no. 2010/1457) was adjourned from 28 June 2011 to 30 September 2011. This application involves the review of the decision by the Commission to register the Communist Alliance as a registered political party under Part XI of the Electoral Act. The registration of a political party enables the party to appear under the registered name on the ballot papers and to receive election funding. Several objections were received, including one by the Community Alliance Party, which is a recognised political party under the laws of the Australian Capital Territory but is not registered under the Electoral Act.

The second application (AAT reference no. 2010/2416) was adjourned from 20 June 2011 to a date to be set by the AAT. This application involves the review of the decision by the Commission to accept the application to replace John Mulholland with Anthony Zegenhangen as the registered officer of the Democratic Labor Party (DLP) of Australia under the Electoral Act. The registered officer of a registered political party is the main point of contact for a range of matters under the Electoral Act. One of the significant rights that are given to the registered officer of a registered political party is the right to endorse candidates to appear on ballot papers for federal elections

under sections 166, 169 and 210A of the Electoral Act.

Commonwealth Ombudsman

The Commonwealth Ombudsman approached the AEC in relation to six matters during 2010–11. All the matters were finalised during 2010–11. No findings of administrative deficiency were recorded against the AEC.

Privacy Commissioner

The Privacy Commissioner did not approach the AEC in relation to any privacy complaints during 2010–11. Therefore, there were no complaints in 2010–11 that led to determinations being made by the Privacy Commissioner under s.52 of the Privacy Act 1988.

Australian Human Rights Commission

The AEC’s 2009–10 annual report referred to the AEC having received notification of a complaint lodged with the Australian Human Rights Commission concerning the services and facilities that are provided under the Electoral Act to enable persons who are blind or have low vision to vote in federal elections.

The AEC responded to the complaint on 7 July 2010, and a successful mediation conference took place in December 2010. The AEC continues to work with other electoral authorities in Australia and to consult with peak bodies which represent people who are blind or have low vision, to develop cost-effective options to enable such voters to cast secret and independent votes at elections.

The AEC was notified of a further complaint having been lodged with the Australian Human Rights Commission about the choice of a polling place in Queensland. The complaint centres on the choice of a building where the front entrance contains 17 stairs and access by


people with disability could only be gained via the rear of the building. This matter is listed for mediation in July 2011.

Judicial scrutinyA number of previously reported matters involving the judicial review of AEC decisions under the Electoral Act are continuing, primarily in relation to the recovery of costs awarded to the AEC at the conclusion of the substantive hearings. Examples of this include the matters involving Albert Langer aka Arthur Dent (relating to the refusal to accept his enrolment under a fictitious name), Lesley Noah (relating to the refusal to accept her nomination as it did not have 50 suitably qualified nominators), and the Fishing Party and Robert Smith (relating to the registration of the Fishing and Lifestyle Party). The recovery of the legal costs in each of these matters continues to be pursued in the relevant jurisdiction.

In the lead-up to the 21 August 2010 federal election, the AEC became involved in a number of new proceedings in both the Federal Court and the High Court.

Close of rolls

In the matter of Rowe v Electoral Commissioner [2010] HCA 46, the High Court dealt with a legal challenge by Shannen Rowe and Douglas Thompson seeking a declaration that certain provisions of the Electoral Act effecting cut-off dates for the consideration of applications for enrolment and transfers of enrolment as an elector were invalid. Although the Electoral Commissioner was named as the first defendant, the AEC took no part in making substantive submissions. This was left to the Commonwealth of Australia as instructed by the Attorney-General’s Department and the Department of Finance and Deregulation. The Western Australian Attorney-General also intervened.

One of the challenged provisions (subsection 102(4)) prevented the AEC from considering new claims for enrolment lodged after 8 pm on the date of issuing of the writs for an election, until after the close of polling. Another challenged provision (subsection 102(4AA)) prevented the AEC from considering claims for the transfer of enrolment from 8 pm on the date fixed in the writs for the close of rolls until after the close of polling. A third provision (s.155) was challenged as it provided that the date fixed in the writs for the close of rolls must be on the third working day after the date of issuing of the writs for an election.

All of the challenged provisions were inserted into the Electoral Act by the Electoral and Referendum Amendment (Electoral Integrity and Other Measures) Act 2006. This action followed several reports by the JSCEM (including the October 2002 report entitled The integrity of the electoral roll and the October 2004 report on the conduct of the 2004 election) which, despite finding no evidence of inaccuracies on the roll, concluded that the seven-day period of grace provided an opportunity to manipulate the roll at a time when the AEC was unable to check the integrity of all claims.

On 6 August 2010, the High Court ordered that the amendments made by the 2006 Act were invalid and that the previous seven-day close of rolls period was still in force.

To give effect to the High Court decision, some 100 000 individuals who missed the close of rolls deadlines became entitled to have their claims considered by the AEC because their claims had been received prior to 8 pm on 26 July 2010. The AEC concluded the processing of these claims on 13 August 1010 and sought the Governor-General’s agreement to issue a proclamation under s.285 of the Electoral Act so that the 100 000 electors could appear on supplementary certified lists and cast ordinary votes on the same basis as other electors.


