Whistleblower claims he was told to fabricate data for AEC during Indigenous voice campaign
A private research consultancy working for the Australian Electoral Commission allegedly fabricated survey data purporting to represent the views of regional Indigenous communities during last year’s failed referendum process, according to text messages 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 used by the AEC, McNair yellowSquares, says he was instructed to attach false location data to interviews he conducted with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders in inner-city Sydney to make it appear as though they were from regional areas and suburban Adelaide. He made the claims in a set of internal and external whistleblower disclosures.
The whistleblower, a research interviewer for McNair, says the fabrications occurred on an AEC-commissioned market research project designed to gauge awareness of the referendum process and the effectiveness of AEC advertising. McNair is taking the allegations seriously and 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 the postcode for Salisbury, a suburb with the second-highest proportion of Indigenous residents in South Australia, while conducting faceto-face interviews in the Sydney suburb of Redfern.
McNair roster documents show the research interviewer was rostered to conduct face-to-face interviews in Redfern on the relevant dates.
“It felt like the ultimate betrayal,” he told the Guardian. “It was also the ultimate betrayal of myself.”
His lawyers, whistleblower protection specialists at the Human Rights Law Centre, have now helped him blow the whistle about the alleged 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 designed to cut costs while still presenting research purportedly based on interviews across metropolitan and regional areas.
In a separate interview with the Guardian, the employee – a long-serving interview researcher at McNair – said his own role in the company’s actions had weighed heavily on his conscience.
He said he decided to speak out because he believes McNair had financial motivations for passing off his interviews with Indigenous Australians as having occurred in SouthAustralia.
“This is what pushed me over the edge,” he said. “It was money. It’s all about money.”
The revelations raise serious questions about the government’s reliance on private market research firms for critical information used to inform policy and spending decisions. They also raise serious questions about the government’s efforts to engage with regional and remote Indigenous Australians 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 being recorded or presented properly, meaning Australian government agencies are creating important policies and programs based on incorrect data,” they warned McNair and Asic of the whistleblower’s claims.
“Critically, significant cohorts and voices of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples are not being recorded correctly or 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 November last year and to Asic in March. His lawyers understand that this type of alleged wrongdoing is not in Asic’s investigative remit, but the whistleblower was required to report to them under corporate disclosure laws.
McNair said it took the allegations seriously.
“We take pride in the robustness, quality and accuracy of our work, always seeking to act impartially, with integrity and in line with best practice frameworks and processes,” the company said in a statement.
“If any employee is found to be misrepresenting survey 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 project dubbed Project Elvis, according to the whistleblower.
McNair had been subcontracted to conduct fieldwork by Wallis Social Research, which had been directly contracted by the AEC.
The whistleblower says he was instructed to use incorrect location coding on four separate waves of the AEC project between May and October 2023, first on 11 May 2023, again on 16 June 2023, 25 September 2023 and on 6
October 2023.
He said he complained repeatedly about being asked to enter fabricated location coding on his interview responses and refused to do it during three of the four waves of the AEC referendum project.
Text messages seen by the Guardian show that on 25 September 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 the survey for respondents who complete the AEC survey with you, will msg you before 10am letting you know.”
In his reply, the whistleblower asked: “Will there be others working at Redfern today?”
He was told: “Yes, [name removed] and [name removed] will be there today with you. We need to complete 40 more by the end of tomorrow.
“For today … can you please ensure that all respondents you interview live in postcode 5108 and live in the state of South Australia? Thanks.”
Roster documents confirm the employee was working a face-to-face interviewing shift in Redfern on the AEC project that day.
The next day, 26 September, he again received a text saying: “Can you please use postcode 5108 again today and the state will be South Australia also again today?”
The research interviewer told the Guardian: “I didn’t know what to do. “I was just frozen.”
He says he complained in a call to a superior on 6 October 2023 about being asked to miscode the data.
He recalls saying words to the effect of: “Why can’t we get the interviewer to do it in South Australia?”
He remembers his superior responding: “Because we don’t have one.”
He asked whether he could go to SA himself to do the interviews. His superior allegedly responded: “We don’t have it in the budget for this one. Can you help me out with this Salisbury stuff ?”
He refused and says he was pushed further by his superior, who said: “Well how about NSW regional? I can get others to do SA if you can do regional NSW from Sydney?”
