Godfather of soul dies A Tribute to James Brown age 73

James Brown the God Father of soul died at the age of 73. James Brown and his band toured Australia regularly and first performed to a sellout audience in Melbourne at the Metro Night Club in Bourke Street (1988).

His Melbourne support band “Relax with Max” performed covers of songs written by James Brown. “Relax with Max” lead singer Max Vella’s on stage presence was influenced by Elvis and James Brown in style and energy.

James Brown inspired a generation with his enthusiasm and rhythm and unique sound, surrounded by controversy, his memory will live on on his songs and his music.

Godfather of soul dies A Tribute to James Brown age 73

James Brown the God Father of soul died at the age of 73. James Brown and his band toured Australia regularly and first performed to a sellout audience in Melbourne at the Metro Night Club in Bourke Street (1988).

His Melbourne support band “Relax with Max” performed covers of songs written by James Brown. “Relax with Max” lead singer Max Vella’s on stage presence was influenced by Elvis and James Brown in style and energy.

James Brown inspired a generation with his enthusiasm and rhythm and unique sound, surrounded by controversy, his memory will live on on his songs and his music.

Godfather of soul dies A Tribute to James Brown age 73

James Brown the God Father of soul died at the age of 73. James Brown and his band toured Australia regularly and first performed to a sellout audience in Melbourne at the Metro Night Club in Bourke Street (1988).

His Melbourne support band “Relax with Max” performed covers of songs written by James Brown. “Relax with Max” lead singer Max Vella’s on stage presence was influenced by Elvis and James Brown in style and energy.

James Brown inspired a generation with his enthusiasm and rhythm and unique sound, surrounded by controversy, his memory will live on on his songs and his music.

Tully’s Tally doesn’t Tally VEC’s creative accounting under review

The conduct of the Victorian State Election and its management by the VEC is under review, amidst concern that the VEC tried cutting corners and in the process screwed up big time bringing the State Election and the VEC into disrepute.

Victoria’s Chief Commissioner, Steven Tully, is ultimately responsible for the stuff-up and many questions are being asked as to how this monumental stuff-up could occur.

Public Information and results doesn’t tally

To help you gain some perspective into the extent of the stuff up take a look at the following summary statistics:


Summary of upper house statistics latest Data

(published December 14, 2006 06:19)
Region Formal Informal Total Updated Difference
Eastern Metropolitan 375947 12179 388126 12-12-2006 17:32 0
Eastern Victoria 379201 12625 391826 12-12-2006 18:55 0
Northern Metropolitan 360149 21730 381879 14-12-2006 06:19 -6454
Northern Victoria 365391 15426 380817 12-12-2006 19:03 0
South Eastern Metropolitan 365547 20200 385747 12-12-2006 18:23 0
Southern Metropolitan 361805 11420 373225 12-12-2006 19:45 0
Western Metropolitan 374411 25075 399486 14-12-2006 03:57 -478
Western Victoria 394478 14588 409066 14-12-2006 05:03 268
Summary of upper house provisional count statistics
(published December 12, 2006 19:45)
Region Formal Informal Total
Eastern Metropolitan 375947 12179 388126 12-12-2006 17:32
Eastern Victoria 379201 12625 391826 12-12-2006 18:55
Northern Metropolitan 366605 21728 388333 12-12-2006 18:22
Northern Victoria 365391 15426 380817 12-12-2006 19:03
South Eastern Metropolitan 365547 20200 385747 12-12-2006 18:23
Southern Metropolitan 361805 11420 373225 12-12-2006 19:45
Western Metropolitan 374982 24981 399964 12-12-2006 18:03
Western Victoria 394556 14242 408798 12-12-2006 17:31
Summary of upper house count statistics
(published December 12, 2006 16:49)
Region Formal Informal Total
Eastern Metropolitan 375390 12679 388069 -57
Eastern Victoria 378374 13030 391404 -422
Northern Metropolitan 358877 22496 381373 -6960
Northern Victoria 363962 16654 380616 -201
South Eastern Metropolitan 363814 21640 385454 -293
Southern Metropolitan 360202 13464 373666 441
Western Metropolitan 373842 25773 399615 -349
Western Victoria 392893 15590 408483 -315
Summary of lower house statistics
(published December 12, 2006 16:49)
Region Formal Informal Total
Eastern Metropolitan 372625 15588 388213 87
Eastern Victoria 375024 16382 391406 -420
Northern Metropolitan 362715 20475 383190 -5143
Northern Victoria 365794 15520 381314 497
South Eastern Metropolitan 366008 19631 385639 -108
Southern Metropolitan 361292 12378 373670 445
Western Metropolitan 372518 25361 397879 -2085
Western Victoria 391684 16550 408234 -564

