FOI Request LEX3177, Schedule of Released Documents [PDF 133KB] (pdf)
Download cached file | Download from AEC--- Page 1 --- Request for: FOI REQUEST NO. LEX3177 • All supporting documents behind the commission's conclusion that "the [AEC's membership testing] methodology was appropriate for membership testing, including because it was rational, fair and practical in all the circumstances" used in that determination from LEX967, including the document(s) supporting the claim that it is rational, and including the document(s) supporting the claim that it is fair. Doc No. Description Date Commission Paper – Review of the delegate’s decision to deregister the Senior United Party of Australia 17 November 2021 SCHEDULE OF RELEASED DOCUMENTS Attachment B: Advice provided to the Commission in relation to Party registration 20 March 2017 Attachment L: Australian Bureau of Statistics testing methodology table for a list of 539 individuals November 2016 Attachment N: Application for review of the delegates decision from part officer to the Electoral Commission 21 March 2021 Attachment P: Further submission by the party officer in support of the review application Attachment ZV: Identification of duplicates included in the September 2021 List Attachment ZW: The ABS testing methodology table for a list of 538 individuals Attachment ZX: Record of individuals contacted and the outcome of those contacts 25 March 2021 8 October 2021 November 2016 Attachment ZY Breakdown of Membership Numbers 19 October 2021
This document is a "SCHEDULE OF RELEASED DOCUMENTS" for FOI request LEX3177. It lists the materials provided by the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) in response to the request seeking documentation for the "rational, fair and practical" nature of its membership testing methodology.
The primary document released, as indicated in the schedule, is the "Commission Paper – Review of the delegate’s decision to deregister the Senior United Party of Australia" dated 17 November 2021.
Supporting documents listed include:
* Advice provided to the Commission regarding party registration (20 March 2017).
* Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) testing methodology tables (November 2016).
* Applications and further submissions from the Senior United Party of Australia (SUPA) concerning their deregistration review (March 2021).
* Documents detailing the September 2021 membership test, including identification of duplicates, records of individuals contacted and outcomes, and a breakdown of membership numbers (October 2021).
Relevance to FOI Request LEX3177: This schedule directly addresses the FOI request by enumerating the specific documents the AEC has released to demonstrate the appropriateness, rationality, fairness, and practicality of its membership testing methodology, particularly as applied during the review of SUPA's deregistration. The listed documents collectively form the basis of the AEC's justification.
LEX3177 documents [ZIP 1.8MB] (zip)
Download cached ZIP | Download from AECZIP Contents
- Document No 1.pdf (pdf)
- Document No 2.pdf (pdf)
- Document No 3.pdf (pdf)
- Document No 4.pdf (pdf)
- Document No 5.pdf (pdf)
- Document No 6.pdf (pdf)
- Document No 7.pdf (pdf)
- Document No 8.pdf (pdf)
- Document No 9.pdf (pdf)
Document No 1.pdf (pdf)
Download file
--- Page 1 ---
--- Page 2 ---
Item 2: Review of the delegate’s decision to deregister the Seniors United Party of Australia
Table of Contents
1. Authority .........................................................................................................................................................2
2. Decision under review ....................................................................................................................................2
3. Relevant law and the continued 500-member threshold ..............................................................................2
4. Review of Register ..........................................................................................................................................4
5. Assessment of October 2020 membership list ...............................................................................................5
6. Assessment of February 2021 membership list ..............................................................................................6
7. Application for review of Delegate’s Decision ................................................................................................7
8.
Issues for review .............................................................................................................................................8
9. Recommendations ....................................................................................................................................... 13
10. Notice of Decision ........................................................................................................................................ 14
11. Table of Attachments................................................................................................................................... 14
Australian Electoral Commission Meeting | Agenda Item 2
Page 1
--- Page 3 ---
Item 2: Review of the delegate’s decision to deregister the Seniors United Party of Australia
1. Authority
1.1. Section 141 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 (the Electoral Act).
2. Decision under review
2.1. The decision for review by the Electoral Commission is the decision of the delegate to deregister
the Seniors United Party of Australia (the Party) dated 9 March 2021 (the Delegate’s Decision)
[Attachment A].
3. Relevant law and the continued 500-member threshold
3.1. Unless otherwise indicated, all references to legislative provisions in this Commission Paper are
references to the Electoral Act.
3.2. On 3 September 2021, after the Delegate’s Decision, the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Party
Registration Integrity) Act 2021 (the 2021 Amendment Act) amended ss 123, 126, and 137 and
replaced s 126 with new s 123A. Amongst other things, the 2021 Amendment Act increased the
membership threshold for being registered as a non-Parliamentary party from ‘at least 500
members’ to ‘at least 1,500 members’.
3.3. Under s 20(3) of the 2021 Amendment Act, that Act’s amendment to the provision in the Electoral
Act upon which the Delegate’s Decision was based (being s 137(1)(b)) do not come into effect
until 3 December 2021.
3.4. Accordingly, this review must be conducted on the basis as to whether the Electoral Commission
is satisfied on reasonable grounds that the Party ‘has ceased to have at least 500 members’
(emphasis added).
Register review — s 138A
3.5. Under s 138A(1), the Electoral Commission may review the Register of Political Parties
established and maintained under s 125 (the Register) to determine whether one or more of the
parties included in the Register:
(a)
is an eligible political party (s 138A(1)(a)); or
(b) should be deregistered under ss 136 or 137 (s 138A(1)(b)).
3.6. A review under s138A(1) can be conducted at any time except during an election writ period (s
138A(2)).
3.7. For the purposes of a review under s 138A(1), the Electoral Commission may request that the
registered officer of a party provide specified information regarding the party’s eligibility to be
registered (s 138A(3)).
Definitions relevant to eligibility to be registered — ss 123, 123A and 126
3.8.
Immediately prior to amendments made on 3 September 2021, s 123(1) provided that:
(a) an ‘eligible political party’ means a political party that:
(a)
either:
(i)
(ii)
is a Parliamentary party; or
has at least 500 members; and
(b)
is established on the basis of a written constitution (however described) that sets
out the aims of the party; and
Australian Electoral Commission Meeting | Agenda Item 2
Page 2
--- Page 4 ---
Item 2: Review of the delegate’s decision to deregister the Seniors United Party of Australia
(b) a ‘Parliamentary party’ means a political party at least one member of which is a member
of the Parliament of the Commonwealth.
3.9. Under ss 123(3) and 126(2A), and under the succeeding ss 123(3) and 123A that came into
effect on 3 September 2021, members relied on by a party to satisfy the membership requirement
must be on the Commonwealth electoral Roll (the Roll) and cannot be relied on by another non-
Parliamentary party for the purpose of qualifying or continuing to qualify as an eligible political
party.
Deregistration due to insufficient membership — s 137
3.10. Under s 137(1)(b) as has been in effect at all relevant times and is still in effect, if the Electoral
Commission is satisfied on reasonable grounds that a registered non-Parliamentary party has
ceased to have at least 500 members, it must give the registered officer of the party notice, in
writing, that it is considering deregistering the party under that section (with reasons and other
specified information).
3.11. Where a notice is given under s 137(1), the registered officer of the party may, within 1 month
after the date on which the notice was given, lodge with the Electoral Commission a written and
signed statement that sets out reasons why the party should not be deregistered (s 137(2)).
