Applicant who is seeking information about Senate vote-counting software says he is 'utterly stunned' by the move

This article is more than 6 years old

This article is more than 6 years old

The Australian Electoral Commission has radically escalated a battle for documents about Australia’s Senate voting system by threatening to have a freedom of information applicant who lodged just two requests for information declared a “vexatious applicant”.



In an extraordinary move the AEC’s chief legal officer, Paul Pirani, has said he will try to have Michael Cordover declared vexatious, saying Cordover “intended to harass” the commission with his requests for information.

Pirani also says he will refer to the information commissioner a third request from one of the founders of the Right to Know website, Matthew Landauer, arguing that the two “colluded” to harass the AEC.

Australia’s Senate voting system, which has come under heavy scrutiny owing to the results it produces arising from complex micro-party preferences, is shrouded in secrecy because the program that calculates them has not been made public.

When Cordover requested access to the software, the AEC refused access on the grounds it would reveal “trade secrets”. He then requested additional information related to his request but received a response from Pirani saying the AEC was applying to the information commissioner to bar him from making information requests.

“I will ask the Australian information commissioner to make a declaration ... [under the FOI Act] declaring you to be a vexatious applicant,” the letter said.

Cordover said he was “utterly stunned” by the move. “I’m really hopeful that the application won’t be successful. I think the information commissioner's office when I’ve dealt with them have been very useful and helpful.

“It’s not like I’ve engaged in huge amounts of correspondence with the AEC. I spoke to the responsible officer once on the telephone, and other than that all the correspondence appears on the website.”

Cordover crowdsourced funding to appeal against the rejection of his first request at the administrative appeals tribunal and will now have to stave off the AEC’s application to the information commissioner.

If the information commissioner declares someone a vexatious applicant, the government agency can ignore that person’s requests. But a high level of bad behaviour must be demonstrated, usually involving threats, abusive behaviour or huge numbers of information requests.

In 2011, while at the Institute of Public Affairs, Tim Wilson – later an Abbott government appointee as human rights commissioner – made 750 FOI requests to the department of climate change. The department warned the thinktank it could be declared vexatious and was roundly condemned for its heavy-handed approach.

Both Landauer and Cordover deny in any way colluding in lodging their requests, which can be seen on the Right to Know website.

“What just astounds me about what’s happened today is that not only are they accusing Michael and I of colluding, whatever that means, but they’re accusing us of harassing the AEC,” Landauer said. “But I don’t understand how me asking for a document in a different format could be considered harassment.

“I’m following Michael’s FOI requests with massive interest because I think it is vital about the voting system. We cannot have a transparent voting system if the public does not see the software used in counting Senate votes.”

Guardian Australia asked the AEC what evidence it had to support the claim that the two had colluded to harass it. It has not responded to the question, but said: “The AEC has followed due process throughout in dealing with Mr Cordover’s FOI request.”

When contacted directly by Guardian Australia, Pirani said: “Sorry I’m not going to comment, goodbye.”

The Greens senator Lee Rhiannon said the AEC had taken “the wrong turn” in responding to the request, saying it was difficult to see any justification for the move.

“That’s a really hardline position … It’s potentially an abuse of the law and it really raises the question about what they are attempting to hide,” she said.

“I can’t see any evidence of harassment. The AEC has made an allegation, I can’t see how they would substantiate that.

"People have a right to ask questions. Why can’t the public know how the Senate vote is counted?”