At issue here is the number of total votes. Votes have gone missing and have not been accounted for. Normally all the number of ballot all papers are accounted. Each polling place returning officer is required to prepare a tally sheet that outlines exactly how many ballot papers have been issued.

The latest published summary information above shows to what extent the VEC stuffed up – Big time

A voter is supposed to be given two ballot papers, one for the lower-house and one for the upper-house. The number of lower-house ballots should match the number of upper-house ballots. The returning officer then includes this information in their return statements along with the number of ballot papers received and the number of unused ballot papers.

The electoral commission should have tallied up this information and ideally should know in advance prior to the final count how many ballot papers have been issued and how many have been returned. If there is a discrepancy then alarm bells should have rung. BUT this is not what has happened. The total number of ballot papers keep changing and the VEC failed to provide information that would have allowed a proper cross check to occur. (see previous posts on the VEC below).


There are still questions outstanding as to the accuracy of the poll and many believe that the VEC should be required to undertake a second recount in Western Victoria until they have at least managed to obtain the same overall result twice.

Steve Tully is under scrutiny with reports that many politicians, from all sides of the political divide, are not happy in with his performance and the way that he had conducted the election.

As previously reported “Tully’s Tally” will come under review when the State Parliamentary Elections committee meets next year.

In the meantime Tully’s team will be looking at undertaking some creative accounting to justify this stuff-up and hold on to their job. We think it is time to consider having a single independent professional Electoral Authority with Victoria’s Chief Electoral Commissioner under the auspice of the Sate Auditor General and as an executive member of the new Australian Electoral Authority.

More information http://melbcity.topcities.com

Tully’s Tally doesn’t Tally VEC’s creative accounting under review

The conduct of the Victorian State Election and its management by the VEC is under review, amidst concern that the VEC tried cutting corners and in the process screwed up big time bringing the State Election and the VEC into disrepute.

Victoria’s Chief Commissioner, Steven Tully, is ultimately responsible for the stuff-up and many questions are being asked as to how this monumental stuff-up could occur.

Public Information and results doesn’t tally

To help you gain some perspective into the extent of the stuff up take a look at the following summary statistics:


Summary of upper house statistics latest Data

(published December 14, 2006 06:19)
Region Formal Informal Total Updated Difference
Eastern Metropolitan 375947 12179 388126 12-12-2006 17:32 0
Eastern Victoria 379201 12625 391826 12-12-2006 18:55 0
Northern Metropolitan 360149 21730 381879 14-12-2006 06:19 -6454
Northern Victoria 365391 15426 380817 12-12-2006 19:03 0
South Eastern Metropolitan 365547 20200 385747 12-12-2006 18:23 0
Southern Metropolitan 361805 11420 373225 12-12-2006 19:45 0
Western Metropolitan 374411 25075 399486 14-12-2006 03:57 -478
Western Victoria 394478 14588 409066 14-12-2006 05:03 268
Summary of upper house provisional count statistics
(published December 12, 2006 19:45)
Region Formal Informal Total
Eastern Metropolitan 375947 12179 388126 12-12-2006 17:32
Eastern Victoria 379201 12625 391826 12-12-2006 18:55
Northern Metropolitan 366605 21728 388333 12-12-2006 18:22
Northern Victoria 365391 15426 380817 12-12-2006 19:03
South Eastern Metropolitan 365547 20200 385747 12-12-2006 18:23
Southern Metropolitan 361805 11420 373225 12-12-2006 19:45
Western Metropolitan 374982 24981 399964 12-12-2006 18:03
Western Victoria 394556 14242 408798 12-12-2006 17:31
Summary of upper house count statistics
(published December 12, 2006 16:49)
Region Formal Informal Total
Eastern Metropolitan 375390 12679 388069 -57
Eastern Victoria 378374 13030 391404 -422
Northern Metropolitan 358877 22496 381373 -6960
Northern Victoria 363962 16654 380616 -201
South Eastern Metropolitan 363814 21640 385454 -293
Southern Metropolitan 360202 13464 373666 441
Western Metropolitan 373842 25773 399615 -349
Western Victoria 392893 15590 408483 -315
Summary of lower house statistics
(published December 12, 2006 16:49)
Region Formal Informal Total
Eastern Metropolitan 372625 15588 388213 87
Eastern Victoria 375024 16382 391406 -420
Northern Metropolitan 362715 20475 383190 -5143
Northern Victoria 365794 15520 381314 497
South Eastern Metropolitan 366008 19631 385639 -108
Southern Metropolitan 361292 12378 373670 445
Western Metropolitan 372518 25361 397879 -2085
Western Victoria 391684 16550 408234 -564