3.12. Where a statement is lodged under s 137(2), the Electoral Commission shall consider that
statement and determine whether the political party should be deregistered for the reason set
out in the s 137(1) notice (s 137(5)).
3.13. Where, under s 137(5), the Electoral Commission determines that a political party should be
deregistered, it shall:
(a) deregister the party (s 137(6)(a)); and
(b) give the person who was the last registered officer of the party written notice of the
deregistration, setting out its reasons for rejecting the reasons set out in the statement
lodged under s 137(2) (s 137(6)(b)).
3.14. The methodology and formula employed by the AEC to test membership lists of 500 individuals
was first supplied to the AEC by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (the ABS) in 2010 (with
modifications in 2011 and 2017). It was re-endorsed by the Electoral Commission in 2017
[Attachment B]. The Electoral Commission has consistently found that, absent any relevant
factors to the contrary, a failure to satisfy this test alone will constitute reasonable grounds on
which it can be satisfied that a political party does not have, or has ceased to have, at least 500
members.
Delegation of relevant powers
3.15. Under s 16, the Electoral Commission may by resolution delegate to an appointed Commissioner,
an electoral officer or a member of the staff of the Electoral Commission all or any of its powers
under the Electoral Act (other than its powers under Part IV).
3.16. Under an Instrument of Delegation executed on 29 March 2019, the relevant powers of the
Electoral Commission set out in ss 137, 138 and 138A have been delegated to the Assistant
Commissioner, Disclosure, Assurance and Engagement Branch.
Internal review of a delegate’s deregistration decision
3.17. Under s 141(1), a decision of a delegate of the Electoral Commission to deregister a political
party under s 137(6) is a ‘reviewable decision’.
3.18. Under s 141(2), a person affected by a reviewable decision of a delegate who is dissatisfied with
the decision may make an application for review of that decision by the Electoral Commission.
3.19. An application under s 141(2):
• must be made within the period of 28 days after the day on which the decision first comes
Australian Electoral Commission Meeting | Agenda Item 2
Page 3
--- Page 5 ---
Item 2: Review of the delegate’s decision to deregister the Seniors United Party of Australia
to the notice of the person, or within such further period as the Electoral Commission
(either before or after the expiration of that period) allows;
• must be made in writing to the Electoral Commission;
• must specify an address of the applicant; and
• must include reasons for making the application (s 141(3)).
3.20. Under s 141(4), upon receipt of an application for review, the Electoral Commission must review
the delegate’s decision and either:
(a) affirm the decision;
(b) vary the decision; or
(c) set aside the decision and make a decision in substitution.
3.21. In Shi v Migration Agents Registration Authority [2008] HCA 31 (Shi), the High Court of Australia
held that, when reviewing a decision to cancel a migration agent’s registration, the Administrative
Appeals Tribunal (the AAT) was entitled to consider all evidence available to the AAT as at the
time of the AAT’s review, including relevant actions taken by an agent after the decision under
review.
3.22. In John Mulholland and Australian Electoral Commission and Anthony Zegenhagen [2011] AATA
717, the AAT considered Shi and accepted that the review should be based on the latest material
(and made as at the latest point of time available) unless there is a contrary requirement in the
legislation under which the decision is being made.
3.23. Like the AAT in Shi, the Electoral Commission can consider all evidence available to the Electoral
Commission as at the time of the Electoral Commission’s review. It is therefore submitted that
the Electoral Commission should consider the reasoning applied in Shi to be highly persuasive
in a review under s141(2), and consider itself empowered to request and consider information
that has been provided by the applicant subsequent to the Delegate’s Decision.
4. Review of Register
Request for membership list
4.1. On 20 August 2020, pursuant to a review of the Register under s 138A(1), the AEC issued a
notice to the registered officer of the Party,
, under s 138A(3) of the
Electoral Act (the Notice) [Attachment C]. The Notice requested that the Party provide the AEC
with a membership list of between 500 and 550 members, in electronic format, in order for the
AEC to determine the Party’s eligibility to remain registered.
4.2. On 8 October 2020, the registered officer responded to the Notice, providing with it the requested
documentation, including a membership list (the October 2020 List) [Attachment D].
Suspension of processing
4.3. On 26 October 2020, a writ for a by-election for the federal electoral division of Groom (the
Groom by-election) was issued.
4.4. Under s 138A(2), the Electoral Commission may not review the Register to determine whether a
party should be deregistered during an election writ period.
4.5. Similarly, under s 127, during an election writ period, no action is permitted to be taken in relation
to any application for the registration of a political party. This is taken to include any deregistration
proceedings.
4.6. On 26 October 2020, The AEC sent correspondence to the registered officer of the Party advising
of the suspension of processing [Attachment E].
Australian Electoral Commission Meeting | Agenda Item 2
Page 4
Out of scope
--- Page 6 ---
Item 2: Review of the delegate’s decision to deregister the Seniors United Party of Australia
Resumption of processing
4.7. On 2 December 2020, the writ for the Groom by-election was returned. The AEC sent
correspondence to the registered officer of the Party advising that processing could recommence,
inviting the Party to provide an updated membership list, and notifying the Party that the deadline
by which they must reply to the Notice had been extended to 18 January 2021 [Attachment F].
4.8. On 7 December 2020, the registered officer of the Party confirmed that the AEC could continue
testing the October 2020 List [Attachment G].
5. Assessment of October 2020 membership list
Testing of the October 2020 List
5.1. Between 9 October 2020 and 17 December 2020, the AEC conducted membership testing to
determine how many of the individuals contained in the October 2020 List satisfied the
requirements of ss 123(3) and 126(2A) as in effect at the time:
(a) On 9 October 2020, the AEC automatically checked the October 2020 List against the Roll
using the AEC’s Roll Management System (RMANS). This identified that 458 of the 549
individuals named in the list were electors on the Roll.
(b) The AEC manually checked the October 2020 List against the Roll using the AEC’s
General Enrolment Election Support and Information System (GENESIS). As a result, an
additional 71 of the individuals named in the list were identified as being electors, while
six were not enrolled or were unable to be matched to the Roll, and 14 were deceased.
This resulted in the identification of 529 claimed members.
(c) The AEC uploaded the list of 529 names to the AEC’s Funding And Disclosure Client &
Return Management (FCRM) system. This resulted in the identification of 525 claimed
members as four of the individuals named were identified as duplicates within the list.
(d) The ABS testing methodology (mentioned above at paragraph 3.13) recommends that in
testing a list of 525 the AEC should obtain confirmation from a random sample of 37
individuals [Attachment H]. If more than three of the 37 individuals were to deny
membership, there would be insufficient statistical confidence in the number of total
members in the list being at least 500.
(e) Using the randomising functionality in Microsoft Excel, AEC staff identified a sample size
of 74 individuals from the 525 names in list. Individuals from this sample were contacted
between 7 December 2020 and 16 December 2020 and asked if they were current
members of the Party [Attachment I]. Of the 59 individuals contacted to obtain the
required 37 responses:
•
•
•
22 provided a neutral response or were not contactable;
29 confirmed being members of the Party; and
eight denied being members of the Party.
Delegate’s determination and s 137 Notice
5.2.