The employee took contemporaneous notes of the phone conversation, which have been seen by the Guardian.
On an earlier occasion in May, the employee received a message asking him to ensure his respondents were “males” who lived in “regional locations”.
On that date, 11 May, he was also rostered on to conduct face-to-face interviews in Redfern, his roster documents confirm.
“We can resume interviewing on 230509 [Project Elvis] again as well,” he was told. “However we need to only interview males and they need to live in regional locations for the remaining 11 surveys we need to wrap up Wave 1 of the project :) Can I leave this in your very capable hands?”
In his formal disclosures to McNair and Asic, the whistleblower said he understood that to mean “that anybody I interviewed that day had to be recorded as living in a regional area, despite being in Redfern, Sydney”.
“I felt conflicted as this [was] not correct data and this meant we were not going to gain an understanding of regional Aboriginal respondents attitudes towards the Australian Electoral Commission,” he said.
He says he called up his boss to complain, saying words to the effect of: “I will not incorrectly record survey data on this as I feel strongly about this project.”
‘Accurate representation is critical’
Experts and Indigenous leaders have expressed shock at the claims.
Francis Markham, a researcher at the Australian National University’s Centre for Indigenous Policy Research, said the case showed the risks to government agencies of relying on private consultancies to inform policy.
He said the allegations were “serious and warrant investigation”.
“These allegations illustrate the risks run by the government agencies when they fail to engage Indigenous communities directly,” Markham said.
“Agencies need to build direct, longterm and respectful relationships with the communities that they serve and work in partnership with communitybased organisations when consultation is needed.”
The National Agreement on Closing the Gap requires government agencies to improve their engagement with Indigenous people. A recent Productivity Commission report showed progress towards that goal was “patchy”.
Markham said the onus was now on governments to improve their direct engagement with Indigenous communities, and he said the AEC specifically needed to fund Indigenous community organisations and community members to undertake educational work and assist in electoral administration, which was proven to be the most effective approach.
“More generally, these allegations once again highlight the risk of outsourcing government capabilities to private firms,” he said. “The in-sourcing of core government business such as consultation needs to be prioritised if we are to have effective public administration in this country.”
Larissa Baldwin-Roberts, a Widjabul Wia-bal woman, chief executive of GetUp and director of Passing the Message Stick – a project designed to build widespread support for treaties, truth-telling and representation – said the allegations raised serious concerns about the integrity and quality of the government’s consultation with First Nations people, particularly in regional areas.
Baldwin-Roberts said an independent inquiry was needed to assess the extent of the issue and ensure accountability.
“Accurate representation of our voices is crucial for any meaningful consultation process,” she said. “The fabrication of data undermines the authenticity of these consultations and may distort the understanding of Indigenous perspectives on important issues such as the referendum.
“This situation underscores the need for greater transparency and scrutiny in all processes involving our communities, especially when these processes inform significant public policies or understanding the decision to go to referendum where the result was so harmful.”
The research in question was not a poll of voting intentions.
A spokesperson for the AEC said it was designed “get indications of levels of visibility and effectiveness of AEC advertising related to the referendum”.
The advertising aimed to educate Australians about the referendum process and how to participate.
The AEC said it was only made aware of the allegations by Wallis, the primary contractor, recently.
“We are of course extremely disappointed to hear that this may have occurred,” the spokesperson said. “Research like this provides valuable information to the AEC on which to base decisions around our advertising. The clear expectation is that the results of research we commission are of high integrity.”
Wallis said in a statement it had informed the AEC on 6 August, the same day it was made aware of the allegations by McNair. A company spokesperson said McNair was investigating and that it would be inappropriate to comment further on how the alleged conduct may have affected the quality of the research.
The AEC said it appeared that the issue only related to a “small number of respondents as part of a much larger body of research work”.
“That is not to downplay the con
cern but is important to note, nonetheless,” the spokesperson said. “The
AEC is of course looking to ascertain as much information about this matter as possible and seek assurances from Wallis regarding future work.”
The AEC also defended its direct engagement with Indigenous communities. The spokesperson said that strategy was “a lot broader than just advertising”. “We employ over 50 staff in our [Indigenous Electoral Participation Program] team, as well as casually employed community electoral participation officers who live within communities and are often bilingual.”