I certainly agree with the sentiment of the article, but I find the following a little strange:

"For example, those wishing to see such documents could agree not to cite the document in any published materials; they could agree to not disclose any information damaging to Australia's national security; they could even agree not to acknowledge that they had seen the document."

It makes the assumption that the person seeing the document has no ill intentions. If they DO have ill intentions, their agreement would most likely be meaningless - they will do what they want, when they want, regardless of what they have said they will/will not do. Perhaps what is needed is open access to ASIO security clearances, so that we do not need to be employed by intelligence organisations to access sensitive materials. Then we can access sensitive materials, with accountability, to the level of clearance we have been granted. It would be time-consuming and expensive, but if we want the materials that much, then we would be willing to go through the processes. It would not be foolproof, but it would allow freer access to information in a controlled and secure manner.

pelican, in her post of Monday, 28 June 2010 at 11:57:58 PM, asks, in relation to the content of the post to the DPMC Forums pointed to in the link supplied in my post of Monday, 28 June 2010 11:17:19 AM, :

"How long does it take for a new enrolment to show up in the numbers?"

The answer is that it would normally be expected to show up the next working day after lodgement of the application. There might be slightly longer delay around roll close for an election due to pressure of work on electoral Division staff at such a time, but all applications received before roll close will be emplaced upon the rolls printed for the conduct of that election. The Australian Electoral Commissioner, under the provisions of the Commonwealth Electoral Act, is required to certify to that effect. That is why the rolls marked off are called the Certified Lists.

That this in fact happened for the 2007 Federal elections is not in dispute. It is precisely why the very first pages of the VTR showed at those elections, as they should, the numbers of electors enrolled for each Division.

What was NOT shown on the commencing pages of the VTR were figures that should have been known and final before election day, the totals of both pre-poll and postal vote claims for each Division that had been made. The total issues of such votes should thus have been shown on the opening pages of the VTR, and on all subsequent updates thereof, in order to tie down ballot paper accountancy.

Given that characteristically around 5% of names carried on any electoral roll have no vote claimed against them at an election, at no point during the count should it be expected that more vote claims would appear to have been made than there were names enrolled.

Yet that, in a record that has now been removed from public view, the original VTR pages, is what transiently seemed to have occurred in some Divisions in the 2007 Federal elections.

Are they archived?

At first glance it may appear that this pursuit of what should be the archived cached pages of the original publicly viewable VTR for the 2007 Federal elections is a diversion from the matters raised in Adam Henry's article. I contend that it is not, but rather provides a timely illustration of the adverse effect upon the very democratic process itself of what appears to be a culture within Australian public administration of withholding intendedly public and verifiable records from ready accessibility. Indeed, the article by-line bears this contention out.

To make it clear to viewers of this thread exactly what public document has been withdrawn from public view, it is necessary to post some links to posts to a number of now-archived OLO discussions, together with some explanatory notes. Sorry if it is all tedious.

Googling 'An apology to Klaas Woldring' on pages from Australia, as advised in my post to the DPMC Forums linked to in my first post to this OLO thread, gives this page as its first listing: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3212&page=0

The viewer needs to read that entire thread to get an overview of what I am on about, but the key explanation is contained in the post shown in this Twitpic: http://twitpic.com/20tpbg .

The first link http://vtr.aec.gov.au/HouseDivisionFirstPrefs-13745-115.htm pictured therein with a text description of its then (18 November 2009) content yields this today: http://twitpic.com/20tsf6 . Tracks being covered post November 2009 by an Australian government instrumentality by any chance, I wonder? Can it be determined by some internet-savvy member of the public when that '404' first went up?

And yes, what purports to have been the finalised display of the VTR for the 2007 Federal elections can be seen here: http://www.aec.gov.au/Elections/federal_elections/2007/vtr_guide.htm , but read what I had to say about this reworked electronic document in the last post to the 'Apology to Klaas Woldring' thread. The original VTR has been doubtless 'cleaned up'.

Yes, FG, in the electronic age one would expect to see new enrolments reflected almost immediately, however having experienced PS life what is often expected or assumed is not always so.

One can only admire your solid and thorough research on this FG. I wonder if the tendency to withold such information is to cover up human error or something else - often in the PS the tendency is more to stuff up rather than a greater conspiracy. Whatever the reason, it does not justify denying access.

(Just as an aside: was interesting to note at the time of the 2007 federal election an estimated 92.3% of eligible people were enrolled (from the AEC website)