Use of technology

In the matter of Getup Ltd v Electoral Commissioner [2010] FCA 869 (13 August 2010), the Federal Court examined the legal status of electronic signatures on enrolment forms that were received by the AEC. The court held that the particular technology and methodology used by Trevitt (a laptop with access to the Internet and a digital pen that was used on the laptop’s trackpad) met the requirements of the Electoral Act. As a result of the court decision, Trevitt was enrolled.

In the lead up to the hearing, the Electoral Commissioner wrote to Simon Sheikh of GetUp Ltd, offering to meet to discuss the technology and the balancing of the convenience of electors with the integrity of the voting system (for example, matching signatures on enrolment forms with signatures on declaration envelopes at preliminary scrutiny). The GetUp Ltd OzEnrol website went live and accessible to the public without any prior notice or discussions with the AEC. It was taken down on 17 July 2010, but apparently remained accessible for GetUp Ltd volunteers to use. The original methodology used a mouse track based signature (which did not result in a clear image), or the use of similar biomechanical motions to using a pen to reproduce a signature. However, these proceedings did not involve the use of that particular methodology. Since the Federal Court decision, the AEC has met with Simon Sheikh and other representatives of GetUp Ltd to discuss the implications of the Federal Court’s decision and the use of the methodologies that comply with both the requirements of the Electoral Act and the ratio decidendi of the Federal Court’s decision.

Postal vote applications

A number of sections in the Electoral Act authorise political parties and candidates to issue postal vote application forms (PVAs), to have them returned to their offices and then to forward them to the AEC for the issuing of

postal votes. During each election campaign, the AEC receives many complaints about the use of PVAs and the permissibility of returning PVAs to the AEC via a political party.

In the matter of Peebles v Honourable Tony Burke MP and Others [2010] FCA 838, Robyn Peebles (a Senate candidate in New South Wales for the Christian Democratic Party (Fred Nile Group)) argued that the sending out of this material by the Hon Tony Burke MP and the Australian Labor Party (New South Wales Branch) involved misleading and deceptive conduct, because the PVAs failed to clearly state the source of the PVA or that it would be returned to that source before being sent to the AEC.

In his reasons for his decision, the Hon Justice Michael Moore stated that there was considerable force in at least some of those contentions. However, the Federal Court dismissed the application, referring to the limited scope of section s.329 of the Electoral Act, which deals with publications that are likely to mislead or deceive an elector in relation to the casting of a vote, and held that the act of applying for a postal vote did not fall within the scope of that section.

Ms Peebles lodged an appeal against the Federal Court decision to the full bench of the Federal Court. This appeal was subsequently withdrawn and replaced with action in the Court of Disputed Returns following the 2010 federal election, as the orders sought in the appeal included discarding all votes that were received by the AEC as a result of PVAs issued by the Australian Labor Party in New South Wales. Costs were awarded in favour of the AEC in Peebles v Honourable Tony Burke (No. 2) [2010] FCA 861.

Use of terminology

Nicholas Faulkner has for many years raised concerns about the legal effect of the dissolving of the House of Representatives under s.28 of the Constitution and whether this results in it


being misleading and deceptive for a candidate who was formerly a member of the House of Representatives to be able to continue to describe themselves as an ‘MP’ (member of parliament).

In Faulkner v Elliot and Others [2010] FCA 884 (17 August 2010), Mr Faulkner (an independent candidate for the Division of Richmond) sought urgent orders from the court restraining Justine Elliot from describing herself as a ‘Federal Member’, ‘sitting Member’ or ‘Incumbent’. Faulkner argued that the use of those descriptions in publications was misleading and deceptive and in breach of s.329 of the Electoral Act.

The Federal Court dismissed the application, finding that the use of ‘MP’ by a candidate seeking re-election to the House of Representatives is appropriate. The court accepted the existence of a protocol that the continued use of ‘MP’ might avoid confusion and operate as a proper matter of courtesy in all the circumstances. The court held that a contravention of s.329(1) of the Electoral Act required conduct that was likely to mislead or deceive an elector in relation to the casting of a vote, as opposed to influencing the formation of a judgment by an elector about whom to vote for. The court concluded that the use of the term ‘MP’ was not in breach of s.329(1) and dismissed the application.

Petitions to the Court of Disputed Returns

The 40-day period for lodging petitions with the Court of Disputed Returns following the return of the last writ for the 21 August 2010 election ended at close of business on 27 October 2010. The High Court (which is the Court of Disputed Returns) advised that five petitions were filed within the 40 day period: one at the Hobart registry and four at the Sydney registry.

The petition lodged at the Hobart registry involved an allegation that Senator the Hon Eric Abetz had not renounced his German

citizenship and was disqualified from standing as a candidate for an election under s.44 of the Constitution. This petition was subsequently withdrawn in November 2010 without proceeding to a hearing.

The four petitions lodged at the Sydney registry were all lodged by the same firm of solicitors on behalf of the Christian Democratic Party (Fred Nile Group). Three of the petitioners (Graham Freemantle, Robyn Peebles and Andrew Green) were candidates for that party at the 2010 federal election, and the fourth petitioner (Greg Briscoe-Hough) was an elector who had previously stood for the Family First Party in New South Wales. The petitions sought to invalidate the elections for the divisions of Banks, Lindsay and Robertson in New South Wales and the Senate election in New South Wales.

