from: Graeme Bowman

Dear Australian Electoral Commission, 28th August 2016

I hereby request, under the Freedom of Information Act (1982) copies of the following documents, available as of the date of this letter:

(a) All documents pertaining to estimates the commission has made for the cost of running the proposed plebiscite on same sex marriage

I also make the application that all costs for the processing of this request be waived on the grounds that the release of this information is in the public interest and will help inform the public debate surrounding the plebiscite.

Yours faithfully,

Graeme Bowman

Dear Australian Electoral Commission,

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.

I am writing to request an internal review of Australian Electoral Commission's handling of my FOI request 'Marriage equality plebiscite cost estimates'.

The request was refused and I and many others are very disappointed over response. This a non binding Plebiscite. We as Australian Citizens and/or taxpayers have the right to be informed as to how our tax dollars are spent. Many of us believe that the cost $154,000,000 is completely and underestimated. For that reason along we expect our rights to be protected. This is our only avenue to verify these details

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address: https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/m...

Yours faithfully,

Graeme Bowman

Dear Australian Electoral Commission,

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.

I am writing to request an internal review of Australian Electoral Commission's handling of my FOI request 'Marriage equality plebiscite cost estimates'.

Thank you for your email of 20 September. I can confirm I would like to pursue an internal review for this request.

Firstly, you are correct to state that my request for a review only now applies to Document 2, which is the contentious document not yet in the public domain.

I strongly believe that this document should be released. As you know, Section 47 of the Act is only valid if the information is CONTRARY to the public interest. Therefore the AEC is obliged to release this information if it cannot adequately show how that release would be against public interest, on balance.

Several reasons were given in the AEC’s final response as to why this would be the case. I do not accept any of them and wish to challenge them as outlined below:

1)At paragraph 37 the response states: “the manner in which the opinion was arrived at is not of itself a matter that would usefully inform public debate about the cost of the plebiscite… The cost of the plebiscite will only be ascertained once the plebiscite is conducted and the expenses associated with it have crystallised.” A similar argument is also used in paragraph 41 (“the public has no discernible interest in knowing how the forecast of probably costs was arrived at by the AEC”) so I will combine these two points together.

I would like to emphasise that the key information being debated is the estimated cost of the plebiscite, as forecast for the AEC. The manner in which they arrived at those figures are not a primary concern, however knowing how they were arrived at would provide confidence and explanation. The key information I am trying to obtain, however, is dollar estimates about the total cost. Given these figures were presumably put together by experts and used to inform the AEC’s thinking, I cannot see why the AEC’s response to my FOI request is now implying they are not particularly useful for informing public debate in the same way. Additionally, if the workings and calculations are considered exempt under 47C, then it does not automatically follow anyway that the result of those calculations (i.e. the estimates of cost) are exempt.

The point made by the AEC about the costs only being “crystallised” after the plebiscite is not relevant, and should be struck from the arguments against release. There is a clear and undeniable public debate about the potential costs of a plebiscite, which means that estimates in advance of any such event are crucial to that debate. Seeking information about estimated costs ahead of a spending commitment is a valid request under the FOI Act.

2)At paragraph 38 the AEC response states: “The breakdown of various opinions about particular likely expenses incurred in conducting a plebiscite would provide no useful basis for oversight of the public expenditure incurred…”

With reference to my previous point above, I find it hard to understand how expert opinion on costs provided to the AEC (at public expense) can provide “no useful basis” for debate about public expenditure. In the usual course of government business, projected costs are a core part of debate and decision making. It is vital for public debate that the public have a good estimate of the potential costs. It is also vital that this information is made public in order for our MPs to be able to make truly informed decisions.

3)Paragraph 42 and 43 also refer to the supposed lack of public interest is in knowing about estimated costs, seemingly making the point that until the enabling legislation for the plebiscite is passed, the possible costs should not be part of the public debate (the exact point being made here is unclear).

As above, I would argue that the estimated or projected costs of a plebiscite are the key pieces of information being debated here. Withholding information on the basis that legislation enabling it has not yet been passed does not seem relevant, and does not have any basis in FOI law. I would argue that a full and proper debate about whether to hold a plebiscite or not cannot be had without expert cost projections, as seem to have already been carried out by the AEC and contained in Document 2. Paragraphs 42 and 43 should therefore be removed from the argument against release, unless the AEC can provide further explanation about their meaning and purpose.

Finally, I would re-emphasise that under Section 47C this information can only be withheld if, on balance, it is against the public interest. Debate around whether or not the plebiscite should be held is undeniably very current and very high profile. Purely in monetary terms, there is a direct effect on the Australian public if the plebiscite goes ahead. MPs will need to vote on whether a plebiscite should happen or not, then participate in public debate if it does go ahead. The financial burden on taxpayers is a key part of this debate. For all these reasons, I believe there is a clear and strong public interest in the cost estimates contained within Document 2 being released.

In addition, the reasons already given by the AEC for withholding the information do not stand up to scrutiny, as I have argued above.

Overall then, there is, in my opinion, a clear public interest in releasing this information, which is why I am now asking the AEC to review its original decision and release the information requested in Document 2.

Best wishes

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address: https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/m...

Yours faithfully,

Graeme Bowman

Dear Owen Jones,
I, as an Australian Citizen am extremely disappointed that I and all other Australians are refused access to how our Tax-Dollars are spent. It is our right to be able to see where these Tax-Dollars are going. The Australian Government seem to conveniently forget the fact that we Australians are their employer and about time they were reminded that they are NOT a Law unto themselves. The Marriage plebiscite cost estimates are all part of this and our right to know. I really do not understand how such information request can be denied to us, Australians.

Yours sincerely,

Graeme Bowman