In accordance with the ABS testing methodology, eight denials out of 37 responses exceeded
the three denials permitted to provide statistical confidence that the Party’s list had at least 500
members.
5.3. On that basis, on 11 January 2021, the delegate of the Electoral Commission determined that
the Party had failed to satisfy the requirements of s 123(1)(a)(ii), and should be considered for
deregistration under s 137(1)(b) [Attachment J].
Australian Electoral Commission Meeting | Agenda Item 2
Page 5
--- Page 7 ---
Item 2: Review of the delegate’s decision to deregister the Seniors United Party of Australia
5.4. On 12 January 2021, the delegate of the Electoral Commission gave a notice to the registered
officer of the Party under s 137(1) (the s 137 Notice) that the Electoral Commission was
considering deregistering the Party as it was satisfied on reasonable grounds that the Party has
ceased to have at least 500 members.
6. Assessment of February 2021 membership list
Party response to s 137 Notice
6.1. On 3 February 2021, the Party responded to the s 137 Notice, providing a statement in
accordance with s 137(2) and a second membership list of between 500 and 550 members in
electronic form (the February 2021 List) [Attachment K].
Testing of the February 2021 List
6.2. Between 3 February 2021 and 24 February 2021, the AEC conducted membership testing to
determine how many of the individuals contained in the February 2021 List satisfied the
requirements of ss 123(3) and 126(2A):
(a) On 3 February 2021, the AEC automatically checked the February 2021 List against the
Roll using RMANS. This identified that 474 of the 550 individuals named in the list were
electors on the Roll.
(b) The AEC manually checked the February 2021 List against the Roll using GENESIS. As
a result, an additional 70 of the individuals named in the list were identified as being
electors, while one was not enrolled to vote or unable to be matched to the Roll, and five
were deceased. This resulted in the identification of 544 claimed members.
(c) The AEC uploaded the list of 544 names to the FCRM system. This resulted in the
identification of 539 claimed members, as four of the individuals named were identified as
duplicates within the list and one was identified as supporting the registration of another
party.
(d) The ABS testing methodology (mentioned above at paragraph 1.14) recommends that in
testing a list of 539 the AEC should obtain confirmation from a random sample of 44
individuals [Attachment L]. If more than five of the 44 individuals were to deny
membership, there would be insufficient statistical confidence in the number of total
members in the list being at least 500.
(e) Using the randomising functionality in Microsoft Excel, AEC staff identified a sample size
of 88 individuals from the 539 names in list. Individuals from this sample were contacted
between 12 March 2021 and 19 March 2021 and asked if they were current members of
the Party [Attachment M]. Of the 64 individuals contacted to obtain the required 44
responses:
•
•
•
20 provided a neutral response or were not contactable;
35 confirmed being members of the Party; and
nine denied being members of the Party.
Delegate’s determination under s 137(5)
6.3.
In accordance with the ABS testing methodology, nine denials out of 44 responses exceeded the
five denials permitted to provide statistical confidence that the Party’s list had at least 500
members.
6.4. On 9 March 2021, the delegate of the Electoral Commission determined under s 137(5) that the
Party had failed to satisfy the requirements of s 123(1)(a)(ii), and should be deregistered on the
basis that it had ceased to have at least 500 members [Attachment A].
Australian Electoral Commission Meeting | Agenda Item 2
Page 6
--- Page 8 ---
Item 2: Review of the delegate’s decision to deregister the Seniors United Party of Australia
6.5. On 10 March 2021, the delegate of the Electoral Commission gave a notice to the registered
officer of the Party under s 137(6) (the Deregistration Notice) of her determination that the Party
be deregistered on the grounds that it had ceased to have at least 500 members.
7. Application for review of Delegate’s Decision
Application for review from
7.1. On 21 March 2021,
submitted an application to the Electoral Commission
under s 141(2) of the Electoral Act by email, requesting review of the Delegate’s Decision
[Attachment N].
7.2. On 22 March 2021, the Commission Secretariat acknowledged receipt of
application by email [Attachment O].
7.3. On 25 March 2021,
submitted further material in support of his reasons for making
his internal review application [Attachment P].
7.4. On 7 July 2021 at 11.09am, the Commission Secretariat emailed
to invite
to submit an updated membership list on or before 30 July 2021 [Attachment R].
7.5. On 7 July 2021 at 3.05pm,
emailed the Commission Secretariat to acknowledge the
invitation for an updated membership list [Attachment S].
Extensions given
due to Greater Sydney COVID-19 lockdown
7.6. On 15 July 2021,
emailed the Commission Secretariat to request a two-week
extension on the 30 July 2021 deadline, on account of the COVID019 lockdown in Greater
Sydney preventing his access to the Roll at local AEC offices [Attachment T].
7.7. On 16 July 2021 at 12.36pm, the Commission Secretariat emailed
to confirm the
requested two-week extension to 13 August 2021 [Attachment U].
7.8. On 16 July 2021 at 2.43pm,
emailed the Commission Secretariat to express his
gratitude for the two-week extension [Attachment V]
7.9. On 28 July 2021,
emailed the Commission Secretariat to request a further extension
to 28 August 2021, on account of the four-week extension of the COVID-19 lockdown in Greater
Sydney [Attachment W].
7.10. On 29 July 2021, the Commission Secretariat emailed
to confirm the requested
extension to 28 August 2021 [Attachment X].
7.11. On 4 August 2021,
emailed the Commission Secretariat to repeat his request for a
further extension to 28 August 2021, on account of the four-week extension of the COVID-19
lockdown in Greater Sydney [Attachment Y].
7.12. On 5 August 2021 at 10.18am, the Commission Secretariat emailed
to note that his
request for an extension to 28 August 2021 had already been given, and requesting an estimate
from
as to when his membership list would be ready. [Attachment Z]
7.13. On 5 August 2021 at 5.58pm,
emailed the Commission Secretariat to request a further
extension to the date that is two weeks after the offices of the AEC re-opens [Attachment ZA].
request for access to ELIAS and continued extensions
7.14. On 15 August 2021,
emailed the Commission Secretariat to request that the Party be
given access to the AEC’s Electoral Information Access System (ELIAS) in the same manner as
is given to registered political parties, due to the exceptional circumstances of the COVID-19
pandemic in Greater Sydney [Attachment ZB] .
7.15. On 18 August 2021 at 3.21pm,
emailed the Commission Secretariat to note his
request for access to ELIAS and to request a further two-week extension [Attachment ZC].
Australian Electoral Commission Meeting | Agenda Item 2
Page 7
Out of scopeOut of scopeOut of scopeOut of scopeOut of scopeOut of scopeOut of scopeOut of scopeOut of scopeOut of scopeOut of scopeOut of scopeOut of scopeOut of scopeOut of scopeOut of scopeOut of scopeOut of scopeOut of scopeOut of scope
--- Page 9 ---
--- Page 10 ---
Item 2: Review of the delegate’s decision to deregister the Seniors United Party of Australia
8.2. The term ‘person affected’ is not defined within the Electoral Act, nor has the term received
judicial consideration within the context of electoral law.
8.3.
8.4. This advice and its conclusions support the view that the broad public interest in decisions under
Part XI does not create an automatic right of standing for all electors. While each case is a matter
of fact and degree, the person seeking review of a decision, or outcome of the decision, in
comparison with the public at large.
