OPINION: Questions remain about the 2025 state election despite findings of an inquiry headed by former governor Malcolm McCusker.
EVEN before the findings of the special inquiry into the management of the 2025 state election were made public this month, plenty was known about what went wrong.
Staff shortages at polling booths, longer-than-usual queues, insufficient ballot papers and complaints from people saying they were told to go home rather than cast their vote because of all of the above.
Barrister and former governor Malcolm McCusker’s job was to determine how the Western Australian Electoral Commission could make such a hash of election day, given its proud century-old history.
The headline grabber in his report came down to a simple mathematical equation.
The WAEC initially calculated a need for 7,900 temporary staff to run the election day operations effectively but decided to request only 7,113 because of concerns about a lack of government funding to fully cover its desired budget.
By the end of the recruitment process, just 5,276 staff were provided, leaving 2,624 fewer people than what was originally thought optimal.
Any hope of a smoothly run day of voting was over before polling booths had even opened on Saturday March 8.
“The reduced number of temporary election workers engaged for the 2025 election was clearly inadequate, an inadequacy which manifested itself at a number of polling places on election day,” Mr McCusker’s report concluded.
As clear as the findings were, the report throws up some serious questions that left readers like this columnist scratching their heads.
Remember, the WAEC decided to into the election with a lean workforce because of apparent budget shortfalls.
To cut to the chase, the commission sought $49.5 million from treasury to run the election but only received approval for $37.5.
It had asked for $16 million more than its budget for the 2021 election but was only given $4 million, leaving a $12 million black hole.
There was evidence to the McCusker inquiry that treasury had also told the WAEC that supplementary funding would likely be granted if it ran over budget.
On the surface, it appeared treasury was watching the commission’s spending closely, which is why another significant part of the inquiry’s findings are difficult to reconcile.
How was it that, almost a year before the funding shortfalls were being raised by the WAEC, the commission was able to offer a private contractor a staggering $86.6 million to completely take over the election workforce recruitment process for up to four years?
If the WAEC’s use of taxpayers’ money was rightfully being scrutinised six months out from the election, then who was putting a magnifying glass over an outsourcing deal potentially worth more than $21 million a year?
The only answer in the report of the special inquiry is that the Department of Finance drew up the tender documents once the WAEC had decided to “fully outsource” the temporary election workforce.
There is no mention of treasury, or cabinet for that matter, being advised about this significant shift in operations, even though a previous decision to partially outsource early polling at the 2021 election went badly, according to the commission.
What we do know is that staffing and recruitment firm PersolKelly was paid more than $19 million for its role in this year’s election day shambles, and that when WAEC commissioner Robert Kennedy was asked in hindsight about outsourcing, he ate humble pie.
“I’d probably make the argument with government and do a proper cost benefit and say to them the better option is to go in house,” he said when interviewed.
What a hard way to learn that lesson.