All four petitions focused on issues that were previously raised and dismissed by the Federal Court in the case of Peebles v Honourable Tony Burke and Others [2010] FCA 838, in which arguments were run that the issuing and return of PVAs by political parties breached several provisions of the Electoral Act. The Federal Court held that the issuing and returning of PVAs by political parties were not in breach of s.329 of the Electoral Act (that is, were not misleading or deceptive in relation to an elector marking a ballot paper), and that the declaration used on the forms was consistent with the requirements of s.183 and s.184 of the Act. Those arguments were again being used as the basis for the four petitions.

Each petition argued a further ground: that the use of parliamentary allowances by members of parliament to print and distribute the PVAs was in breach of s.48 and s.49 of the Constitution. Other Commonwealth agencies (the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, the Department of Finance and Deregulation and the Attorney-General’s Department) were advised of these petitions so that they could determine whether the Commonwealth wished to intervene as a party. The AEC is legally separate from the Commonwealth in these


matters and has separately instructed the Australian Government Solicitor and counsel to appear in the four matters. The AEC is also bound by the principles in the matter of R v Australian Broadcasting Tribunal; Ex parte Hardiman (1980) 144 CLR 13, which restricts the ability of the AEC to present substantive arguments to the Court of Disputed Returns on non-jurisdictional matters.

Only the petitions lodged on behalf of Andrew Green and Graham Freemantle proceeded to hearing; the petitions lodged on behalf of Robyn Peebles and Greg Briscoe-Hough were withdrawn. The decisions on the petitions of Green and Freemantle can be found at Green v Bradbury [2011] FCA 71 and Freemantle v O’Neill [2011] FCA 72. Orders as to the payment of the legal costs in the petitions involving Green, Freemantle and Peebles were resolved in favour of the AEC in Green v Bradbury (No. 2) [2011] FCA 469.

Industrial elections

The AEC conducts elections in various industrial matters. The AEC is the ballot agent for protected action ballots conducted under the Fair Work Act 2009 and other industrial elections conducted under the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009.

Legal proceedings under that legislation are usually between two other parties (for example, between the union and the employer or between various candidates standing for election to offices in the registered organisations). The role of the AEC in these matters is normally to seek to be joined as a party to the proceedings so that it is able to assist the court in accordance with the principles established by the High Court in the case of R v Australian Broadcasting Tribunal; Ex parte Hardiman (1980) 144 CLR 13.

In 2010–10, the AEC was involved in several matters before the Federal Court involving the conduct of industrial elections:

½½ In the case of Purvinas, in the matter of an application for an inquiry in relation to an election for offices in the Australian Licenced Aircraft Engineers Association [2010] FCA 672, the Federal Court decided that the rules of the association did not require candidates standing for election to have current licences.

½½ In the case of Nimmo, in the matter of an application for an inquiry relating to an election for an office in the Australian Education Union (NT Branch) [2010] FCA 38, the Federal Court decided that the mere non-receipt of ballot papers did not constitute an irregularity – while certain members received ballot papers too late, and some were improperly removed from the voting roll, neither factor constituted an irregularity that, as a real possibility, would have affected the result of the election.

½½ In the case of Kelly, in the matter of an election for an office in the New South Wales Local Government, Clerical, Administrative, Energy, Airlines & Utilities Branch of the Australian Municipal, Administrative, Clerical and Services Union (No 3) [2011] FCA 564, the Federal Court held that Allan Veney was not eligible to stand as a candidate for election.

Performance auditsDuring 2010–11, the AEC was involved in the Australian National Audit Office’s audit of the administration of government advertising arrangements. The audit is to examine the effectiveness of the Department of Finance and Deregulation’s administration of the Australian Government campaign advertising framework and agencies’ compliance with the Guidelines on information and advertising campaigns and the processes associated with exempting campaigns. The audit is expected to be tabled in parliament during the Spring 2011 session.


Human resources

The AEC’s human resources management framework is designed to provide a workforce with the necessary skills, flexibility and diversity to meet the AEC’s current and future business needs, assisted by: ½½ learning and development opportunities½½ effective communication and sharing

of information½½ effective performance management½½ relevant health and safety practices.

Investing in Our People‘Investing in our people’ is one of the three enabling themes of the AEC’s five-year strategic plan. The theme has been translated into a program of goals and activities, in three phases. Phase Two was rolled out in 2010–11.

The program

The Investing in Our People (IIOP) program includes six priority areas identified through the Australian Public Service Commission’s State of the service employee survey results 2008–09 and refined through in-depth consultations with staff in 2009. The priority areas are:½½ leadership and communication½½ learning and development½½ performance management½½ fair and objective decision making½½ engagement/job satisfaction½½ innovation and change.

Progress in 2010–11

The AEC uses the results of the Australian Public Service Commission’s annual employee

survey to monitor the effectiveness of the IIOP program. Following some small gains in 2009, the results of the 2010 survey provided clear evidence that the program is making a positive difference. A clear vote of confidence in the program was illustrated by the 71 per cent of AEC survey respondents who said they were very confident that the organisation was addressing issues identified in last year’s survey. This is an outstanding result compared to the Australian Public Service (APS) average confidence level of 19 per cent.