At issue here is the number of total votes. Votes have gone missing and have not been accounted for. Normally all the number of ballot all papers are accounted. Each polling place returning officer is required to prepare a tally sheet that outlines exactly how many ballot papers have been issued.

The latest published summary information above shows to what extent the VEC stuffed up – Big time

A voter is supposed to be given two ballot papers, one for the lower-house and one for the upper-house. The number of lower-house ballots should match the number of upper-house ballots. The returning officer then includes this information in their return statements along with the number of ballot papers received and the number of unused ballot papers.

The electoral commission should have tallied up this information and ideally should know in advance prior to the final count how many ballot papers have been issued and how many have been returned. If there is a discrepancy then alarm bells should have rung. BUT this is not what has happened. The total number of ballot papers keep changing and the VEC failed to provide information that would have allowed a proper cross check to occur. (see previous posts on the VEC below).


There are still questions outstanding as to the accuracy of the poll and many believe that the VEC should be required to undertake a second recount in Western Victoria until they have at least managed to obtain the same overall result twice.

Steve Tully is under scrutiny with reports that many politicians, from all sides of the political divide, are not happy in with his performance and the way that he had conducted the election.

As previously reported “Tully’s Tally” will come under review when the State Parliamentary Elections committee meets next year.

In the meantime Tully’s team will be looking at undertaking some creative accounting to justify this stuff-up and hold on to their job. We think it is time to consider having a single independent professional Electoral Authority with Victoria’s Chief Electoral Commissioner under the auspice of the Sate Auditor General and as an executive member of the new Australian Electoral Authority.

More information http://melbcity.topcities.com

Tully’s Tally doesn’t Tally VEC’s creative accounting under review

The conduct of the Victorian State Election and its management by the VEC is under review, amidst concern that the VEC tried cutting corners and in the process screwed up big time bringing the State Election and the VEC into disrepute.

Victoria’s Chief Commissioner, Steven Tully, is ultimately responsible for the stuff-up and many questions are being asked as to how this monumental stuff-up could occur.

Public Information and results doesn’t tally

To help you gain some perspective into the extent of the stuff up take a look at the following summary statistics:


