Bill to stop Politicians Harvesting your Data Via Postal Votes Introduced: Petition to support Bill
During the 20-25 Federal Election the complaint and explanation most sought from the news service was about why the major political parties were allowed to send you a copy of a Postal Votes that was then addressed to them instead of the AEC and why candidates were allowed to bombard your email and mobile phone with messages.
What was and still is in place then is that this, as yet, is still not illegal in Australia. If you want to go ahead and provide your personal details and personal information to a political party, so it may go into their data bank and be shared around, you are free to do so.
However, the AEC warned voters to be wary of efforts by political parties to gather personal information under the pretence of signing people up for postal voting.
In March 2025 the AEC was warning voters about using unsolicited postal vote application forms from political parties, including via SMS prompts.
'While it is only ever the AEC who distributes postal vote ballot papers, unsolicited application forms - received via SMS, email or your mailbox - are sent by a political party or candidate, not the AEC. They are reportedly used by political parties to collect data about voters before forwarding to the AEC.
While this is allowed under the Commonwealth Electoral Act, and a legitimate avenue to apply for a postal vote, there is often concern about the timeliness of applications getting to the AEC and the privacy of an applicant’s details.' the AEC stated
These were NOT official applications. These were and are data mining exercises. If you relied on this paperwork to ensure you are registered for a postal vote, given the paperwork credentials of lodging forms on time in recent past instances, people may have only been mined for your data, not registered for the postal vote they needed.
While the practice is still allowed, Electoral Commissioner Jeff Pope said there were concerns about the applicant's data given political parties are not bound by the Privacy Act.
"People should always carefully consider what they're doing with their personal information," he said in a statement. "The AEC takes privacy seriously and operates under the Privacy Act ... political parties don't have to."
Despite these warnings, more than 2.5 million people applied for a postal vote in the May federal election, with 2.3 million successfully returning their ballots.
The practice is interpreted by many as treating the populace with disrespect and contempt, but, as the ACMA rules explain, is still allowed under our current system.
On Monday November 3 Independent Kate Chaney, MP for Curtin, introduced [the] Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Protecting Voters) Bill 2025, which seeks to amend the Commonwealth Electoral Act to ensure that only voters themselves, not political parties or candidates, can submit postal vote applications to the AEC.
Ms Chaney stated in her Second Reading speech:
''Our democracy is precious and fragile, and we need to do everything we can to protect it. One of the reasons I ran for parliament in 2022 was the declining trust in our institutions and in our politicians. People increasingly feel cynical about politicians and their motives. In a rapidly changing world where democracies are being eroded rather than strengthened, we must evolve our democratic rules and processes to protect the public interest. Australians want fair and transparent elections. They place their trust in our election processes, and that includes postal voting.
There's a common practice in our postal voting process that makes people suspicious, degrades trust in the AEC and confirms the growing belief that political parties will do anything for power. The private members' bill I'm introducing today will fix this problem. It addresses a major complaint to the AEC and implements a majority recommendation from the final report of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters. I will go through why this matters, what that practice is and how we're going to fix it.''
Ms Chaney stated that although in 2004 only five per cent of voters voted by post, by 2022 that had increased to 15 per cent.
People prefer to vote this way because they might have limited mobility, are away from home or just want to avoid the crowds. Postal votes are an increasingly important part of the electoral system, and the integrity of this voting process matters.
''Currently, political parties and candidates are allowed to distribute postal vote application forms and, crucially, to collect them. It has become common practice during an election campaign for a party to send a bulk mail-out of unsolicited mail to every home in their electorate. Along with campaign materials, the mail-out may contain an application for a postal vote, and it's only if you look very closely that you see that the postal vote application form has a tiny authorisation by a political entity. A reply-paid envelope often addressed to something vague like 'processing centre' is also included, so unsuspecting voters complete the application form, pop it in the reply-paid envelope and post it back to the processing centre.'' Ms Chaney said
''This is when it gets dodgy and when the integrity of the process is weakened. The processing centre is not the AEC. If they were being transparent, the processing centre should be called 'the politician's data-harvesting centre'.
Unknowingly, the voter is sending to a political entity their name, their address, their date of birth, their phone number, their email, their security question and answer, and a copy of their signature. This data can be stored, used or shared all without the voter's knowledge or consent, and more than 600,000 voters were duped in this way at the last election.''