The delivery of some components of Phase Two was delayed by the conduct of the 2010 federal election and the development of a new enterprise agreement for the AEC, both of which saw the redeployment of IIOP staff to other roles in the AEC. The components that were delayed will be incorporated into Phase Three of the program, which will begin in 2011–12.

The AEC continues to face challenges in addressing capability gaps for supervisors, in areas such as managing performance effectively, cultivating productive working relationships and recognising staff members’ work contributions and achievements. In 2010, a course in people management was delivered at locations across all states and territories, and a new recognition and rewards program was introduced. These activities will be complemented by a management performance course, piloted in mid-2011, which will become compulsory for all AEC supervisors from 2011–12.

The IIOP’s other achievements in 2010–11 comprised:½½ delivering Integrity Matters, an online course

for all staff that covers topics such as fraud, the APS Values and Code of Conduct, and the AEC values,


½½ delivering mandatory selection panel training for panel chairs, members and delegates,

½½ launching the Commissioner’s Development Fund, which provides funding for a range of development opportunities to increase leadership capabilities by fostering the personal development and retention of talented employees,

½½ implementing policies, guidelines and training to support recruitment practices in the AEC, including a booklet designed to take participants through APS selection processes and develop skills that improve selection opportunities,

½½ revising financial delegations to increase the authority of a wide range of managers, including divisional office managers, and

½½ further developing job profiles relevant to the state and divisional office network.

Staff developmentLearning and development, particularly for polling officials and divisional office staff, received particular attention in the AEC in 2010–11.

Training for polling staff

The AEC faces two major challenges in preparing polling officials to work on a federal election: they are a culturally, generationally and geographically diverse group, and their training must be undertaken within limited timeframes.

Feedback after the 2007 federal election indicated that a more flexible approach to training polling staff for federal election events was needed, and that other electoral management bodies in Australia have improved the accessibility and delivery of election training. Informed by these lessons, and in consultation with instructional design experts, the AEC developed a blended learning solution to provide a more flexible learning program for polling staff in 2010.

The training program for polling staff was rolled out to the divisional office network in early July 2010. Following the announcement of the 2010 federal election 10 days later, a decision was taken to continue with the training program, given the level of investment made by the AEC and the feedback from the previous election.

During the election period and at post-election conferences, the AEC received substantial feedback on the challenges that confronted divisional staff and polling officials using the new training program. The feedback indicated that, although the development of online training was a great leap forward, some aspects required further review and consideration.

Following a post-implementation review, a working party comprising divisional, state and national office staff recommended a series of improvements to the program. A revised polling official training program was developed for divisional staff in 2011, with a focus on being ready should an early election be called. The online content was reduced to critical procedures. The working party is continuing to develop a full program for release in 2011–12.

New learning and development programs

Three new learning and development programs began during 2010–11:½½ Election Awareness – a suite of online, self-

paced courses for all staff, covering industrial elections, fee-for-service elections, and protected action ballots,

½½ Ethical Decision Making – a facilitator-led program that provides a framework for decision making and an introduction to ethics, covering the APS Code of Conduct, the impact and limitations of decisions, the APS REFLECT model, and resources such as the Ethics Advisory Service, and

½½ Selection Panel – an online, mandatory training program for selection panel chairs, members and delegates.


Workforce planningIn April 2010, all branches within the National Office and state offices were issued with data and supporting documentation to assist in the development of their workforce plans, which enables workforce planning, business planning and budgeting to be considered collectively as part of the planning cycle. This assists managers to integrate workforce planning strategies into their business plan activities and to inform the People Services Branch of workforce capability gaps which need to be addressed across the AEC.

During 2010–11, the AEC developed a draft approach for the development of a plan to incorporate both strategies and operational elements for people and workforce management. The People Plan will provide a vision to align people management practices and set directions for management activities in the short term and the medium term. It will articulate a vision not only for the AEC’s current staff but also for future staff.

RecruitmentThe AEC employs staff under the Public Service Act 1999 and the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918. Recruitment strategies and practices are tailored to meet the requirements of each employment framework and the needs of the business areas.

Framework

During 2010–11, the recruitment team continued to focus on initiatives to improve the quality of recruitment outcomes. From October to December 2010, the AEC released a revised policy, specific supporting documentation (including guidelines and step-by-step procedures) and an online training program. Following the release of the documents, a significant reduction in the period from advertising a vacancy to identifying the successful candidate was achieved.

Since the release of online selection panel training in 2010, 46 staff have undertaken online training for the role of chairperson and 112 for the role of panel member.

Figure 15 Vacancies advertised in 2009–10 and 2010–11

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

2010–112009–10

June

May

April

Mar

ch

Febr

uary

Janu

ary

Decem

ber

Novem

ber

Octob

er

Sept

embe

r

Augu

stJuly

9

56

1

1517

2

55

15

19

25

8

20

23

18

78

14

5

14

9 9

27


Advertising

The AEC complies with guidelines issued by the Department of Finance and Deregulation regarding the use of composite advertisements for recruitment. In addition, the AEC has moved towards greater use of online advertising media to ensure that recruitment advertising reaches prospective candidates to whom newspaper-based advertising would not appeal.

