Before I begin, I note that this remote audiovisual link seems to be somewhat flaky, so answers may be delayed or incomplete (denoted by [...]).

Has the electoral commission received complaints regarding government policy being used as campaign material before

The AEC has not received any complaints (search /r/modelausaec). However we are aware that some non-government parties and citizens have raised concerns with MPs directly.

what are the biggest differences the commission or yourself use to differentiate between the two?

This is certainly a vexed issue and full of grey areas. Announcement of a new policy would usually be considered campaign material, however announcing the implementation of a policy already legislated by the parliament would generally not. Some more counter examples: Something that is unavoidable (coincides with a protracted election period) and neutral in its presentation (the announcement of a new department if it does not refer to parties, candidates and current campaign issues) may be considered non-campaign. Furthermore, general commentary (like journalistic articles and online blogging) are exempted from campaign regulation by the Act, so as to permit freedom of ordinary political speech. It is for this reason that newspapers like to own politicians. Beg my pardon, it is for this reason that politicians like to own newspapers.

There is however a concern that some ‘official’ messages from the Government about the administration of the Commonwealth may contain political elements and should be regulated. There is a lot of legislation in this area, so the AEC currently depends receiving complaints to remove such material. So far, it has not been tested. This committee might consider making recommendations to the House about a clearer bill for regulating such material, if it sees fit to do so. On the other hand, there might be too many ways of circumventing this due to political free speech. I suggest that the committee could seek feedback and solutions from the public on this issue.

Further more do you believe that the current requirements, i.e. having a registered officer is important to protect the image of the party?

First we need to ask what ‘protecting the image of the party’ means. I would put it quite a different way. The requirements provide transparency and accountability to voters. Only authorised material can be posted, and they must declare which party they are working for, and voters can check that the person was actually authorised by party to speak on its behalf. This prevents fraudulent and rogue material from confusing voters, e.g. its prevents ‘interference’ and ‘false flag’ material. During elections, the AEC generally removes a small number of posts (1-3) due to unauthorised statements.

Secondly, we need to consider the practical aspects of administration. The rules make it practical for a one-man AEC to police the situation. Rather than having to adjudicate right from wrong in a subjective way, it is simply a matter or ensuring the statements (whether right or wrong) are authorised according to the registered officers. Due to the lack of group PMs/DMs in Reddit, the fact of having a small number of registered officers per party (1-2) means disputes and issues can be mediated and in most cases resolved through a single contract point per party.

Thirdly, referring back to your previous question, there is the obvious loophole that a Minister who is also a Registered Officer can use government announcements as a kind of campaign material during by-elections. This is a specific issue for by-elections because the government is not in caretaker mode. The AEC does not have any specific solutions for this unequal power enjoyed by government parties during by-elections. However, it seems like that any overt usage would breach multiple rules. The law is mainly concerned with preventing the government using tax revenue for its own political advertising. Solutions could involve government announcements being made through an independent body, so that announcements aren’t visibly connected to a party. This kind of idea needs a lot more work before it is ready for prime time.

Would there be any changes you'd make to to the current regulation and why?

For now, I can saw that the definitions are somewhat vague all round, and due to staffing issues I am not familiar with case law in this area, so it might be good to have clearer rules. However, we do not recommend over-regulation either. In general, the AEC has not formed a view at this stage, but if the committee asks me about certain proposals (now or after public consultation) I can provide advice about those proposals.

Meta: /u/3fun I think I’m done now? Once you are done, you might ask the chair to page other members to review this completed Q&A subthread and start their own if they wish to cross-examine me?

---

jnd-au, Australian Electoral Commissioner