Summary of upper house statistics latest Data

(published December 14, 2006 06:19)
Region Formal Informal Total Updated Difference
Eastern Metropolitan 375947 12179 388126 12-12-2006 17:32 0
Eastern Victoria 379201 12625 391826 12-12-2006 18:55 0
Northern Metropolitan 360149 21730 381879 14-12-2006 06:19 -6454
Northern Victoria 365391 15426 380817 12-12-2006 19:03 0
South Eastern Metropolitan 365547 20200 385747 12-12-2006 18:23 0
Southern Metropolitan 361805 11420 373225 12-12-2006 19:45 0
Western Metropolitan 374411 25075 399486 14-12-2006 03:57 -478
Western Victoria 394478 14588 409066 14-12-2006 05:03 268
Summary of upper house provisional count statistics
(published December 12, 2006 19:45)
Region Formal Informal Total
Eastern Metropolitan 375947 12179 388126 12-12-2006 17:32
Eastern Victoria 379201 12625 391826 12-12-2006 18:55
Northern Metropolitan 366605 21728 388333 12-12-2006 18:22
Northern Victoria 365391 15426 380817 12-12-2006 19:03
South Eastern Metropolitan 365547 20200 385747 12-12-2006 18:23
Southern Metropolitan 361805 11420 373225 12-12-2006 19:45
Western Metropolitan 374982 24981 399964 12-12-2006 18:03
Western Victoria 394556 14242 408798 12-12-2006 17:31
Summary of upper house count statistics
(published December 12, 2006 16:49)
Region Formal Informal Total
Eastern Metropolitan 375390 12679 388069 -57
Eastern Victoria 378374 13030 391404 -422
Northern Metropolitan 358877 22496 381373 -6960
Northern Victoria 363962 16654 380616 -201
South Eastern Metropolitan 363814 21640 385454 -293
Southern Metropolitan 360202 13464 373666 441
Western Metropolitan 373842 25773 399615 -349
Western Victoria 392893 15590 408483 -315
Summary of lower house statistics
(published December 12, 2006 16:49)
Region Formal Informal Total
Eastern Metropolitan 372625 15588 388213 87
Eastern Victoria 375024 16382 391406 -420
Northern Metropolitan 362715 20475 383190 -5143
Northern Victoria 365794 15520 381314 497
South Eastern Metropolitan 366008 19631 385639 -108
Southern Metropolitan 361292 12378 373670 445
Western Metropolitan 372518 25361 397879 -2085
Western Victoria 391684 16550 408234 -564

At issue here is the number of total votes. Votes have gone missing and have not been accounted for. Normally all the number of ballot all papers are accounted. Each polling place returning officer is required to prepare a tally sheet that outlines exactly how many ballot papers have been issued.

The latest published summary information above shows to what extent the VEC stuffed up – Big time

A voter is supposed to be given two ballot papers, one for the lower-house and one for the upper-house. The number of lower-house ballots should match the number of upper-house ballots. The returning officer then includes this information in their return statements along with the number of ballot papers received and the number of unused ballot papers.

The electoral commission should have tallied up this information and ideally should know in advance prior to the final count how many ballot papers have been issued and how many have been returned. If there is a discrepancy then alarm bells should have rung. BUT this is not what has happened. The total number of ballot papers keep changing and the VEC failed to provide information that would have allowed a proper cross check to occur. (see previous posts on the VEC below).


There are still questions outstanding as to the accuracy of the poll and many believe that the VEC should be required to undertake a second recount in Western Victoria until they have at least managed to obtain the same overall result twice.

Steve Tully is under scrutiny with reports that many politicians, from all sides of the political divide, are not happy in with his performance and the way that he had conducted the election.

As previously reported “Tully’s Tally” will come under review when the State Parliamentary Elections committee meets next year.

In the meantime Tully’s team will be looking at undertaking some creative accounting to justify this stuff-up and hold on to their job. We think it is time to consider having a single independent professional Electoral Authority with Victoria’s Chief Electoral Commissioner under the auspice of the Sate Auditor General and as an executive member of the new Australian Electoral Authority.

More information http://melbcity.topcities.com

FOI Application required to obtain detailed election results for State Election VEC brought to account

In followup to our numerous requests for information and details of the Victorian State Election we have found it necessary to have to submit and FOI application to obtain a copy of the detailed elections results of last months State Poll.

The conduct of the election undertaken by the Victorian Electoral Commission (VEC) was a shame and has brought Victoria in to disrepute.

Nick Economu, election analyst and political commentator, has described the conduct of the count as a “farcical”. That was putting it mildly. We would say highly unprofessional if not incompetent, lacking in openness and transparency. Information crucial to the conduct of the election was denied and the VEC continues to avoid public scrutiny and review by failing to publish the various count sheets and detailed preference data.