In 2010–11, 135 vacancies in national, state and divisional offices were advertised, as shown in Figure 15. This was a decrease of 10.6 per cent compared to 151 vacancies in 2009–10.

Systems

During 2009–10, the AEC developed AEC Employment, a new online recruitment system for temporary staff. The system was commissioned in July 2010 and used to recruit and manage temporary staff for the 2010 federal election. The system allows applicants to express interest in election work, complete their details online and accept offers of employment from the AEC. The system allows the AEC to communicate with applicants by email and SMS, and to organise replacements for staff if they become unavailable up to or on polling day.

A post-implementation review, considering feedback from the AEC’s post-election evaluation conferences, commenced in September 2010. A working party was formed to address concerns raised by divisional staff about the timing and usability of the systems release. A revised system, launched in April 2011, addressed the highest priority issues raised. A third release is planned for July 2011 to address a remaining recommendation from the review. This will ensure that the system is election-ready and can be used by state and divisional office staff to prepare for the next election.

Targeted recruitment

The uncertainty of the timing of elections makes early recruitment of temporary staff difficult. The AEC refreshed its register of expressions of interest in 2009–10 and used that information as the basis for planning and preliminary allocations of staff for the 2010 federal election.

To prepare for and conduct the 2010 federal election, the AEC employed 66 874 temporary staff (65 962 in 2007). The announcement of the federal election on 17 July provided 35 days for the AEC to finalise recruitment and train staff for polling day on 21 August.

Completing recruitment and training on such a scale and in such a small timeframe presents some challenges. The changes that the AEC made to its processes and systems for the 2010 election were designed to address those challenges. Having the new system operating and accessible from the AEC’s website stimulated significant interest in election employment and provided a large pool of new expressions of interest.

The AEC aims to fill the positions of officer-in-charge of polling place first, as they are the key to successful polling. In 2010, 98.65 per cent of these positions were finalised before polling day. Analysis shows that it was easier for the AEC to fill the roles for medium to larger polling places than for smaller polling places.

For the 2010 federal election, using the new system, 25.91 per cent of offers were accepted on the day they were sent, and 65.55 per cent were accepted within five days of being sent. This compares very favourably to the 2007 federal election, which relied on post, in which 3.66 per cent of offers were accepted on the day they were sent and 25.82 per cent were accepted within five days.

Past election experience is very valuable, given the length of time between electoral events. For the 2010 election, 51.48 per cent of polling staff indicated that they had previous election


experience, and 45.7 per cent said that they had been employed during the 2007 election.

The AEC also seeks a range of staff with languages other than English. Among 2010 election staff, 9.55 per cent spoke a second language and a further 1.72 per cent spoke a third language.

Graduate Recruitment Program

Graduate recruitment is an integral component of succession planning in the AEC, which aims to achieve advances in organisational capability and capacity for innovation in delivering a world-class electoral service.

The key elements of the graduate program include undertaking a major project with links to core business and completing the Diploma of Government. Nine of the AEC’s 10 recruits from the 2010 intake successfully completed the program, attaining the Diploma in Government. All 10 remain with the AEC.

The 2010 graduates were able to experience the full range of AEC electoral activities during the 2010 federal election. They undertook

short-term placements in various divisional and state offices; polling places in urban, rural and remote locations, including among Indigenous communities in the Northern Territory; the National Tally Room; and the Election Visitor Program. This broad experience further cemented the graduates’ place within the AEC.

Each year, the projects undertaken by graduates are assessed by the Australian Public Service Commission, and the best are identified for special mention. A team of AEC graduates was in the top five teams across the APS for the 2010 calendar year. Another measure of success was the involvement, in both 2010 and 2011, of AEC graduates in the Great APS Graduate Debate.

In 2011, the AEC recruited 13 graduates from a field of more than 130 applicants. Of the 13, four are IT specialists and one is an Indigenous graduate.

RetentionThe AEC’s employee retention rate for ongoing staff in 2010–11 was 89.2 per cent, a decrease from 90.8 per cent in 2009–10.

2011 Graduates Back row (L to R): Bo Pang, Evan Ekin-Smyth, Nic Tofoni, Steven Thompson, Jess Carney, Megan Leahy, Beth Parkin, Kimberley Hare Front row (L to R): Malama Gray, Sukanthan Aravindan, Adam Fitzgibbons, Karla Bransky Absent: Amy Brougham


Employment agreementsThe majority of AEC employees are covered by the AEC Enterprise Agreement 2010–11. As at 30 June 2011, the bargaining phase of a new three-year agreement (2011–14) was complete, and the agreement was progressing through final drafting stages.

The salary ranges for each classification under the AEC Enterprise Agreement 2010–11 are shown in Table 36.

Collective determination

From time to time, the AEC uses its employment powers under s.35 of the Electoral Act to recruit temporary staff. In 2010–11, this option was primarily exercised in relation to the 2010 federal election. Terms and conditions for this type of employment are covered by collective determination set by the Electoral Commissioner under s.35 of the Electoral Act.

