LS6380 Released Document No.

From: Paul Pirani

To: 6
Cc: INFO
Subject: RE: [COMPLAINT Survey] , (3144) *WWW* [DLM=For-Official-Use-Only]
Date: Thursday, 26 October 2017 10:05:23 AM

Dear Complainant
Thank you for your email.
I have examined the YouTube video referred to in your email and the terms and conditions
of the Skins competition and have concluded that they do not infringe against the bribery
provision contained in 13 of the Marriage Law Survey (Additional Safeguards) Act 2017 (the
Safeguards Act). Let me explain the reasons for this conclusion.
Subsection 13(2) of the Safeguards Act creates an offence where a person “promises or
offers to give or confer” …”any property or benefit of any kind to another person” ….
“intending to influence or affect….the content of such a response”.
The video and the terms and conditions of the Skins competition indicate that this matter has
several elements. First there is a clear encouragement provided for the responses to the
survey contain a Yes to reach the 70% threshold of all responses received by the Australian
Bureau of Statistics. Second there is a condition precedent for the offer of $1 million dollars
in Skins products as it will only exist if the 70% threshold is reached. Third to be able to take
part in the offer any person (irrespective of how they completed the survey) is able to
register to take part in the competition.
Given the conditional nature of the offer and that any person (irrespective of how they
completed the survey) is able to register to take part in the competition, I do not accept that
all of the elements of the offence exist. The actual property or benefit is conditional and may
not actually eventuate. Accordingly the first element of the offence is not made out as the
benefit has not been given or conferred. Further the competition is open to all persons who
register, irrespective of whether or not the person has provided a response to the survey or
the content of such a response.
I note that section 13 of the Safeguards Act is in similar terms as section 326 of the
Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918. The AEC’s experience dealing with such matters is that
general offers of this nature will not be regarded as bribery as there is no direct benefit
actually given or conferred to the individual person. You may recall that at the last election
there was a high profile matter in which a candidate made a promise to donate funds to a
conservation group out of their personal funds if they were re-elected. This matter was not
regarded by the relevant law enforcement officials as amounting to bribery.
Yours sincerely
Mr. Paul Pirani | Chief Legal Officer
Legal & Procurement Branch Executive | Legal & Procurement Branch
Australian Electoral Commission
T: (02) 6271 4474 | M: 7 | F: (02) 6293 7657

-----Original Message-----
From: 6
Sent: Wednesday, 25 October 2017 12:18 AM
To: INFO <info@aec.gov.au>
Subject: [COMPLAINT Survey] , (3144) *WWW* [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
Survey complaint
Name: ,
Postcode: 3144
Phone number:
Complaint: The company Skins launched a campaign pledging to give $1 million dollars worth of Skins
apparel to people who enter their specific competition if the YES survey achieves at least 70%.
To enter this competition, a candidate needs to register their details with Skins to be in the running to
win.
Skins has conferred to the general public that they will give $1 million dollars worth of their product if
 the YES vote reaches a certain value (70%). Although an individual needs to enter the competition in
order to win this merchandise, the offer of Skins to give merchandise can be used in this
circumstance to influence someone's decision to vote a certain way.
Under Section 13 of the Marriage Law Survey (Additional Safeguards) Act 2017, Skins has conferred a
benefit of $1 million worth of merchandise to the public. It can be argued they intend to influence a
person's decision by offering that $1 million merchandise as a result of the outcome of the survey,
and possibly the language used in their video.
The video promoting the competition is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OaMeXgYlfl8
My question is, is this bribery? My main concern is if this is allowed, a company in the future can do
this with elections. For example, a corporation offers an item of value to the public if a certain party
wins the popular vote by a certain margin.
I have no hate for Skins, and I enjoy using their products. But I have extreme concerns with
corporations interfering with public voting. I voted yes by the way.
 REDACTION CODES

1 Personal Information (name) redacted.

2 Personal Information (date of birth) redacted.

3 Personal Information (photograph) redacted

4 Personal Information (facsimile of signature) redacted.

5 Personal Information (facsimile of manuscript initialling) redacted.

6 Personal Information (Individual’s address) redacted.

7 Personal Information (individual’s telephone number) redacted.

8 Personal Information (individual’s opinion) redacted.

9 Personal Information (opinion about individual) redacted.

10 Personal Information (employment history) redacted.

11 Personal Information (qualifications) redacted.

12 Personal Information (health) redacted.

13 Business information (Bank Account details) redacted.

14 Business information (Billing Account details) redacted.

15 Legal Professional Communication redacted.

16 Deliberative material redacted.

17 Irrelevant material redacted.

18 Electoral Roll material redacted.

19 Tests, examinations or audits material redacted.

20 Management or assessment of personnel material redacted.

21 Proper and efficient conduct of the operations of AEC material redacted.