We were constantly being told that the software used in computerized vote counting system had been certified and that safeguards were in place to avoid and limit mistakes in a data-entry. That turned out to be false. As history often proves man is not infallible and the VEC most certainly has failed to live up to the expectations and requirement for an open and transparent election.

Rob Hulls, Victoria’s Attorney General and Minister responsible for the Victorian Electoral Commission and the Freedom of Information Act, stated in his annual FOI report: The existence of the FOI Act should not mean that the formal process provided under it is the only means of obtaining access to documents or information of an agency. “

Section 123 of the Victorian Electoral Act 2002 states:

123. Election information


(1) The number of first preference votes given for each candidate and the details of distribution of preference votes must be available from the office of the Commission.

The refusal of the VEC to publish this information, as requested, is an abuse of the system and denial of open and transparent elections.



VEC receipt of payment for FOI application fee

— Copy of FOI request delieverd to to the VEC today —

Thursday December 21, 2006

Sue Lang
Manager Communication, Education and Research Branch
Information Officer

Victorian Electoral Commission

Re: Freedom of Information Request

Dear Sue

Pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act, I wish to request the following information –

  1. Victorian State Election November 2006

    1.1. Copies of all count sheets in respect to all electorates for the Victorian Legislative Assembly and Victorian Legislative Council
    1.2. Copies of all recorded electronic data files detailing the ballot papers preference allocations used to determine the results of each election for the Victorian Legislative Assembly and Legislative Council
    1.3. Copies of all polling place returns showing the number of ballot papers issued and the number of first preferences allocated for each candidate for the Legislative Assembly and the Legislative Council
  2. Copies of all certification documents related to the software used in the conduct of the Victorian State election used in the tabulation and calculation of the elections results.

I have previously requested this information, to which the Victorian Electoral Commission to date has failed to respond.

The above, as requested information is a public document and should be readily available to members of the public for independent review and assessment.

It is in the public interest that this information is made available and that the results and the conduct of the election are open and transparent.

In addition, as this information is in the public interest and should be readily available to public, I request that the fee for this Freedom of Information Application be waived. However, in case you do not allow this, I enclose the required $21.50.

I draw you attention to the following:

Victorian Civil Appeals Tribunal in 1999 (van der Craats v City of Melbourne [2000] VCAT 447 (29 January 2000) VICTORIAN CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL General List No. 1999/057919)

I request that the above information be provided without delay.

In the event that the Victorian Electoral Commission refuses in the first instance to provide this information I request that immediate internal review undertaken and if required I am prepared to have this matter refered to the Victorian State Parliament, Victorian State Ombudsman and the Victorian Civil Appeals Tribunal for review.

Should you require further I can be contacted via return email or telephone (03) 9016 3654

Yours faithfully

Anthony van der Craats

FOI Application required to obtain detailed election results for State Election VEC brought to account

In followup to our numerous requests for information and details of the Victorian State Election we have found it necessary to have to submit and FOI application to obtain a copy of the detailed elections results of last months State Poll.

The conduct of the election undertaken by the Victorian Electoral Commission (VEC) was a shame and has brought Victoria in to disrepute.

Nick Economu, election analyst and political commentator, has described the conduct of the count as a “farcical”. That was putting it mildly. We would say highly unprofessional if not incompetent, lacking in openness and transparency. Information crucial to the conduct of the election was denied and the VEC continues to avoid public scrutiny and review by failing to publish the various count sheets and detailed preference data.

We were constantly being told that the software used in computerized vote counting system had been certified and that safeguards were in place to avoid and limit mistakes in a data-entry. That turned out to be false. As history often proves man is not infallible and the VEC most certainly has failed to live up to the expectations and requirement for an open and transparent election.

Rob Hulls, Victoria’s Attorney General and Minister responsible for the Victorian Electoral Commission and the Freedom of Information Act, stated in his annual FOI report: The existence of the FOI Act should not mean that the formal process provided under it is the only means of obtaining access to documents or information of an agency. “

Section 123 of the Victorian Electoral Act 2002 states:

123. Election information


(1) The number of first preference votes given for each candidate and the details of distribution of preference votes must be available from the office of the Commission.