During 2010–11, the AEC considered the use of s.35 employment and decided that some irregular and intermittent work should be offered under the Public Service Act 1999 and covered by the AEC enterprise agreement in future. A project commenced in May 2011 to manage the transition of employees to the new arrangements and ensure that their issues are included in the negotiation of the new enterprise agreement.

Australian Workplace Agreements

The classifications and numbers of AEC staff who continue to be covered by Australian Workplace Agreements are shown in Table 37.

Section 24(1) determinations

In 2010–11, the terms and conditions of employment of eight Senior Executive Service (SES) employees were set by individual

Table 37 Employees covered by Australian Workplace Agreements, 30 June 2011

Classification Staff covered

Senior Executive Service 2

Executive levels 1–2 0

Australian Public Service levels 1–6 0

Total 2

Table 36 AEC Enterprise Agreement 2010–11 salary ranges, by classification, 30 June 2011

Classification Remuneration band ($)

Executive Level 2 99 654–116 154

Executive Level 1 86 443–97 412

APS Level 6 69 219–77 580

APS Level 5 62 530–68 528

APS Level 4 56 064–61 437

APS Level 3 50 302–55 125

APS Level 2 44 161–48 974

APS Level 1 39 022–43 128

APS = Australian Public Service.


determinations under s.24(1) of the Public Service Act.

Individual flexibility arrangements

The AEC Enterprise Agreement 2010–11 provided scope for the Electoral Commissioner to agree to an ‘individual flexibility arrangement’ with an employee, in relation to one or more of the following matters:½½ arrangements about when work is performed½½ overtime rates½½ penalty rates½½ allowances½½ leave loading.

The arrangements provide flexibility to meet the genuine needs of the AEC and individual employees. During 2010–11, two employees entered into individual flexibility arrangements allowing for the payment of allowances specific to their roles and/or locations.

Performance payAll salary progression in the AEC is subject to meeting required performance standards.

Prior to 2009–10, the Electoral Commissioner determined performance pay for those statutory appointees designated as Principal Executive Officer holders under the Remuneration Tribunal Act 1973, in accordance with parameters set by the Remuneration Tribunal. However, consistent with government policy and trends in other agencies, during 2009–10 the Electoral Commissioner consulted with the Remuneration Tribunal and determined new remuneration packages that excluded any provision for performance bonuses for this category of employee. From 2 March 2010, Principal Executive Officers remuneration was increased as a result of rolling in performance bonuses.

The Electoral Commissioner also determined performance pay for executive level and SES staff employed under the Electoral Act or

Public Service Act 1999, in accordance with the AEC’s senior executive performance appraisal guidelines and remuneration policy. Effective from 1 July 2010, performance bonuses for these employees were rolled into total remuneration packages.

A total of nine statutory appointees and eight senior executives were paid performance pay during 2010–11, for performance in the 2009–10 financial year prior to bonuses being rolled into total remuneration packages. The aggregated amount paid for the year was $251 833. The performance pay average was 10.6 per cent of the employee’s total remuneration, with the minimum payment being $2 587 and the maximum being $29 049. Due to the small number of executives in each classification band, the AEC has not disaggregated the payment of performance bonus information. Executive salary rates are shown in Table 34.

The AEC did not offer performance bonuses to any other employees during 2010–11.

Performance managementThe AEC’s new Performance Management Program was introduced for the 2010–11 performance cycle. The simplified program focuses on the provision of ongoing feedback and the development of positive and productive working relationships to enhance performance, and is complemented by the new Recognition and Rewards program.

The Performance Management Program is also supported by:½½ the implementation of a new electronic

performance system, through which employees develop individual performance and development plans and complete performance reviews. The performance system links to the AEC’s learning management system, which enables enrolment in internal courses, assessment of learning, and evaluation of those courses.


½½ the development of a series of job profiles for operational staff, which provide a comprehensive ‘this is your job’ overview. The job profiles identify responsibilities, key activities and tasks, performance standards, and technical and generic capabilities for each role.

To assist AEC managers to develop required capabilities in managing performance, a performance management course for supervisors was developed and piloted in 2010–11 and will be rolled out across the AEC in 2011–12.

Staff consultationThe AEC has state/territory and national consultative forums as formal mechanisms for consulting employees about workplace issues that affect them. Elections are held to select employee representatives, who may self-nominate to participate. The employee representatives on the national consultative forum are elected by staff.

Occupational health and safetyThe AEC is committed to providing and maintaining a safe and healthy workplace in order to meet its responsibilities under the Occupational Health and Safety Act 1991. The health and safety management arrangements for the agency have been reviewed and where possible updated to reflect the introduction of the new national legal framework for work health and safety that is expected to take effect on 1 January 2012. The new arrangements include:½½ revised terms of office for health and safety

representatives,½½ a risk management model for the AEC, and½½ the health and safety committee structure.

As in previous federal election years, the AEC focused on health and safety in preparing for

and delivering the federal election in 2010. A range of communication strategies were implemented to ensure that key messages reminding staff to look after themselves and others were delivered. The messages included information relating to:½½ manual handling½½ slips, trips and falls½½ reducing fatigue½½ meal breaks½½ incident reporting½½ the use of the Employee Assistance Program.