''I get so many emails from constituents worried about privacy and data breaches, and their data being stolen by online scammers, yet here we are in Australia with our data being harvested by our own political representatives.'' Ms Chaney pointed out
''When I explained this practice during the campaign, people were horrified and outraged that this is not only legal but also routine behaviour by the major parties. This loophole is particularly bad because political parties, their contractors and their volunteers are exempt from the Privacy Act, including the Australian Privacy Principles, which regulate how personal data is collected, how it's used and whether it can be disclosed or sold to third parties. This means that political parties can collect, store and use personal data without informing individuals. They're not required to notify voters if their data is breached and there's no legal obligation to secure that data that they collect. Not only can they store and use the data for microtargeting, profiling or future campaigning without consent but they can also sell this personal data to third-party data brokers or analytics firms. We have no idea if they currently do this, because there's no oversight, but searches of the PO box that the reply-paid envelopes are directed to show some connections with companies that trade in personal data.''
We must be particularly careful about what data we let political parties harvest, and whether people are providing that data with full knowledge of how it is being used.
The AEC hates this practice. They hate political actors using the postal-voting application process to access personal data. In April 2022, the AEC commissioner, Tom Rogers, wrote to all registered political parties, warning against distributing potentially misleading postal vote applications to residents. He referred to reports of incorrect forms being distributed to voters, the AEC's purple colour being used on some forms and voters being directed to generically named websites en masse with the potential to mislead.''
In a submission to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, the AEC said:
The distribution and collection of PVAs by candidates and parties creates eligibility confusion and privacy concerns amongst voters.
This is not how a healthy democracy should function, and this bill puts a stop to it.''
The bill amends the Commonwealth Electoral Act to ensure that only voters themselves, not political parties or candidates, can submit postal vote applications to the AEC.
It prohibits third parties from on-sending an application for a postal vote on behalf of a voter.
''It's a straightforward fix. It doesn't cost anything, it doesn't limit political communication and it doesn't interfere with anyone's right to vote. What it does do is protect Australians' personal information. It restores transparency to the postal voting process and it helps rebuild trust in our electoral process—something we should all be working together to strengthen, not exploit.'' Ms Chaney said
''With this bill in place, parties can still send postal vote application forms to voters to assist them but they cannot include sneaky reply-paid envelopes that direct those forms back to them or their associates—so they can't harvest voter data. The form must be sent to the AEC directly. The AEC can then send the necessary papers so the voter can vote by post. The relationship between the voter and the AEC is protected under this bill without political actors inserting themselves into that relationship for political gain. There are many other areas of electoral reform that need to be addressed, and I'll be dealing with some of those in my submission to the JSCEM inquiry and evidence to that committee.
This is one problem with a simple, straightforward and immediate fix, and I urge the government to address this issue before the next election. It fixes an unpopular and unethical practice that's despised by voters and the AEC. We need to make it stop. I commend the bill to the House and cede the remainder of my time to the member for Kooyong.''
Independent Dr. Monique Ryan, MP for Kooyong spoke in support of the Bill, stating that at the 2025 election, the details of more than 670,000 voters were harvested by political parties and Parties do not make it clear to voters that they can and do onsell voters' personal information for a profit.
Dr Ryan stated;
''We cherish the system of compulsory voting along with the freedoms and the protections that go with it, so it is a wonder that the Commonwealth Electoral Act permits political parties to intervene in the process of requesting, receiving and returning postal votes. It allows parties to combine postal votes with party political material to collect Australian voters' personal information and onsell that information to unknown third parties. The parties' involvement is all about getting voter information. It is not about facilitating voter access. If it were, the parties would send those postal votes straight to the AEC—but they do not do that.
Parties do not make it clear to postal voters that they will be processing applications in this way, that they are harvesting voters' personal information for campaigning purposes. Parties do not make it clear to voters that they can and do onsell voters' personal information for a profit. Many post-election complaints received by the AEC relate to privacy concerns. At the 2025 election, the details of more than 670,000 voters were harvested by political parties. One wonders how many of those 670,000 might have complained had they known what was being done with their data. The AEC has warned that third-party postal vote applications cause confusion, privacy concerns and processing delays.
Adding potential insult to injury, the tight timeframes between an election being called and the return of the postal votes, when extended by the parties' unnecessary elongation of the process, mean that submitting a postal vote via a party risks your vote not actually being returned on time. As with so many integrity measures, federal legislation is behind the states and territories. Most voters are unaware that combining postal vote applications with political material, while it's allowable under Commonwealth legislation, is specifically outlawed by the Victorian state Electoral Act. The AEC would like it gone too.''
''This bill amends the Commonwealth Electoral Act to ensure that postal vote applications can be sent to the AEC only by voters. It's an important integrity measure. It's a simple fix to a significant problem. I thank my colleague for raising this issue and I commend the bill to the House.'' Ms Ryan said
The Hon Milton Dick, MP for Oxley, as Speaker then stated the time allotted for the debate has expired.
The debate was adjourned, and the resumption will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
Dr. Sophie Scamps, MP for Mackellar, has spoken in support of the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Protecting Voters) Bill 2025 bill as well.
