You do realise that in Australia there are essentially voting machines now? All the bits of paper get counted and then the numbers are sent to a central site and put into a computer, which then does things like send it to the media, update the website and ultimately give the results.
Sure, for simple cases you could pick up fraud, e.g. Voting booth A at electorate B voted 75% Party C, but the scrutineers with their samping might see it only 25% so it looks sus. For more subtle changes its harder, but for the lower house its the edge-cases that get more checks.
For senate (and the story was about the senate voting), good luck with that! There is in theory a 1:1 relationship between the number of bits of paper seen and the numbers that go into the computer but after that it gets hard real quick, especially when you get to the later preferences when the usual suspects have their quotas.
That's not to say I think AEC is fiddling the books, quite the opposite. I'm just pointing out there have been computers involved for quite some time.
The bigger problem is disenfranchising public from the senate voting because it's almost impossible for normal humans to vote how they want in the senate. Not really an IT problem though voting machines might help with the "tablecloth" but a change how the senate is elected would certainly help.