[Attachment ZR].
8.5.
8.6.
In his application for internal review,
dissatisfied with the decision to deregister the party’,
identifies himself as ‘a person affected by, and
was not a signatory to the Party’s statement of 3 February 2021 (see para. 6.1).
However, his name appears on the membership list that accompanied that statement (i.e. the
February 2021 List), and he was contacted during membership testing of that list as his name
was included in a random sample.
8.7. On 28 May 2021, the AEC received correspondence addressed from
via post, which
contained a Change Registered Officer form dated 18 May 2021 and signed by
to change the registered officer of the Party from
to
[Attachment ZS]. This document, however, cannot be processed whilst the Party is not
registered.
8.8. On 22 October 2021, in otherwise unrelated correspondence,
is Chairperson of the Party [Attachment ZT].
that
8.9. Taking this information on its face, AEC Legal Services is of the view that
special interest in the matter and can be considered a ‘person affected’ by it.
advised
has a
Reasons given by applicant regarding testing of October 2020 and February 2021 Lists
8.10. In his reasons for making an internal review application given on 21 March 2021 and 25 March
submitted that the AEC’s membership testing methodology was not a ‘true and
2021,
fair’ method of testing in respect of the Party.
8.11. The following is a summary of the matters
submitted for the Electoral Commission’s
consideration:
(a) The Party membership is comprised mainly of elderly members, and has a higher death
rate than other political parties, resulting in a higher turnover or ‘attrition’ of its membership.
(b) The Party membership incurs a higher incidence of health issues (including terminal / end
of life issues) that prevent its members from participating.
(c) The Party membership incurs a much higher rate of ‘dementia, or loss of memory’, which
prevents members recalling that they are members when the AEC calls, causing members
to answer negatively to membership questions.
(d) The elderly are increasingly concerned with phone scammers, particularly people imitating
government employees on the phone, causing them to refuse to respond to questioning,
or even to answering the phone to unknown numbers. They are much more likely to
respond with a “No” to any question put to them over a phone.
(e) The finding by the AEC that four duplications existed on both the October 2020 List and
February 2021 List, and five deceased individuals existed on the February 2021 List,
despite
personally purging the list after the failure of the October 2020 List,
suggests that the AEC made an error in its assessment.
Australian Electoral Commission Meeting | Agenda Item 2
Page 9
Out of scopeOut of scopeOut of scopeOut of scopeOut of scopeOut of scopeOut of scopeOut of scopeOut of scopeOut of scopeOut of scopeOut of scopes 42Out of scope
--- Page 11 ---
Item 2: Review of the delegate’s decision to deregister the Seniors United Party of Australia
(f)
If the figures for duplications and deaths in the February 2021 List were removed, the list
would be much closer to passing, and the remaining denials could have been substituted
for other members by the Party.
(g) Whereas political parties can have scrutineers on polling day, the fact that scrutineers are
not allowed during membership testing amounts to procedural unfairness against the
Party.
(h) The Party represents a demographic for which no other political party provides specialist
representation. There is a public interest in permitting its continued registration.
(i) The Party’s ability to attract donations is significantly lower than that of other parties as its
donations are not tax-deductible. The Party has no other source of funding, and it therefore
is at a disadvantage in conducting its affairs, including in respect of communicating,
advertising and employing officers.
(j) As the Party’s members are mostly pensioners or part-pensioners, the Party is at a
disadvantage in finding appropriate individuals who can afford to be candidates at
elections.
Consideration of reasons given by applicant
8.12. In respect of reason (a), it would seem a logical conclusion that a party with an elderly
membership base is more likely than some other parties to see members removed from the Roll
(due to death, or objection under s 114(1A)) in the course of the registration or review process.
However, this would seem to only (potentially) affect the sample size that the AEC tests (and the
associated number of denials permitted). It would not follow that it would affect the rate of denials.
Neither of the membership lists tested by the AEC fell below the minimum of 500 names due to
those names not appearing on the Roll.
8.13. In respect of reason (b), the ability of members to participate in the affairs of the Party (e.g.
responding to AEC contact) would not seem to have any bearing on positive or negative response
rates, only neutral response (non-response) rates, which do not affect the outcome of
membership testing.
8.14. In respect of reasons (c) and (d), the applicant does not offer any evidence in support of these
assertions. There is no evidence or information before the Electoral Commission to indicate that
these assertions are true (i.e. that the relevant individual would reply in the negative instead of
providing a neutral answer).
(a) The AEC’s Party Registration Guide has made clear at all relevant times that a person
whose name is included on a party’s membership list must formally acknowledge
membership of the party when contacted by the AEC.
(b) Section 123 (immediately before and after the 2021 Amending Act) contemplates neither
the attribution of membership of a political party upon unwilling individuals, nor an analysis
of the motivations or reasons of individuals who deny membership of a political party.
(c) The Electoral Commission has previously found that the confirmations and denials made
to AEC officers
formal
acknowledgments required to test membership, and the testing methodology applied by
the AEC is consistent with the Electoral Act.
the process of membership
testing constitute
the
in
8.15. In respect of reason (e), the Parliamentary Engagement and Party Registration Section (PEPRS)
of the AEC has reviewed its records of the testing of the October 2020 List and February 2021
List and has found no error in its assessment [Attachment ZU]
(a) Two of the duplicates in the October 2020 List appear again in the February 2021 List.
The remaining two duplicates in the October 2020 List were omitted, but two new
duplicates appeared in the February 2021 List. This suggests that
successfully
identified and removed two of the duplicates from the October 2020 List, but replaced them
with two new duplicates.
Australian Electoral Commission Meeting | Agenda Item 2
Page 10
Out of scope
--- Page 12 ---
Item 2: Review of the delegate’s decision to deregister the Seniors United Party of Australia
(b) Of the 14 deceased individuals in the October 2020 List, four of those individuals appear
among the five deceased individuals in the February 2021 List. This suggests that
successfully identified and removed 10 of the deceased individuals from the
October 2020 List. PEPRS identified that the fifth deceased individual on the February
2021 List died in December 2020 (i.e. in the period between the testing of each list).
8.16. In respect of reason (f),
appears to misunderstand elements of the membership
testing methodology. Duplicated and deceased members are not counted as negative responses
(denials). The removal of these individuals from a membership list would only lead to a potential
reduction in the testing sample size. A reduction in sample size does usually reduce the absolute
number of permitted denials by a roughly proportional amount. However, as duplicates and
deceased electors are not eligible under the Electoral Act to be members on which a party can
rely, it is in fact beneficial to parties that they be removed from the membership list by the AEC
instead of being counted as negative responses.
8.17. In respect of reasons (g) to (j), these matters are not relevant to the issue of whether the Party
has ceased to have 500 members.
(a) Nominated candidates in an election have a statutory right to appoint scrutineers for polling
day under s 217, and those scrutineers have an statutory right to attend a polling booth on
polling day under s 218. The Electoral Act does not provide political parties with any
equivalent right of scrutiny in the Electoral Commission’s decision-making process under
ss 137(1) or 137(5).
(b) The 500-member requirement for registration is a statutory one. Where the Electoral
Commission is satisfied on reasonable grounds that a party has ceased to have 500
members, it must deregister the party (s 137(6)(a)). The Electoral Commission has no
discretion once it is satisfied of this fact on reasonable grounds.