The refusal of the VEC to publish this information, as requested, is an abuse of the system and denial of open and transparent elections.



VEC receipt of payment for FOI application fee

— Copy of FOI request delieverd to to the VEC today —

Thursday December 21, 2006

Sue Lang
Manager Communication, Education and Research Branch
Information Officer

Victorian Electoral Commission

Re: Freedom of Information Request

Dear Sue

Pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act, I wish to request the following information –

  1. Victorian State Election November 2006

    1.1. Copies of all count sheets in respect to all electorates for the Victorian Legislative Assembly and Victorian Legislative Council
    1.2. Copies of all recorded electronic data files detailing the ballot papers preference allocations used to determine the results of each election for the Victorian Legislative Assembly and Legislative Council
    1.3. Copies of all polling place returns showing the number of ballot papers issued and the number of first preferences allocated for each candidate for the Legislative Assembly and the Legislative Council
  2. Copies of all certification documents related to the software used in the conduct of the Victorian State election used in the tabulation and calculation of the elections results.

I have previously requested this information, to which the Victorian Electoral Commission to date has failed to respond.

The above, as requested information is a public document and should be readily available to members of the public for independent review and assessment.

It is in the public interest that this information is made available and that the results and the conduct of the election are open and transparent.

In addition, as this information is in the public interest and should be readily available to public, I request that the fee for this Freedom of Information Application be waived. However, in case you do not allow this, I enclose the required $21.50.

I draw you attention to the following:

Victorian Civil Appeals Tribunal in 1999 (van der Craats v City of Melbourne [2000] VCAT 447 (29 January 2000) VICTORIAN CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL General List No. 1999/057919)

I request that the above information be provided without delay.

In the event that the Victorian Electoral Commission refuses in the first instance to provide this information I request that immediate internal review undertaken and if required I am prepared to have this matter refered to the Victorian State Parliament, Victorian State Ombudsman and the Victorian Civil Appeals Tribunal for review.

Should you require further I can be contacted via return email or telephone (03) 9016 3654

Yours faithfully

Anthony van der Craats

FOI Application required to obtain detailed election results for State Election VEC brought to account

In followup to our numerous requests for information and details of the Victorian State Election we have found it necessary to have to submit and FOI application to obtain a copy of the detailed elections results of last months State Poll.

The conduct of the election undertaken by the Victorian Electoral Commission (VEC) was a shame and has brought Victoria in to disrepute.

Nick Economu, election analyst and political commentator, has described the conduct of the count as a “farcical”. That was putting it mildly. We would say highly unprofessional if not incompetent, lacking in openness and transparency. Information crucial to the conduct of the election was denied and the VEC continues to avoid public scrutiny and review by failing to publish the various count sheets and detailed preference data.

We were constantly being told that the software used in computerized vote counting system had been certified and that safeguards were in place to avoid and limit mistakes in a data-entry. That turned out to be false. As history often proves man is not infallible and the VEC most certainly has failed to live up to the expectations and requirement for an open and transparent election.

Rob Hulls, Victoria’s Attorney General and Minister responsible for the Victorian Electoral Commission and the Freedom of Information Act, stated in his annual FOI report: The existence of the FOI Act should not mean that the formal process provided under it is the only means of obtaining access to documents or information of an agency. “

Section 123 of the Victorian Electoral Act 2002 states:

123. Election information


(1) The number of first preference votes given for each candidate and the details of distribution of preference votes must be available from the office of the Commission.

The refusal of the VEC to publish this information, as requested, is an abuse of the system and denial of open and transparent elections.



VEC receipt of payment for FOI application fee

— Copy of FOI request delieverd to to the VEC today —

Thursday December 21, 2006

Sue Lang
Manager Communication, Education and Research Branch
Information Officer

Victorian Electoral Commission

Re: Freedom of Information Request

Dear Sue

Pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act, I wish to request the following information –

  1. Victorian State Election November 2006

    1.1. Copies of all count sheets in respect to all electorates for the Victorian Legislative Assembly and Victorian Legislative Council
    1.2. Copies of all recorded electronic data files detailing the ballot papers preference allocations used to determine the results of each election for the Victorian Legislative Assembly and Legislative Council
    1.3. Copies of all polling place returns showing the number of ballot papers issued and the number of first preferences allocated for each candidate for the Legislative Assembly and the Legislative Council
  2. Copies of all certification documents related to the software used in the conduct of the Victorian State election used in the tabulation and calculation of the elections results.