In the meantime the MP for Curtin has a petition, addressed to the Prime Minister, and including NSW residents, which reads:
Petition: Stop Politicians from spamming & harvesting our data
Sign at: www.katechaney.com.au/spam-and-data-petition
We want political parties to communicate - but without bombarding us or harvesting our personal information.
This is a chance for the Government to act to protect voters.
Political Spam
We’re tired of getting swamped with political texts. Political parties shouldn’t be exempt from the Spam Act 2003 - they need to follow the same rules as every business. Prime Minister Albanese said on ABC Radio, “I certainly think that would be a reasonable thing to do, to ban the texts."
Data Harvesting - Postal Vote Applications
Millions of Australians vote by post. This process should be between you and the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) - not political parties fishing for your data. Right now, major parties send postal vote application forms – by SMS, email or to your mailbox - along with their political ads and ask you to send your application to a “processing centre” they control. They can then collect your personal details to use and share before passing the application on to the AEC. As AEC Commissioner Jeff Pope said on 31 March 2025, "Concerns about party postal vote applications through unsolicited outreach is the number one complaint we hear from voters at almost every federal election"
Governments in Victoria and Western Australia have fixed this. NSW is next.
It’s time for the Federal Government to do the same!
Notes
ACMA on Political Emails and Text Messages: from here
Spam rules only apply to commercial electronic messages – those that offer, advertise or promote goods or services.
An email or SMS seeking to influence your vote or opinion is rarely covered by these rules – they do not need your consent to send it, and do not need to include an unsubscribe.
This may include messages sent during local, state and territory or federal elections, as well as those sent in the lead-up to a referendum or plebiscite.
The Australian Communications and Media Authority is aware that members of the public may receive political emails, text messages and calls from time to time, such as:
- during local, state and territory or federal election campaigns
- during periods of political debate, such as in the lead up to a referendum or plebiscite.
These messages and calls are exempt from most spam and telemarketing rules.
Telemarketing rules
Telemarketing rules apply to telemarketing and research calls. If a call is not commercial, it may be made to anyone, even to a number on the Do Not Call Register. Most political calls are unlikely to be telemarketing calls.
All telemarketing and research calls, which could include political opinion polling, are subject to additional minimum standards about when they can be made and the information that must be provided. You can find out more about these rules on the Do Not Call Register website.
If the call is not telemarketing and is not a research call, then it is not covered by these rules.
More information about telemarketing rules can be found at donotcall.gov.au
The Australian Electoral Commission provides information on:
Electoral roll data entitlement
The AEC must provide electoral roll data to a range of persons and organisations who are entitled to receive data (entitled entities) under section 90B of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 (Electoral Act).
This webpage is for the following entitled entities:
- members of the House of Representatives (MPs)
- senators
- registered political parties.
What are your entitlements to electoral roll data?
An MP is entitled to electoral roll data for the division for which they were elected and any other division that after the redistribution, includes the division, or a part of the division, for which the member is elected.
A senator is entitled to electoral roll data for the state or territory for which they were elected.
A federally registered political party is entitled to electoral roll data only for the states or territories in which it is organised. A party is considered to be organised in a state or territory if the address of the party’s Registered Officer as listed on the AEC’s Register of Political Parties is within that state or territory. A party is also considered to be organised in a state or territory where:
Who can use ERA?
Access to ERA is only available to MPs, senators and registered political parties (entitled entities) or delegates they authorise to download and use the data on their behalf, such as office staff or data bureaus (delegates).
Unauthorised access to electoral roll data is prohibited by law. The Data Use Guidelines assist the entitled entity or their delegate to understand the permitted purpose and use of electoral roll data, penalties, privacy and security.
Worth Noting - AEC:
What enrolment information is provided to political parties?
In line with the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918, the AEC may provide the name, address and gender of electors to prescribed authorities.
The AEC does not disclose the contact details of electors. The AEC has no knowledge of where or how a registered political party obtains telephone numbers of electors.
Why is my enrolment information used for identity verification?
The AEC is required under the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 to provide electoral roll information to a number of persons and organisations including members of parliament, political parties, approved medical researchers, public health programs, electoral researchers and some companies who provide identity verification services.
A list of the current companies who are entitled to receive roll information for identity verification purposes is set out in Regulation 8 of the Electoral and Referendum Regulation 2016. These companies receive a full copy of the public version of the electoral roll. Where another company or business uses the services of these listed companies, the only information that is disclosed is to confirm or reject that the name and address information corresponds with a real person who can be identified from a range of databases. Accordingly the actual business that made the inquiry will only receive the information about specific individuals who have chosen to provide their information to that business for identity verification. Those businesses do not actually receive the roll data itself or any information about people who do not have a relationship with them.
The information provided to the identity verification companies listed in regulation 8 (referenced above) is limited to the elector’s name and enrolled address. No other personal information is disclosed by the AEC.