(c)
In any case, in the interests of political neutrality it would not be appropriate for the
Electoral Commission to take into account the policies or demographics of a political party
in the assessment of its eligibility for registration, or to apply different membership tests to
different parties.
Testing of September 2021 List
8.18. Between 28 September 2021 and 19 October 2021, the AEC conducted membership testing to
determine how many of the individuals contained in the September 2021 List satisfied the
requirements of ss 123(3) and 123A:
(a) On 28 September 2021, the AEC automatically checked the September 2021 List against
the Roll using RMANS. This identified that 473 of the 550 individuals named in the list
were electors on the Roll.
(b) On 29 September 2021, the AEC manually checked the September 2021 List against the
Roll using GENESIS. As a result, an additional 69 of the individuals named in the list were
identified as being electors, while five were not enrolled to vote or unable to be matched
to the Roll, and three were deceased. This resulted in the identification of 542 claimed
members on the Roll.
(c) On 8 October 2021, the AEC uploaded the list of 542 names to the FCRM system. This
resulted in the identification of 538 claimed members, as four of the individuals named
were identified as supporting the registration of another party [Attachment ZV].
(d) The ABS testing methodology recommends that in testing a list of 538 the AEC should
obtain confirmation from a random sample of 44 individuals [Attachment ZW]. If more
than five of the 44 individuals were to deny membership, there would be insufficient
statistical confidence in the number of total members in the list being at least 500.
(e) On 8 October 2021, using the randomising functionality in Microsoft Excel, AEC staff
identified a sample size of 88 individuals from the 539 names in list. Individuals from this
Australian Electoral Commission Meeting | Agenda Item 2
Page 11
Out of sOut of scope
--- Page 13 ---
Item 2: Review of the delegate’s decision to deregister the Seniors United Party of Australia
sample were contacted between 15 October 2021 and 19 October 2021 and asked if they
were current members of the Party [Attachment ZX]. Of the 57 individuals contacted to
obtain the required 44 responses:
•
•
•
•
Conclusions
nine provided a neutral response or were not contactable;
43 confirmed being members of the Party;
one denied being a member of the Party; and
a further four members of the party responded to the AEC after the conclusion
of the membership test.
8.19. In accordance with the ABS testing methodology, one denial out of 44 responses provides
statistical confidence that the Party’s September 2021 list has at least 500 members
[Attachment ZY].
8.20. Based on the membership testing of the September 2021 List, despite the consideration above
of the applicant’s reasons for making an internal review application, the AEC is of the view that it
is open to the Electoral Commission:
(a) not to be satisfied on reasonable grounds that the Party has ceased to have 500 members;
and
(b)
to set aside the decision of the delegate of 9 March 2021 to deregister the Party under
s 137(6), and substitute a decision to re-register the Party.
Australian Electoral Commission Meeting | Agenda Item 2
Page 12
--- Page 14 ---
Item 2: Review of the delegate’s decision to deregister the Seniors United Party of Australia
9. Recommendations
Decision on review
9.1.
It is recommended that the Electoral Commission set aside the decision of the delegate of 9
March 2021 to deregister the Party under s 137(6) and substitute a decision to maintain the
registration of the Party by re-registering the Party.
REVIEW DECISION: AFFIRMED / VARIED / SET ASIDE AND SUBSTITUTED AS RECOMMENDED
ABOVE
Dated this ______ day of November 2021
The Hon Justice Susan Kenny AM
Chairperson
November 2021
Mr Tom Rogers
Electoral Commissioner
November 2021
Dr David Gruen
Australian Statistician (non-judicial member)
November 2021
Australian Electoral Commission Meeting | Agenda Item 2
Page 13
--- Page 15 ---
Item 2: Review of the delegate’s decision to deregister the Seniors United Party of Australia
10. Notice of Decision
10.1. Once a decision on the review has been made by the Electoral Commission, the Legal Services
section will prepare a formal Notice of Decision for consideration by the Electoral Commission.
11. Table of Attachments
Attachment
Description
Attachment A
Delegate’s decision to deregister the Seniors United Party of Australia dated 9 March
2021.
Attachment B
Commission paper of 20 March 2017 (meeting number 262) endorsing ABS party
registration membership testing methodology in relation 500 members.
Attachment C
The s 138A(3) notice to the Registered Officer of the Party on 20 August 2020.
Attachment D
1. The registered officer’s response to the s 138A notice.
2. Attached membership list (the October 2020 List) to the s 138A response.
Attachment E
Section 127 – Correspondence to the registered officer of the Party advising of the
suspension of the register for the Groom by-election.
Attachment F
Groom by-election writ returned correspondence to the registered officer of the Party
advising that processing could recommence, inviting the Party to provide an updated
membership list or continue testing the October 2020 List.
Attachment G
Email from the registered officer of the Party advising that the AEC could continue
testing the October 2020 List.
Attachment H
The ABS testing methodology table for a list of 525 individuals.
Attachment I
Record of individuals contacted between 7 December 2020 and 16 December 2020
and a record of the outcomes of those individuals.
Attachment J
The delegate of the Electoral Commission’s determination of 11 January 2021, that
the Party had failed to satisfy the requirements of s 123(1)(a)(ii), and should be
considered for deregistration under s 137(1)(b).
Attachment K
1. The Party’s response to the s 137 Notice, including a statement in
accordance with s 137(2); and
2. a second membership list of between 500 and 550 members in electronic
form (the February 2021 List).
Attachment L
The ABS testing methodology table for a list of 539 individuals.
Attachment M
Record of individuals contacted between 12 March 2021 and 19 March 2021 and a
record of the outcomes in relation to those individuals.
Attachment N
Application from
Electoral Act by email, requesting review of the Delegate’s Decision.
to the Electoral Commission under s 141(2) of the
Australian Electoral Commission Meeting | Agenda Item 2
Page 14
Out of scope
--- Page 16 ---
Item 2: Review of the delegate’s decision to deregister the Seniors United Party of Australia
Attachment
Description
Attachment O
Acknowledged receipt of
Secretariat.
application by email from the Commission
Attachment P
Further submission of 25 March 2021 from
making his internal review application.
in support of his reasons for
Attachment R
Email dated 7 July 2021 from Secretariat to
updated membership list.
inviting submission of an
Attachment S
Email dated 7 July 2021 from
Secretariat, acknowledging invitation.
Attachment T
Email dated 15 July 2021 from
to Secretariat, requesting extension.
Attachment U
Email dated 16 July 2021 from Secretariat to
extension to 13 August 2021.
confirming requested
Attachment V
Email dated 16 July 2021 from
extension.
to Secretariat, thanking for confirmed
Attachment W
Email dated 28 July 2021 from
August 2021.
to Secretariat, requesting extension to 28
Attachment X
Email dated 29 July 2021 from Secretariat to
extension to 28 August 2021.
confirming requested
Attachment Y
Email dated 4 August 2021 from
extension to 28 August 2021.
to Secretariat, repeating request for
Attachment Z
Email dated 5 August 2021 from Secretariat to
extension to 28 August 2021 had already been confirmed.
noting the requested
Attachment ZA Email dated 5 August 2021 from
to Secretariat, requesting extension to
the date that is two weeks after the re-opening of AEC offices.