More information on the AEC’s occupational health and safety (OHS) policies, claims management, initiatives and outcomes is provided in Appendix C.

Workplace diversityThe AEC’s commitment to workplace diversity is outlined in the AEC Service Charter, the AEC Enterprise Agreement 2010–11, the Workplace Diversity Program 2007–10, the Disability Action Plan 2008–11, recruitment and selection guidelines, and the induction program.

The main objective of the Workplace Diversity Plan 2007–10 was to establish how the AEC would give effect to the principles outlined in its workplace diversity policy and provide for a harmonious, safe and productive environment. The Workplace Diversity Program will be reviewed and updated in 2011–12, in line with recommendations from the AEC Disability Advisory Committee.

The AEC’s network of workplace harassment officers, OHS officers and health and safety representatives has been alerted to disability issues and is responsive to the principles identified in the Disability Action Plan 2008–11. The Disability Action Plan will be assessed and reviewed during 2012.

The AEC provides flexible working conditions for its employees and promotes retention


processes that address issues of diversity and reward candidates on the basis of merit. Individuals from under-represented groups (for example, people with disabilities, Indigenous Australians and people from culturally diverse backgrounds) have been encouraged to build careers in the AEC, consistent with social inclusion principles. This practice is supported by mandatory selection panel training that focuses on eliminating discrimination in employment and offering reasonable adjustment for people with a disability.

The AEC is committed to increasing Indigenous employment and thereby reducing disadvantage among Indigenous Australians, as part of the Australian Government’s wider policy objective of bridging the gap between the Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations. The AEC has undertaken significant work to define the scope

of and to draft a reconciliation action plan. The AEC’s Indigenous Electoral Participation Program has allowed the AEC access to a larger group of Indigenous employees, whose input during the development of the plan has been both sought and appreciated. It is expected that the reconciliation action plan will be published in 2011–12.

Table 38 shows the representation of particular groups as proportions of total staff numbers and classifications at 30 June 2010. Figure 16 and Figure 17 show trends in the representation of the same groups over the past five years.

Table 38 Workplace diversity profile, 30 June 2011

Total staffa Female CLDB ATSI PWD

Senior Executive Service staff and Australian electoral officers

20 9 2 0 1

Executive Level 2 41 18 1 0 0

Executive Level 1 108 55 11 2 1

APS Level 6 238 127 13 5 5

APS Level 5 71 34 4 12 1

APS Level 4 71 46 5 0 0

APS Level 3 180 143 9 2 2

APS Level 2 184 171 11 1 1

APS Level 1 3 0 0 0 0

Total 916 603 56 22 11

Proportion of total (%) 100.0 65.8 6.1 2.4 1.2

APS = Australian Public Service, ATSI = people from Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander backgrounds; CLDB = self-identified people from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds; PWD = people with disabilities.

a Includes all staff (operative, inoperative, ongoing and non-ongoing) employed under the Public Service Act 1999, senior executive staff engaged under s.35(1)(b) of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 and the Public Service Act 1999, and Australian Electoral Officers in the AEC on 30 June 2011, based on the information supplied by the employees on commencement. Numbers in the CLDB, ATSI and PWD categories are minimums, as not all staff that could belong to one of those groups identify themselves in that way.

Note: A staff member could be classified under more than one heading.

Source: PayGlobal HR System.


Figure 17 Male and female employees as proportions of total staff, 2006–07 to 2010–11

0

20

40

60

80

100

Female Male

Per

cent

age

of t

otal

sta

ff %

2010–112009–102008–092007–082006–07

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

PWDCLDBATSI

2010–112009–102008–092007–082006–07

Per

cent

age

of t

otal

sta

ff %

Figure 16 Trends in diversity target groups as proportions of total staff, 2006–07 to 2010–11

ATSI = people from Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander backgrounds; CLDB = self-identified people from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds; PWD = people with disabilities.

Note: A staff member could be classified under more than one heading.


Case study: ACTSmart Business accreditation at the National Electoral Education Centre

The AEC’s National Electoral Education Centre (NEEC) recently joined an elite group of businesses in the Australian Capital Territory which have achieved ACTSmart Business accreditation for their recycling programs.

ACTSmart Business is an Australian Capital Territory Government program to assist private and public sector businesses to reduce the amount of waste they send to landfill. As well as benefits for the wider community, more effective recycling and waste management delivers benefits to the business, such as reduced costs for waste disposal; reduced harmful impacts on the environment; improved staff morale; and favourable client perceptions.

The program includes a step-by-step guide, templates, assistance with training, promotional materials and other resources. The NEEC decided to take part when it identified a need to expand its existing paper-recycling practices to cover other materials – for example, the many plastic bottles that students bring to education sessions.

With support from the Australian Capital Territory Department of the Environment, Climate Change, Energy and Water, the NEEC organised recycling collections, put collection points throughout the centre, and monitored its waste to see how much was going to landfill, and how much of an improvement in recycling was being achieved. One staff member received training through the program, and developed customised training for the whole NEEC team.