I have previously requested this information, to which the Victorian Electoral Commission to date has failed to respond.

The above, as requested information is a public document and should be readily available to members of the public for independent review and assessment.

It is in the public interest that this information is made available and that the results and the conduct of the election are open and transparent.

In addition, as this information is in the public interest and should be readily available to public, I request that the fee for this Freedom of Information Application be waived. However, in case you do not allow this, I enclose the required $21.50.

I draw you attention to the following:

Victorian Civil Appeals Tribunal in 1999 (van der Craats v City of Melbourne [2000] VCAT 447 (29 January 2000) VICTORIAN CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL General List No. 1999/057919)

I request that the above information be provided without delay.

In the event that the Victorian Electoral Commission refuses in the first instance to provide this information I request that immediate internal review undertaken and if required I am prepared to have this matter refered to the Victorian State Parliament, Victorian State Ombudsman and the Victorian Civil Appeals Tribunal for review.

Should you require further I can be contacted via return email or telephone (03) 9016 3654

Yours faithfully

Anthony van der Craats

Victorian Election results hidden from view VEC deny public access to detailed election results bring the State into disrepute

Victorian Chief Electoral Commissioner, Steve Tully, continues to deny publication of detailed election results preventing independent analysis and review. Mr Tully has presided over the worst managed election in recent living memory with the Victorian Electoral Commission stuffing up the initial counts, double entry of votes, dodgy figures and an overall lack of accountability and transparency.

Earlier this week we saw the extraordinary situation were the VEC had overstated the Liberal Party vote and provisionally declared the wrong candidate elected. There was no excuse for this mistake. A comparison between the number of ballot papers issued and a tally of all formal and informal votes for each electorate should have alerted the VEC to the fatal mistake in the VEC data entry process. The VEC had earlier refused to provide statistical information related to the number of ballot papers issued and received prior and immediately following the November poll. Why? Details on the number of ballot papers issued by each polling place should have been made available on request and or published on the VEC Internet site.

It is fundamental that pubic elections are open and transparent and that information is readily available.

There are calls for the State Parliament to hold a parliamentary review of the Electoral commission and the mis-management associated with the conduct of the State Election. Responsibility for the VEC and State elections comes under the portfolio is Victoria’s Attorney General Rob Hulls who is also responsible for the Freedom of Information Act.

The Chief Commissioner to date has refused to publish the detailed election results including the below-the-line preference data.

This information was previously made available in past elections but the Chief Electoral Commissioner, Steve Tully, following a multitude of errors and mismanagement of the conduct of the election has refused to publish the detailed election results in an attempt to avoid public scrutiny and review.

The continuing failure of the Chief Commissioner to ensure that Victoria’s elections are open and transparent has brought Victoria and the State Government into disrepute.

Information and details of the election results are public documents and as such the public has a right to view this information. Mr Tully has no justification or reason to prevent their disclosure or publication other then his desire to avoid accountability and public review.

If need be we will soon make an FOI application to obtain access to this information and refer this matter to the State Ombudsman for review. The requirement to have to make an FOI application to gain access to what should reality be available to public is an direct abuse of the FOI requirements and something that should be of concern to Rob Hulls as Minister responsible for the FOI Act. The Minister should intervene and insist that the result are made published and made public without delay. Failure to do so would reflect poorly on the State Government and undermine it’s commitment to open and transparent governance.

The Victorian public have a right to know where the VEC went wrong and what can be done to prevent the mistakes occurring again in the future.

Those wishing to view the flawed VEC count sheet for Northern and Western Metropolitan Regions (missing is the below the line preference data that the VEC has refused to make available) can view a copy here. (Thanks to the anonymous contributor that sent us the files)