Attachment ZB Email dated 15 August 2021 from
to Secretariat, requesting access to
ELIAS.
Attachment ZC Email dated 18 August 2021 from
to Secretariat, noting ELIAS access
request and requesting further extension to 11 September 2021.
Attachment ZD Email dated 18 August 2021 from Secretariat to
acknowledging
request for ELIAS access and confirming requested extension to 11
September 2021.
Attachment ZE Email dated 19 August 2021 from
to Secretariat, thanking for further
extension to 11 September 2021.
Attachment ZF Email dated 27 August 2021 from Secretariat to
denying his request for
access to ELIAS.
Attachment ZG Email dated 1 September 2021 from
to Secretariat, requesting two-week
extension.
Australian Electoral Commission Meeting | Agenda Item 2
Page 15
Out of scopeOut of scopeOut of scopeOut of scopeOut of scopeOut of scopeOut of scopeOut of scopeOut of scopeOut of scopeOut of scopeOut of scopeOut of scopeOut of scopeOut of scopeOut of scopeOut of scopeOut of scopeOut of scope
--- Page 17 ---
Item 2: Review of the delegate’s decision to deregister the Seniors United Party of Australia
Attachment
Description
Attachment ZH Email dated 3 September 2021 from Secretariat to
extension to 25 September 2021.
confirming requested
Attachment ZI
Email dated 3 September 2021 from
extension to 25 September 2021.
to Secretariat, thanking for further
Attachment ZJ Email dated 15 September 2021 from Secretariat to
providing update in
relation to the 2021 Amendment Act.
Attachment ZK Email dated 21 September 2021 from
to Secretariat, confirming his desire
for his application for review to proceed.
Attachment ZL Email dated 23 September 2021 from
to Secretariat, providing an updated
membership list for the Party (the September 2021 List).
Attachment ZM September 2021 List.
Attachment ZN Email dated 24 September 2021 from Secretariat to
acknowledging
submission of the September 2021 List.
Attachment ZO Email dated 24 September 2021 from
to Secretariat, requesting a Greek
speaker in membership testing.
Attachment ZP Email dated 13 October 2021 from Secretariat to
providing update that
testing of the September 2021 List would commence.
Attachment ZQ Email dated 13 October 2021 from
to Secretariat, acknowledging update.
Attachment ZR
Attachment ZS Change Registered Officer form signed and dated 18 May 2021.
Attachment ZT Complaint dated 22 October 2021 from Mr
Attachment ZU Correspondence between PEPRS and Legal Services showing review by PEPRS of
its assessment of membership testing records in respect of duplicate and deceased
members.
Attachment ZV FCRM identification of duplicates dated 8 October 2021.
Attachment ZW The ABS testing methodology table for a list of 538 individuals.
Attachment ZX Record of individuals contacted between 15 October 2021 and 19 October 2021 and
a record of the outcomes in relation to those individuals.
Attachment ZY Breakdown of Membership Numbers dated 19 October 2021.
Australian Electoral Commission Meeting | Agenda Item 2
Page 16
Out of scopeOut of scopeOut of scopeOut of scopeOut of scopeOut of scopeOut of scopeOut of scopeOut of scopeOut of scopes 42
The "Commission Paper – Review of the delegate’s decision to deregister the Senior United Party of Australia" (17 Nov 2021) details the Australian Electoral Commission's (AEC) membership testing methodology and its application to the Seniors United Party of Australia (SUPA).
Document Summary:
The paper outlines the AEC's membership testing methodology, originally developed by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) in 2010 and re-endorsed by the Electoral Commission in 2017. This methodology relies on statistical sampling to determine with confidence if a party maintains the required 500 members. It involves checking submitted membership lists against the Commonwealth electoral Roll, identifying duplicates, and contacting a random sample of members for confirmation.
The document details three testing rounds for SUPA:
1. October 2020 List: A sample of 37 out of 525 valid claimed members resulted in 8 denials, exceeding the permitted 3 denials and leading to a deregistration notice.
2. February 2021 List: A sample of 44 out of 539 valid claimed members resulted in 9 denials, exceeding the permitted 5 denials and leading to SUPA's deregistration.
3. September 2021 List (during internal review): A sample of 44 out of 538 valid claimed members resulted in only 1 denial, successfully meeting the membership threshold.
The paper systematically addresses SUPA's claims of unfairness during the review process, including:
* Demographics: Claims that an elderly membership base (prone to dementia, health issues, or scam concerns) affects responses were addressed by asserting the methodology focuses on formal membership acknowledgment, not motivations, and non-responses do not count as denials.
* Alleged Errors: AEC confirmed its processing of duplicates and deceased members was accurate and beneficial to the party as these are not counted as denials.
* Lack of Scrutineers: AEC stated the Electoral Act does not provide for scrutineers in membership testing and affirmed its process is impartial and statutory, not discretionary.
Based on the successful September 2021 test, the paper recommends setting aside the deregistration decision and re-registering SUPA.
Relevance to FOI Request (LEX3177):
This document is highly relevant as it directly supports the AEC's conclusion that its membership testing methodology is "rational, fair and practical."
* Rational: The methodology is based on an ABS-developed statistical sampling approach, providing a quantifiable and objective basis for determining membership confidence. Its re-endorsement in 2017 further supports its robustness.
* Fair: The consistent application of the same methodology across multiple tests for SUPA, and the AEC's detailed response to SUPA's specific claims of unfairness (explaining how the process adheres to statutory requirements and focuses on formal membership, without discretion for party demographics or external factors), demonstrates impartiality and fairness. The opportunity for an internal review with submission of updated lists also highlights a fair process.
* Practical: The methodology is demonstrated to be workable and effective in practice, allowing for the re-assessment of a party's membership and subsequent re-registration when the statutory threshold is met, as shown by SUPA's successful September 2021 test. The document shows the AEC's capacity to adjust for factors like election writ periods and grant extensions, indicating practical flexibility within a structured framework.
Document No 2.pdf (pdf)
Download file--- Page 1 --- --- Page 2 --- --- Page 3 --- --- Page 4 --- --- Page 5 --- --- Page 6 --- --- Page 7 --- --- Page 8 ---
The "Commission Paper – Review of the delegate’s decision to deregister the Senior United Party of Australia" (17 Nov 2021) details the Australian Electoral Commission's (AEC) review process that led to the re-registration of the Seniors United Party of Australia (SUPA). The document outlines the AEC's membership testing methodology, developed by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) and re-endorsed in 2017, asserting its foundation as "robust, sound, and accurate." It describes two initial membership tests for SUPA in October 2020 and February 2021, which failed to verify the required 500 members, resulting in the party's deregistration.
Following SUPA's request for an internal review, which included claims of unfairness related to demographics, alleged AEC errors, and lack of scrutineers, the paper systematically addresses and refutes these points. It upholds the consistent application and impartiality of the AEC's methodology. While reaffirming the methodology's integrity, a third test was conducted in September 2021 to ensure "procedural fairness" and address SUPA's concerns. This third test successfully verified SUPA's membership, leading to the party's re-registration. The paper concludes by reiterating that the AEC's methodology remains "robust, sound and impartial" and does not require any general changes.