The NEEC staff team found that:½½ implementing the program was easy, and achieved with minimal effort and cost½½ educating NEEC visitors about the principles and practices of recycling is both challenging

and rewarding½½ participating in the program has clarified their understanding of how materials should be

handled, and helped them to improve their recycling at home.

The NEEC’s goal of reducing waste sent to landfill was achieved very successfully. A comparison of waste audits conducted before and after implementation of the program showed that the amount of waste sent to landfill by the NEEC had been reduced by more than 80 per cent, lowering the average from 17.47 cubic metres to 2.91 cubic metres per year.

Following a formal inspection, the NEEC was formally accredited under the program in February 2011, becoming one of the first 16 businesses to achieve ACTSmart Business accreditation. The NEEC is committed to maintaining the standards required to achieve reaccreditation every year.


Assets management

Physical assetsThe AEC has three major asset groups: IT software and hardware; office fit-outs; and office machines and equipment.

The IT Branch manages all IT assets, including the agency’s servers, desktop computers, printers, scanners and operational software.

The AEC National Property Team manages all accommodation and fit-outs, on a rolling ‘end of life’ or ‘end of lease’ schedule. A commercial property manager is engaged to assist with commercial property management.

The Workforce Services and Systems Section manages the AEC’s office equipment and machines. It uses an ‘end of life’ schedule and asset database to manage the replacement of those assets. Annual service and maintenance agreements are used to ensure that all assets are fully functional and operating optimally.

The major asset purchase in 2010–11 was the purchase of cardboard equipment for polling places, in preparation for the next federal election.

Information assetsThe AEC’s major computer applications are the general enrolment, elections support and information system (GENESIS), the roll management system (RMANS), and the election management system (ELMS). These backbone processing systems:½½ support initiatives to grow the electoral roll,½½ underpin the conduct of federal election

events, and

½½ ensure that the AEC continues to meet the core objectives of maintaining an effective roll and supporting an impartial and independent electoral system.

In addition, the AEC’s sophisticated Virtual Tally Room, including a media feed application, publishes election results to keep the public informed in real time during electoral events.

Two important additions were made to the AEC’s suite of computer applications during 2010–11:½½ eReturns, which allows political parties,

associated entities, donors, third parties, candidates and Senate groups to prepare and lodge their financial disclosure returns online, and

½½ AEC Employment, an online facility to support the recruitment and management of temporary staff for federal elections.

A range of smaller information processing and dissemination applications – such as the AEC website, the elector information access system, the election call centre application and the online enrolment verification facility – play an important role in ensuring that the AEC’s diverse stakeholders remain well informed about the information and services provided by the AEC.


Purchasing

TendersThe AEC published seven open tender requests in 2010–11. In all cases, tender documentation was made available electronically through the AusTender system. Tender responses were also received electronically through AusTender.

Policy and planningThe AEC’s procurement procedures were reviewed and enhanced during 2010–11, to:½½ respond to changes to the Commonwealth

procurement guidelines,½½ address past audit recommendations, and½½ reflect recommendations from the Australian

National Audit Office’s 2010 performance audit of direct source procurement.

In particular, the AEC simplified its procurement procedures and complemented them with a comprehensive suite of tender templates, procurement planning documents and checklists to enable staff to conduct procurement processes effectively and efficiently.

Advice and trainingThe National Procurement and Contracts Unit continued to provide specialist advice to assist AEC staff to conduct procurement in accordance with the Commonwealth procurement guidelines.

The unit conducted training sessions to instruct staff on ways to meet their obligations under the procurement policy framework, and be in the best position to determine value for money

when conducting AEC procurement. The unit is developing a suite of e-learning modules that will have benefits over traditional classroom training, such as more flexible learning options and reduced costs.

Environmental guidelinesIn accordance with the Australian Government Environmental purchasing guide and checklists, the AEC takes into account relevant energy and environmental issues when making procurement decisions.

During 2010–11, the AEC made one approach to the open market seeking services covered by the Environmental purchasing guide and checklists. The procurement was for printing and mailing house services to facilitate postal voting.


Grant programs

The AEC did not administer any discretionary grant programs in 2010–11.

Purchaser–provider arrangementsThe AEC had no purchaser–provider arrangements in 2010–11.

Consultants and contracts

ConsultanciesAnnual reports contain information about actual expenditure on contracts for consultancies. Information on the value of contracts and consultancies is available on the AusTender website (www.tenders.gov.au).

During 2010–11, seven new consultancy contracts were entered into involving total actual expenditure of $238 380.

A total of eight new consultancies with a value of $10 000 or more were let during 2010–11. There were no ongoing consultancy contracts and no related ongoing expenditure for 2010–11.

Appendix H contains detailed information on consultancy contracts let to the value of $10 000 or more during the year. It also contains a summary of the AEC’s policy on the procurement of consultancies.

Australian National Audit Office access clausesDuring 2010–11, the AEC did not let any contract in excess of $100 000 (GST inclusive) that did not provide for the Auditor-General having access to the contractor’s premises.

Exempt contractsDuring 2010–11, no contract or standing offer in excess of $10 000 (GST inclusive) was exempted from publication on AusTender on the basis that it would disclose exempt matters under the Freedom of Information Act 1982.

management and accountability€¦ · management framework, policy and risk assessment and...

Documents