Whistleblower claims he wastold to fabricate data for AEC during Indigenous voice campaign
Fake survey data was supplied onproject designed to gauge awareness among Indigenous Australians of referendumprocess, the market researcher claims
· Follow our Australia news live blog for latest updates
· Get our morning and afternoon news emails, free app or daily news podcast
Tue20 Aug 2024 01.00 AEST
Share
Aprivateresearch consultancy working for the Australian Electoral Commission allegedlyfabricated survey data purporting to represent the views of regional Indigenouscommunities during last year’s failed referendum process, according to textmessages and documents seen by Guardian Australia.
During the landmark Indigenous voice to parliament campaign, the AEC relied on multiple consultancy firms and subcontracted field researchers to survey Indigenous Australians about the referendum process.
But an employee for one of the subcontractors usedby the AEC, McNair yellowSquares, says he was instructed to attach falselocation data to interviews he conducted with Aboriginal and Torres StraitIslanders in inner-city Sydney to make it appear as though they were fromregional areas and suburban Adelaide. He made the claims in a set of internaland external whistleblower disclosures.
The whistleblower, a research interviewer forMcNair, says the fabrications occurred on an AEC-commissioned market researchproject designed to gauge awareness of the referendum process and theeffectiveness of AEC advertising. McNair is taking the allegations seriouslyand an investigation is ongoing.
In a series of text messages seen by the Guardian,the research interviewer was instructed to use regional location coding or thepostcode for Salisbury, a suburb with the second-highest proportion of Indigenous residents in South Australia, while conducting face-to-face interviews in the Sydney suburb of Redfern.
McNair roster documents show the researchinterviewer was rostered to conduct face-to-face interviews in Redfern on therelevant dates.
“It felt like the ultimate betrayal,” he told theGuardian. “It was also the ultimate betrayal of myself.”
His lawyers, whistleblower protection specialistsat the Human Rights Law Centre, have now helped him blow the whistle about thealleged wrongdoing internally at McNair, then to the corporate regulator, Asic– who declined to investigate – and now publicly to the Guardian.
The employee alleges the fabrications were designedto cut costs while still presenting research purportedly based on interviewsacross metropolitan and regional areas.
In a separate interview with the Guardian, theemployee – a long-serving interview researcher at McNair – said his own role inthe company’s actions had weighed heavily on his conscience.
‘Vote Yes!’ signs at Bondi beach on theday of the Indigenous voice to parliament referendum. Photograph:Toby Zerna/AAP
He said he decided to speak out because he believesMcNair had financial motivations for passing off his interviews with Indigenous Australians as having occurred in South Australia.
“This is what pushed me over the edge,” he said.“It was money. It’s all about money.”
The revelations raise serious questions about thegovernment’s reliance on private market research firms for critical informationused to inform policy and spending decisions. They also raise serious questionsabout the government’s efforts to engage with regional and remote IndigenousAustralians during the referendum process.
The employee’s lawyers described the allegations as“extremely serious” and suggested taxpayer dollars were being “misspent”.
“The disclosures mean that survey data is not beingrecorded or presented properly, meaning Australian government agencies arecreating important policies and programs based on incorrect data,” they warnedMcNair and Asic of the whistleblower’s claims.
“Critically, significant cohorts and voices ofAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples are not being recorded correctlyor heard at all, including in regional and in South Australia.”
The AEC was made aware only in recent weeks.
The disclosures were made to McNair in Novemberlast year and to Asic in March. His lawyers understand that this type ofalleged wrongdoing is not in Asic’s investigative remit, but the whistleblowerwas required to report to them under corporate disclosure laws.
McNair said it took the allegations seriously.
“We take pride in the robustness, quality andaccuracy of our work, always seeking to act impartially, with integrity and inline with best practice frameworks and processes,” the company said in astatement.
“If any employee is found to be misrepresentingsurvey data or requesting it, this is a major breach of our code of conduct,and further action will be taken. An investigation is ongoing.”
‘We don’t have the budget’
The alleged fabrications occurred on a projectdubbed Project Elvis, according to the whistleblower.
McNair had been subcontracted to conduct fieldworkby Wallis Social Research, which had been directly contracted by the AEC.
The whistleblower says he was instructed to useincorrect location coding on four separate waves of the AEC project between Mayand October 2023, first on 11 May 2023, again on 16 June 2023, 25 September2023 and on 6 October 2023.
An Australian Electoral Commissionstaff member at a vote-counting centre during the Indigenous voice referendumin Melbourne. Photograph: Reuters
He said he complained repeatedly about being askedto enter fabricated location coding on his interview responses and refused todo it during three of the four waves of the AEC referendum project.
Text messages seen by the Guardian show that on 25September he received the following text from a staff member at McNair: “Also,I’ll need to work out which postcode and state I’ll need you to enter into thesurvey for respondents who complete the AEC survey with you, will msg youbefore 10am letting you know.”
In his reply, the whistleblower asked: “Will therebe others working at Redfern today?”
He was told: “Yes, [name removed] and [nameremoved] will be there today with you. We need to complete 40 more by the endof tomorrow.
“For today … can you please ensure that allrespondents you interview live in postcode 5108 and live in the state of SouthAustralia? Thanks.”
Roster documents confirm the employee was working aface-to-face interviewing shift in Redfern on the AEC project that day.
The next day, 26 September, he again received atext saying: “Can you please use postcode 5108 again today and the state willbe South Australia also again today?”
The research interviewer told the Guardian: “Ididn’t know what to do.