Relevance to FOI Request LEX3177: This document directly supports the Australian Electoral Commission's (AEC) claim that its membership testing methodology is "rational, fair and practical." Its detailed explanation of the methodology's ABS development and 2017 re-endorsement underpins its rationality. The paper demonstrates the methodology's fairness by systematically addressing and refuting SUPA's claims of bias or error, emphasizing its consistent application across all parties, regardless of demographics. The decision to conduct a third test, explicitly for "procedural fairness" and to address SUPA's grievances without conceding flaws in the core methodology, illustrates its practical and equitable application. The document's explicit conclusion that the methodology is "robust, sound and impartial" directly addresses the FOI request's core inquiry into the methodology's foundational principles.
Document No 3.pdf (pdf)
Download file--- Page 1 --- Table supplied by ABS showing confidences in membership testing (lists from 500-550) Members Lodged 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 Random sample 18 18 18 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 50 50 50 Max denials to pass 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 7 7 7 Updated by ABS November 2016
This document is a statistical table provided by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), updated in November 2016, detailing the parameters for the Australian Electoral Commission's (AEC) membership testing methodology. It outlines the random sample size and maximum number of allowed unverified (denied) members required for a political party to pass the 500-member threshold, based on the total number of members lodged (from 500 to 550).
Relevance to FOI Request (LEX3177): This table directly supports the AEC's assertion that its membership testing methodology is "rational, fair and practical." As noted in the FOI request overview, the methodology was developed by the ABS and re-endorsed in 2017. This document provides the specific quantitative framework—the sample sizes and tolerance for non-verification—that underpins the methodology's statistical robustness and consistent application, thereby demonstrating its foundational elements for fair and practical implementation.
Document No 4.pdf (pdf)
Download file
--- Page 1 ---
--- Page 2 ---
20 th March 2021
Mr Tom Rogers,
Australian Electoral Commissioner,
Locked Bag 4007,
CANBERRA
ACT 2601
commission.secretariat@aec.gov.au
AEC 02 6271 4552
Request for an Internal Review of decision to Deregister
the SENIORS UNITED PARTY OF AUSTRALIA
under s 141(2) of the Electoral Act
Dear Mr Rogers,
My name is
and dissatisfied with, the decision by the Australian Electoral Commission to deregister the Seniors
United Party of Australia, ( SUPA).
and I am the applicant for this review. I am a person affected by,
consider the reasons below which I feel give a strong argument for the AEC to set aside the decision
under review and make a decision in substitution for the decision set aside. That is, to reregister the
party.
I ask you to please
The reasons I feel the AEC should consider are:-
DEMOGRAPHIC REASONS
Because of the demographic which the party attempts to represent, that is over 60 years of age, our
mainly elderly membership suffers a higher than normal attrition rate to other political parties.
SUPA’s high loss of members is due to:-
1. A much higher death rate than in other political parties, as well as long lasting terminal
health issues of members that would stop the aged from participating as a member.
2. A much higher rate of dementia, or loss of memory, which prevents members recalling that
they are members when the AEC calls. This would be a considerable cause for members to
answer negatively to membership questions by the AEC representative. (
Out of scopeOut of scopeOut of scopeOut of scopeOut of scopeOut of scope
--- Page 3 ---
--- Page 4 ---
understand, of its fear of losing the approximately $1million dollars it receives from the NSW State
government. Then we have the National Seniors which appears to have agreements with
commercial interests. Possibly the best is the Council for the Ageing (COTA) which appears to be
the best, but is getting little recognition from the press.
Now it has been suggested there are ten lobbyists for every parliamentarian in Federal parliament.
Lobbyists that are paid huge amounts and which have huge amounts to advertise to influence public
opinion in their favour, which can oppose the needs of the elderly, or place the needs of the elderly
secondary to making profits.
SUPA is needed to help the Federal government continually see that the requirements of the Aged
are not being met, and advise the Federal government without a conflict of interest.
REQUEST
Considering the reasons I have given, including the far higher natural attrition rate of our elderly
members, which the vast majority are, their greater chance of lose of memory, and there
unwillingness to answer “yes “to questions by strangers over the phone, and also the fact that
SUPA alone represents such a large demographic in Australia’s population, I respectfully ask the
AEC to please consider these reasons and set aside the failed decision and substitute it with a
pass decision.
Thanking you for this review.
ADDENDUM
I would suggest that under the present test for registration any party representing the Aged with
members mainly in that demographic would more than likely fail the registration test. I believe even
major political parties could possibly fail the test.
Yours Faithfully,
Out of scope
This document is a letter dated 20 March 2021, from an individual to the Australian Electoral Commissioner, formally requesting an internal review of the decision to deregister the Seniors United Party of Australia (SUPA). The letter argues that the AEC's membership testing methodology unfairly disadvantages parties representing an elderly demographic. Specific reasons cited include a higher death rate, prevalence of terminal health issues, increased incidence of dementia or memory loss preventing members from recalling their membership, and an unwillingness among elderly members to answer "yes" to questions from strangers over the phone. The document asserts SUPA's unique importance in representing the aged and asks for the deregistration decision to be set aside and the party re-registered, suggesting the current test itself is flawed for this demographic.
This document is relevant to the FOI request (LEX3177) as it articulates the specific grounds on which SUPA challenged the fairness and practicality of the AEC's membership testing methodology. It outlines the very claims of unfairness (e.g., due to demographics and alleged errors in member verification) that the AEC's "Commission Paper – Review of the delegate’s decision to deregister the Senior United Party of Australia" (the primary document sought by the FOI) would systematically address to demonstrate that its methodology was "rational, fair and practical." This letter provides the specific context and detailed objections that necessitated the AEC's defence of its methodology's application.
Document No 5.pdf (pdf)
Download file
--- Page 1 ---
--- Page 2 ---
25th March 2021
Commission Secretariat
Australian Electoral Commissioner,
Locked Bag 4007,
CANBERRA
ACT 2601
commission.secretariat@aec.gov.au
AEC 02 6271 4552
Request to provide further material in support of reasons already supplied for
making an Application for Internal Review
of decision to Deregister
the SENIORS UNITED PARTY OF AUSTRALIA
under s 141(2) of the Electoral Act
Dear Sir / Madam,
I have given the following details in my Application for a Review which has already been received
by the Australian Electoral Commission.
and I am the applicant for this review. I am a person affected
My name is
by, and dissatisfied with, the decision by the Australian Electoral Commission to deregister the
Seniors United Party of Australia, ( SUPA).
consider the reasons below which I feel give a strong argument for the AEC to set aside the
decision under review and make a decision in substitution for the decision set aside. That is, to
reregister the party.
I ask you to please
The two reasons I wish to add for the AEC to consider are:-
OTHER DEMOGRAPHIC REASONS
Because of the demographic which the party attempts to represent, that is over 60 years of age, our
mainly elderly membership is largely made up of aged pensioners, or part pensions.
4. Being a pensioner, or part pensioner usually implies that you pay no income tax. Paying no
income tax means that any donation given to the Seniors United party by party members
who are pensioners can not be claimed on income tax because they have no income tax to
Out of scopeOut of scopeOut of scopeOut of scope
--- Page 3 ---
pay. The result of this is that the party’s income from donations is sharply reduced compared to
most, if not every other political party (There is no other funding besides donations). This lack
of funds is a hug disadvantage for the party as there is little to no funds for communicating by
mail to many members let alone advertising, and there is no possibility of employing people to
carry what might be regarded as office work.
Other parties, especially the major parties receive many large donations most of which would be
claimed back through tax by the donor.
5. An additional disadvantage of having a large part of the membership being pensioners or part
pensioners is that they individually normally do not have financial funds to be able to afford
to be political candidates at elections hence there are difficulties finding candidates with life
experiences of being a pensioner in a financial position to stand as a candidate
REQUEST
I wish these two additional reasons please be be included with the initial reasons and I
respectfully ask the AEC Commission to please consider all my reasons and set aside the failed
decision for the Seniors United Party of Australia and substitute it with a pass decision.
Thanking you for this review.
Yours Faithfully,
Out of scope
Summary of Document and Relevance to FOI Request LEX3177
This document is a submission from the applicant for internal review on behalf of the Seniors United Party of Australia (SUPA), dated March 25, 2021. It provides additional arguments supporting SUPA's request to set aside the decision to deregister the party and instead re-register it. The submission contends that the party's predominantly elderly, pensioner-majority demographic creates unique financial disadvantages. Specifically, it highlights that members' lack of taxable income reduces the party's donation revenue (as donations cannot be claimed back through tax) and limits funds for communication and staffing. It also notes difficulties in finding financially viable candidates from their demographic.
Relevance to FOI Request: This document is directly relevant to FOI request LEX3177 as it details specific "claims of unfairness" raised by SUPA against the Australian Electoral Commission's (AEC) membership testing methodology. These arguments, focusing on demographic-induced financial constraints, directly challenge the "fairness and practicality" of the AEC's approach as applied to parties with unique membership profiles. The AEC's "Commission Paper – Review of the delegate’s decision to deregister the Senior United Party of Australia" (17 Nov 2021), a primary document for this FOI, would have systematically addressed these very arguments to demonstrate the methodology's consistent application, impartiality, and adherence to the principles of rationality, fairness, and practicality, thereby substantiating the AEC's conclusion.
Document No 6.pdf (pdf)
Download file--- Page 1 --- Cross party Duplicates Party 1 Seniors United Party of Australia Seniors United Party of Australia Seniors United Party of Australia Seniors United Party of Australia Party 3 Party 4 Party 2 Australian Federation Party Australian People's Party Love Australia or Leave Party The Great Australian Party Inner party Duplicates Under 18 Years Old - at 08/10/2021 O Out of scopeOut of scopeOut of scopeOut of scope
This document is a fragment, likely from a supporting annex, illustrating specific categories reviewed during membership testing. It lists "Cross party Duplicates" involving the Seniors United Party of Australia and other political parties (Australian Federation Party, Australian People's Party, Love Australia or Leave Party, The Great Australian Party). It also notes "Inner party Duplicates" for the Seniors United Party of Australia and identifies individuals "Under 18 Years Old - at 08/10/2021" as "Out of scope."
Its relevance to FOI request LEX3177 is that it provides a specific, albeit limited, example of the granular checks undertaken as part of the AEC's membership testing methodology. By detailing the identification and exclusion of duplicate memberships (both cross-party and inner-party) and ineligible members (e.g., underage), the document directly supports the AEC's assertion that its membership testing process is "rational, fair and practical" in its application and verification of eligibility criteria.
Document No 7.pdf (pdf)
Download file--- Page 1 --- Table supplied by ABS showing confidences in membership testing (lists from 500-550) Members Lodged 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 Random sample 18 18 18 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 50 50 50 Max denials to pass 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 7 7 7 Updated by ABS November 2016
Document Summary
This document is a table, titled "Table supplied by ABS showing confidences in membership testing," updated by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) in November 2016. It details the parameters for membership verification for parties lodging between 500 and 550 members. For each number of "Members Lodged," it specifies the "Random sample" size to be tested and the "Max denials to pass" allowed for the party to meet the threshold. For example, a party lodging 500-502 members requires an 18-member sample with 0 denials to pass, while a party lodging 548-550 members requires a 50-member sample with a maximum of 7 denials.
Relevance to FOI Request LEX3177
This table is directly relevant to FOI request LEX3177, which seeks documents supporting the AEC's "rational, fair and practical" membership testing methodology. The request overview highlights that the AEC's methodology was developed by the ABS and re-endorsed in 2017. As a table explicitly "supplied by ABS" and "Updated by ABS November 2016," it provides concrete evidence of the ABS-derived quantitative rules that underpin the AEC's testing process. The systematic and predefined sample sizes and denial tolerances outlined in the table demonstrate the methodological rigor, supporting the AEC's claim that its approach is "rational" and "practical." The consistent application of these parameters across varying membership numbers further illustrates the "fairness" of the testing process.
Document No 8.pdf (pdf)
Download file--- Page 1 ---
The 'Commission Paper – Review of the delegate’s decision to deregister the Senior United Party of Australia' (17 Nov 2021) details the Australian Electoral Commission's (AEC) membership testing methodology, which was developed by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) and re-endorsed in 2017. The document describes three testing rounds for the Seniors United Party of Australia (SUPA): initial tests in October 2020 and February 2021 resulted in membership failures and subsequent deregistration. However, a September 2021 test, conducted during an internal review, successfully verified SUPA's membership, leading to its re-registration. The paper systematically addresses SUPA's specific claims of unfairness (e.g., due to demographics, alleged errors, lack of scrutineers), asserting the methodology's consistent application, impartiality, and focus on formal membership.
This document is directly relevant to FOI request LEX3177 as it serves as the primary material supporting the AEC's conclusion that its membership testing methodology is "rational, fair and practical." It outlines the methodology's foundation, demonstrates its consistent application through the SUPA case study—including a re-registration after a successful re-test—and specifically refutes claims of unfairness, thereby demonstrating adherence to the principles sought by the FOI request.
Document No 9.pdf (pdf)
Download file--- Page 1 ---
Summary of Document: "Commission Paper – Review of the delegate’s decision to deregister the Senior United Party of Australia" (17 Nov 2021)
This document outlines the Australian Electoral Commission's (AEC) membership testing methodology, developed by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) and re-endorsed in 2017, which underpins the AEC's assertion of its approach being "rational, fair, and practical." The paper details the application of this methodology to the Seniors United Party of Australia (SUPA) across three testing rounds. Initial tests in October 2020 and February 2021 found SUPA below the 500-member threshold, leading to its deregistration. However, a subsequent test in September 2021, conducted during an internal review, successfully verified SUPA's membership, resulting in the party's re-registration. The document systematically addresses SUPA's claims of unfairness, such as those related to demographics, alleged errors, or the absence of scrutineers, by emphasizing the methodology's consistent application, impartiality, and focus on formal membership verification.
Relevance to FOI Request (LEX3177)
This "Commission Paper" is the primary document released for FOI request LEX3177, which sought materials supporting the AEC's conclusion that its membership testing methodology is "rational, fair and practical." The document directly addresses this by detailing the ABS-developed methodology, demonstrating its consistent application through the SUPA case, and systematically refuting claims of unfairness, thereby substantiating the AEC's claim of a rational, fair, and practical approach to membership testing.