“I was just frozen.”
He says he complained in a call to a superior on 6October 2023 about being asked to miscode the data.
He recalls saying words to the effect of: “Whycan’t we get the interviewer to do it in South Australia?”
He remembers his superior responding: “Because wedon’t have one.”
He asked whether he could go to SA himself to dothe interviews. His superior allegedly responded: “We don’t have it in thebudget for this one. Can you help me out with this Salisbury stuff?”
He refused and says he was pushed further by hissuperior, who said: “Well how about NSW regional? I can get others to do SA ifyou can do regional NSW from Sydney?”
During the Indigenous voice toparliament campaign, the AEC relied on multiple consultancy firms andsubcontracted field researchers to survey Indigenous Australians about thereferendum process. Photograph: Mike Bowers/The Guardian
The employee took contemporaneous notes of thephone conversation, which have been seen by the Guardian.
On an earlier occasion in May, the employeereceived a message asking him to ensure his respondents were “males” who livedin “regional locations”.
On that date, 11 May, he was also rostered on toconduct face-to-face interviews in Redfern, his roster documents confirm.
“We can resume interviewing on 230509 [ProjectElvis] again as well,” he was told. “However we need to only interview malesand they need to live in regional locations for the remaining 11 surveys weneed to wrap up Wave 1 of the project
Can I leave this in your very capablehands?”
In his formal disclosures to McNair and Asic, thewhistleblower said he understood that to mean “that anybody I interviewed thatday had to be recorded as living in a regional area, despite being in Redfern,Sydney”.
“I felt conflicted as this [was] not correct dataand this meant we were not going to gain an understanding of regionalAboriginal respondents attitudes towards the Australian Electoral Commission,”he said.
He says he called up his boss to complain, sayingwords to the effect of: “I will not incorrectly record survey data on this as Ifeel strongly about this project.”
‘Accurate representation is critical’
Experts and Indigenous leaders have expressed shockat the claims.
Francis Markham, a researcher at the AustralianNational University’s Centre for Indigenous Policy Research, said the caseshowed the risks to government agencies of relying on private consultancies toinform policy.
He said the allegations were “serious and warrantinvestigation”.
“These allegations illustrate the risks run by thegovernment agencies when they fail to engage Indigenous communities directly,”Markham said.
“Agencies need to build direct, long-term andrespectful relationships with the communities that they serve and work inpartnership with community-based organisations when consultation is needed.”
The National Agreement on Closing the Gap requiresgovernment agencies to improve their engagement with Indigenous people. Arecent Productivity Commission report showed progress towards that goal was“patchy”.
Accuraterepresentation of our voices is crucial for any meaningful consultation process
Larissa Baldwin-Roberts
Markham said the onus was now on governments toimprove their direct engagement with Indigenous communities, and he said theAEC specifically needed to fund Indigenous community organisations andcommunity members to undertake educational work and assist in electoraladministration, which was proven to be the most effective approach.
“More generally, these allegations once againhighlight the risk of outsourcing government capabilities to private firms,” hesaid. “The in-sourcing of core government business such as consultation needsto be prioritised if we are to have effective public administration in thiscountry.”
Larissa Baldwin-Roberts, a Widjabul Wia-bal woman,chief executive of GetUp and director of Passing the Message Stick – a projectdesigned to build widespread support for treaties, truth-telling andrepresentation – said the allegations raised serious concerns about theintegrity and quality of the government’s consultation with First Nationspeople, particularly in regional areas.
Baldwin-Roberts said an independent inquiry wasneeded to assess the extent of the issue and ensure accountability.
“Accurate representation of our voices is crucialfor any meaningful consultation process,” she said. “The fabrication of dataundermines the authenticity of these consultations and may distort theunderstanding of Indigenous perspectives on important issues such as thereferendum.
“This situation underscores the need for greatertransparency and scrutiny in all processes involving our communities,especially when these processes inform significant public policies orunderstanding the decision to go to referendum where the result was soharmful.”
The research in question was not a poll of votingintentions.
A spokesperson for the AEC said it was designed“get indications of levels of visibility and effectiveness of AEC advertisingrelated to the referendum”.
The advertising aimed to educate Australians aboutthe referendum process and how to participate.
The AEC said it was only made aware of the allegationsby Wallis, the primary contractor, recently.
‘Vote No’ volunteers at a pollingcentre in Canberra the day before the referendum. Photograph: Martin Ollman/GettyImages
“We are of course extremely disappointed to hearthat this may have occurred,” the spokesperson said. “Research like thisprovides valuable information to the AEC on which to base decisions around ouradvertising. The clear expectation is that the results of research wecommission are of high integrity.”
Wallis said in a statement it had informed the AECon 6 August, the same day it was made aware of the allegations by McNair. Acompany spokesperson said McNair was investigating and that it would beinappropriate to comment further on how the alleged conduct may have affectedthe quality of the research.
The AEC said it appeared that the issue onlyrelated to a “small number of respondents as part of a much larger body ofresearch work”.
“That is not to downplay the concern but isimportant to note, nonetheless,” the spokesperson said. “The AEC is of courselooking to ascertain as much information about this matter as possible and seekassurances from Wallis regarding future work.”
The AEC also defended its direct engagement withIndigenous communities. The spokesperson said that strategy was “a lot broaderthan just advertising”.
“We employ over 50 staff in our [IndigenousElectoral Participation Program] team, as well as casually employed communityelectoral participation officers who live within communities and are oftenbilingual.”
